User talk:Cilidus: Difference between revisions

Hello, Cilidus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 00:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chisapani, Bardiya. Since you had some involvement with the Chisapani, Bardiya redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bardzrberd. Since you had some involvement with the Bardzrberd redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:2024 in Austria requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fakhri 'Abd al-Hadi. Since you had some involvement with the Fakhri 'Abd al-Hadi redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cilidus, I wanted to apologize again because I really dropped the ball with my wording, to the point where it came across insulting to you. Your response was completely justifiable, and I just wanted to clear the air with you on your talk page. Your content creation is just fine - what I meant was "not that great" was your article creation. My article creation also isn't great either; my article creation log shows that I've only created 9 articles. If somebody has a good track record with creating articles, then they are nominated for the Autopatrolled permission at WP:PERM. Because I don't have 25 articles created, there isn't enough evidence to show that I can write good articles, so I would definitely be turned away. However, we recently set up a redirect whitelist for those who have created 100 quality redirects. If their redirect creation is of high standard, then they are nominated for the whitelist to automatically patrol redirects created, but NOT normal articles.

I saw your redirect history, and thought that it was really solid. From there, I checked your articles created, and found that there wasn't enough evidence to suggest that you should become autopatrolled. However, I still nominated you for the redirect whitelist. Hopefully you understand a bit more of where I'm coming from, because my wording that I used in your nomination was not great at all. Cheers! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes: I understand you completely. I thought it kind of strange of you to "insult" me while you were nominating me for a redirect whitelist, but as I do not create articles (or "content"), I didn't take it that harshly, and I was mostly confused about what you meant by your statement. While I did not actually think you were calling my edits "not that great", I wanted to find out what "the issue" with them were. No worries and thank you for taking the time to contact me again. Cilidus (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

have you discussed that anywhere ? or is there a precedent and or consensus at the Australian notice board, the Victorian notice board or the Australian politics project notice board before you started? JarrahTree 13:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: The page moves are perfectly inline with WP:NCELECT, which states that years should precede names of elections and not follow them, as was the case with the pages before the moves. Cilidus (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

regardles of whether you are right in principle or abiding by rules, the 3 locations above are usually, as a matter of good faith, worth knowing that they exist - and are always worth a visit if you're doing such a massive change - but then everyone seems to want to walk over australian content these days as if the australian project or its parts arent there - cheers, have fun ! JarrahTree 14:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: I understand your concern, but page moves in regards to the aforementioned WP guideline page are meant to apply to all elections, and do not uniquely exclude Australian or Victorian elections. The noticeboards you mentioned are great places to discuss issues concerning only Australia or Victoria, but these page moves are bigger than just those. Thanks. Cilidus (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough - (it doesnt reassure me - the many processes regularly have items changed and the proposers mostly never ever list or inform any stage of the community) - as I say have fun, and thanks for pointing it out from your perspective... JarrahTree 14:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You had mentioned that the link between wikipedia and Yda Addis's Facebook page was wrong due to your fact "it was commercial." Explain please why the following wikipedia pages have links to a commercial website in order to sell commercially: Metropolitan Museum of Art, Elvis Costello, Cher, Joan Rivers, Suzanne Somers, Michael Crichton, John Grishan, Oprah, Michelle Obama: Life, and so on. The problem is that you do not recognize without these books of Yda Addis's literature her work was completely forgotten and lost through time. Because The Argonaut went out of business and was never digitized (the original Argonaut I am referring to) the old Harpers very difficult to find and so on. If you go to my talk page please read the comment that was made about where does one find Yda Addis's literature. So by your comments you have showed me that there is something more than commerce that you oppose. It is something about Yda Addis. Perhaps you have a connection with that writer that you are not divulging. Please be honest, otherwise what you have done is pure vandalism.Chaos4tu (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaos4tu: I have not mentioned anything about the Facebook link you desperately want to add to the article being "commercial", but it is funny that you bring it up, because you are right. From the Facebook page that you created, you have linked an Amazon.com page where you sell books that you have written under the label of your "publishing company". If you really want me to explain to you why pages such as that of the Metropolitan Museum of Art contain links to websites, it is because they are websites that belong to that person, corporation or entity. I have already explained why these websites have legitimacy in my response here, but to summarize:

• The website linked from the page of Frank Sinatra is owned by Frank Sinatra Enterprises, who manage the licensed rights to the works and name of Sinatra, despite the fact that he is dead.
• The website linked from the page of Leonora Carrington is owned by the Leonora Carrington Foundation (you can read more about it here) and her work is protected by the Artists Rights Society, in order to prevent others from pretending to be the owners these works.
  
  Additionally:
• The website linked from the page of the Metropolitan Museum of Art is managed by the owners of the museum themselves, who are very clear on their policy on being the rightful owners of the materials possessed by the museum. On this website they will advertise that which the museum has to offer, because they have the authorized rights to use this material.
  
  You also seem to think that I have a personal connection (?) with Mrs. Yda Addis that I am not divulging. Perhaps we should turn the tables around, because you have a personal connection, and you are the only person that benefits from the link pointing to your Facebook page. If anyone claiming to be the official website of a deceased person shall be considered worthy of a link from their Wikipedia page, why don't we link this Twitter profile from the article about Theodore Roosevelt, since it is claiming to be legitimate? In short, do not link to websites that YOU have created, including rodolfonieto.com, ydaaddis.com, giascala.com, benitocastro.info and gualbertocastro.com, or Facebook profiles that you have created, such as MidnightCowboyActress, 19centuryauthor, 19thcenturyphotographer and SkullArt4U. Wikipedia is NOT a place to advertise your personal Amazon.com page. Wikipedia is a place for factual and verifiable information (and not the self-published kind that you have admitted to have published to Amazon here. If you want to sell things on Amazon, you can advertise it on websites outside of Wikipedia.

Before you go on to further revert the edits that I have made to pages that you have edited previously, I want you to think about why I made these edits. For example, I made this edit to the article about Lila Deneken, which you have also edited in the past. In this edit, I placed a template regarding the inadequate use of footnotes that are used to verify that the information provided is truthful, I removed a link to a dead website which is no longer accessible, I further organized the sections by which the article has been divided, I made it clearer where the information in the article has been provided from by using the template "cite web", I added the template "not in source", which alerts the reader and future editors that the information that has been allegedly gathered from the source can not in fact be found in the source, and I removed the promotional section "Presently", which contained unsourced or unverifiable information used to advertise one of her albums. I want you to know that I care deeply about the accuracy of the information that is provided on Wikipedia, and I ask you to realize that I am acting in good faith when I say that the links that you provide to this website do not belong here. Please take a moment to think and to reflect on the message that I am trying to get across with these attemps to communicate with you. Cilidus (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]