DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

User talk:Cyclopia

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Hello Cyclopia and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

The Signpost: 10 November 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 December 2025

[edit]
  • Comix: Madness
    It could happen to anyone.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2026

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Genovese

[edit]

Hello! I'm afraid you misunderstood my intentions with my edits. I certainly did not mean to censor or whitewash anything, as you said. I did not delete the information that was in the template (and which you have now restored), but simply moved it to the appropriate section, where I expanded on it and supplemented it with sources. I came here just to find a consensus and avoid an edit war, even if it's just a matter of details, and I certainly don't think we would have reached that point (the only thing I have already changed is the opening sentence, because the part you had inserted didn't make much sense within the sentence and created confusion; it seemed that “convinte for racing” was his nickname XD. Furthermore, being encyclopaedic as an entrepreneur and not as a criminal, that part should not even be there but in a specific section, as with any other additional “activity” of the biographee that has no encyclopaedic value. I therefore moved the part to the dedicated section below. In simple terms, I integrated the sources you provided with those already present). The other things to correct would be, first of all, the template. Do you think that parameter dedicated to criminal charges in the template is necessary? I read in the template sheet that it is optional, and since criminal charges are not the focus of the entry, I thought about removing them. In any case, if we decide to keep it, we need to integrate it. He was not only convicted of rape but also of drug possession, and then, if I am not mistaken, the rape conviction was ultimately for only one girl, not “several”. Secondly, do you really think that the information about the two companies being unicorns is irrelevant? Perhaps it could be integrated into the body of the entry instead of the introduction. Let me know! You are surely far more expert than me, I'm on wikipedia only from 2023, while you it's been decades since you started to edit. Respect. 9002Jack (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the heads up. First of all, I believe this discussion is more pertinent to the article talk page :) and I'd continue it from there after my reply.
That said, my opinion is that the subject is encyclopedic because of both his entrepreneurial career and his criminal convictions. Media coverage is substantial for either: it is not just a minor part of an overall biography of an entrepreneur, it is one of the two things for which he is known. In popular culture he is almost certainly more known for the criminal episodes than for his entrepreneurial career. I disagree, therefore, that this part of his life should be removed from the lead or the infobox.
As for details:
  • As far as I understand, the rape conviction is for at least two girls (e.g.[1]) and further there is another conviction for attempted sexual assault ([2]).
  • I cannot find proper info on the drug possession charges (I'm sure there are, I'm asking for sources on that since what I see covers mostly the sexual assault and related charges)
  • The companies being unicorns seems a minor quirk to me (but YMMV); it seems it is an arbitrary classification of companies. It seems relevant to me in articles about the companies more than Genovese, but if we keep it in the article, I'd keep it in the section about his entrepreneurial activities.
Thanks a lot for your input! cyclopiaspeak! 12:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 January 2026

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Clemente Graziani

[edit]

Hi, just curious. Why did you use mdy dates when dmy dates are standard in Italy?? Regards Denisarona (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is not the Italian wikipedia :) is there a MOS guideline about that? cyclopiaspeak! 16:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English language wikipedia. It is standard to use dmy dates in the article set in the country where dmy dates are normal (e.g. France, Italy, Britain, Ireland, etc.). It is standard to use mdy dates in the article set in the country where mdy dates are normal (e.g. The United States). Regards Denisarona (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this. Would you kindly link the relevant WP:MOS? :) cyclopiaspeak! 10:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe MOS:DATETIES. Denisarona (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It seems that a format is preferred only when dealing with «topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country». For other countries, no format seems preferred. Anyway feel free to edit and put dates in dmy format, if you wish. cyclopiaspeak! 12:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not something that I wish. For example, in most European countries, the standard use is dmy dates - there is no connection to the English language. Denisarona (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also check out Date and time notation in Italy Denisarona (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Listen. I'm Italian. I know how date and time is written in Italy. If you prefer another format for the article, be bold and change that. If there is a specific guideline that I am not following, let me know about that (the one you linked does not seem relevant). Otherwise, I feel this conversation is useless. Have a wonderful day. :) cyclopiaspeak! 10:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 February 2026

[edit]
  • Disinformation report: Epstein's obsessions
    The sex offender's attempts to whitewash Wikipedia run deeper than we first thought.
  • Crossword: Pop quiz
    Sharpen your pencil. How well do you really know Wikipedia?
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna Zarutska killing Wikipedia article incident

[edit]

I am disappointed you removed the endorsed PRODs on this article, which is wholly unsuitable for an encyclopaedia. In contrast to your de-PROD rationale the article lacks reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of harassing editors for objecting to PROD (see WP:DEPROD), bring the article to AfD if you are concerned. Thanks! cyclopiaspeak! 12:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: I'm absolutely unsympathetic to neofascist conspiracy theories about Wikipedia. The fact is, however, that sadly there was an attempt at framing WP actions as nefarious by such outlets. That is a documented fact. I'm in doubt if this deserves a whole article but PROD is for uncontroversial deletion, and this doesn't seem at all like a clear-cut case, since the issue could and perhaps should be covered somewhere. cyclopiaspeak! 12:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't label a simple, polite note, the first time I have ever had contact with you as "harassment". Your rationale stated that the article has reliable sources, that's not really correct as every single source is listed as unreliable at WP:RSP, except VOZ which nonetheless appears quite a poor source. We will have to agree to disagree as this PROD, which I didn't place and was endorsed by another experienced editor had been in place for five days without objection. The creator also chose not to contest deletion, despite continuing to edit. AusLondonder (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but to comment on an user talk page just to vent that you are 'disappointed' with them is not constructive and as such is kinda harassing. That said, coming to the article: it also cites MSN, which is considered reliable by WP:RSP. Yes, sourcing is weak and I placed tags acknowledging that it is heavily biased - things that are not grounds for deletion, let alone a PROD. What other editors did or thought is entirely irrelevant, since it is enough for one editor to contest the PROD to make it invalid. I suggest again to bring the issue at a proper venue instead of complaining here. Thanks again. cyclopiaspeak! 16:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(apologies: I confused the "MSN" source; that is indeed reporting an unreliable source. That said, I still stand by the opinion that it is not such an obvious case to merit PROD. I would have no qualms with article deletion if it can be shown at AfD that there is no hope to source it properly. cyclopiaspeak! 16:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 March 2026

[edit]
  • Special report: What actually happened during the Wikimedia security incident?
    A horrifying exploit took place, which could have had catastrophic and far-reaching consequences if used maliciously; instead, it seems to have happened by accident and was used for childish vandalism. How did this happen, and what did the script actually do?
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 March 2026

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas

[edit]

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 April 2026

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Debian GNU/kFreeBSD "was"

[edit]

I noticed your change to the article GNU variants but wasn't sure what to do about it (should it be revoked), my question for you is: on what basis does the operating system stop qualifying as such? Passage of time should not affect the structure or development status of the system itself, so one might probably go for that development status alone, however I quickly gathered examples of some discontinued or otherwise unsupported operating systems (as far as them not being under active development) which seem to indicate an established "is an operating system" regardless of their development status (active or discontinued)

"is an operating system" doesn't receive active support https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M#2.2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_DOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba_(operating_system)

"is a discontinued operating system" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexenta_OS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSolaris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP-UX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP

unclear development status "is an operating system" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(operating_system)

Basically in other words, I can not find a single instance at a quick glance of any established precedent in Wikipedia in favor of rewriting articles to say "was" an operating system in case active development has seized. Do you have arguments to dispute this? This is not a personal attack and I intent no offense. But unless I can hear a competent counter argument I will probably undo your edit later. ~2026-24857-17 (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "is a discontinued operating system" is better than merely "was", thanks for the heads up. However next time please post this to the relevant talk page, not to the user talk! :) thanks! cyclopiaspeak! 07:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 May 2026

[edit]
  • Recent research: WikiLambda the Ultimate
    Does Abstract Wikipedia help fight "One ring to rule them all" solutions for knowledge access - or does it implement one itself?
  • Gallery: Earth Day and Mother's Day
    Earth Day was on 22 April, and Mother's Day was on 10 May (in the US and many other countries).
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please check sources

[edit]

You dePROD'd Andrea Zitolo with a tag of possible vandalism,but it appears that you did not check the sources. You will see that I have AfD'd it as there were far too many invalid claims when I checked the sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I deprodded the article but I did not tag anything for possible vandalism, so I do not understand what you're talking about. cyclopiaspeak! 12:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the revision history. The PROD is marked as Reverted, possible vandalism by you. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I see in my revision history. "Removed PROD: while promotional in tone, there is some secondary source coverage and he got a significant national honour. undo Tag: Manual revert" I haven't tagged anything for possible vandalism. If the system did that, it did without my knowledge. cyclopiaspeak! 13:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
According to Special:Tags, the tag is assigned automatically by software. cyclopiaspeak! 13:09, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK. A revert without a welcome and/or explanation was a bit bitey to a novice particularly as so much of that page failed verification. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PRODs are meant to be easily removed. I don't see what type of welcome or explanation I should have given the user. The user did nothing wrong in PRODding the article per se, it's just I disagreed that such an article should be deleted without seeking consensus. I'm on WP since 20 years and it's the first time I hear I should discuss a dePROdding with the PRODder. cyclopiaspeak! 15:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

LLM on Italian Wikipedia

[edit]

Hi @Cyclopia, can you please take a look at Mercato dell'oro in India? It appears to be an LLM-generated article, that has been created across multiple different language Wikipedia's (see Gold market in India). I am unsure of the LLM article process on the Italian Wikipedia, so, do you mind reporting or nominating the article for a speedy deletion? Thank you, Fortek67 (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not edit it.wiki, sorry. :) cyclopiaspeak! 13:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright, but you were listed at WP:EMBASSY. If maybe you could just send a message to one of the administrators in Italian about this? No worries if you also can't. Thank you though. Fortek67 (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god, am I there? That must have been some rookie mistake of mine. I have no idea who are the admins on it.wiki, I never edit there, I even rarely read it unless I'm looking for Italian-specific subjects. I'll remove myself from WP:EMBASSY now. Thanks for the heads up and apologies I can't be of help. cyclopiaspeak! 13:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Thanks for responding :) Fortek67 (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 June 2026

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]