User talk:Cyclopia/Archive 9

The point is that posting to ARS is no more canvassing than posting to AFD: people with your wiki-philosophies have it in their watchlist, after all. I am not defensive when you nominate something for deletion: heck, I even agreed with the !delete in the case in point. The problem with the ARS instead is that you are entitled to dislike the ARS, but you are not entitled to relentlessly accuse a wikiproject of canvassing or questioning its legitimacy without evidence and/or consensus -that is highly disruptive and just creates drama. The ARS is an open, legitimate (as per consensus) wikiproject. If you disagree with its aims or perceived "agenda", just put it in your watchlist and follow the AfD's therein listed, as no doubt you already do. Easy peasy. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a months-old discussion had 51% of people saying that the ARS could continue doesn't mean that you are immune to future accusations of canvassing. Nearly every article nominated for rescue gets a Keep from Dream Focus and a Keep from Warden; this was no exception. In many cases, those two vote Keep without editing the article, or certainly improving it, and often they vote Keep without citing a relevant policy or guideline. Honest politicians is an exception to that because Warden created the article to prove a POINT about

p 15:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• "doesn't mean that you are immune to future accusations of canvassing." Every editor and wikiproject oughts to be immune to unfounded accusations. Do you have proof for that? If so, AN/I is that-a-way.
• "Nearly every article nominated for rescue gets a Keep from Dream Focus and a Keep from Warden" - So do many articles not listed at ARS. So what? You just found out DF and CW are inclusionists (and I am too, btw, even if perhaps slightly less). What a resounding discovery. But this is no proof of canvassing at all: it is just proof that two ARS-active editors happen also to have a certain philosophy in the wiki. Canvassing would be if someone went calling them and only them on their talk pages, or if the ARS was a secret or near-secret page no deletionist editor is aware of.
• "In many cases, those two vote Keep without editing the article, or certainly improving it" - So what? I am not a great fan of
  WP:ATD
  . Sometimes I did such improvements, sometimes I don't. It depends on the case.
• "These two AfDs are textbook examples of the ARS just coming out to !vote without any real policy or guidelines to back them up."' - If you have problems with these two editors, stick to that, and don't put the whole ARS in.
• "Warden's continual need to berate me or any other person who votes Delete." - Sorry but that's hypocrisy at its best. You accuse a wikiproject of canvassing without proof. You accuse editors of having been canvassed without proof. You disregard the consensus that legitimates a wikiproject. You go harassing these editors on their talk pages, over and over, accusing them of wikihounding and what else, and then you whine because they politely argue with you on AFD debates? Grow up. -- cyclopia^speak! 17:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of food, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for your help, but could you remove that word "drama"? It's not helpful and it's meaning is unclear. Chrisrus (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has a very clear meaning and it well describes the situation, IMHO. -- cyclopia^speak! 11:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of food, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Squash (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Ahaha unfortunately I haven't met anyone from Bologna in En Wikipedia. You are the first one! -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I don't think our paths have crossed before, but I wanted to take this opportunity to applaud you for your well-phrased comments regarding the reuse of our content. If only more editors had your understanding. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome -- cyclopia^speak! 10:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sexual dimorphism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stress (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you go back to [2] and clarify how you feel about the other options? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- cyclopia^speak! 19:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of food, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cordoba and Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of food, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abydos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at List of cruelty to animal incidents in Canada. It is against the rules at Wikipedia to alter an article when it is being discussed for deletion. In addition, vandalism is not condoned. IQ125 (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Slight lack of clue, I think. Cyclopia, you have my sympathies... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help you keep the defamatory statements you deleted out of the article

p 15:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, if I get support from both AndyTheGrump and PBP, I must be doing something right . Sorry

WP:BLP-compliant. --cyclopia^speak! 15:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

-Duxwing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duxwing (talk • contribs) 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand we are at the opposite ends of our notability views in this project, but please the next time you participate in an AFD, look at the sources before you decide to comment. I personally feel those nominations are very

Oops. Thanks a lot. It seems to me they were written down as offline sources, which I couldn't check, however I didn't think of counter-checking them online. Lesson learned in assuming too much good faith. You're free to laugh at me as much as you want there at WO, guess I deserve it :) --cyclopia^speak! 07:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you might want to reconsider that not every murder is notable or meets WP:PERSISTENT. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never maintained that every murder is notable. But murders that are notable per

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I will not challenge it under DRV because consensus was what it was, but it has not been an AfD to be proud of. Also, while I understand you are in perfectly honest good faith, I am of the opinion that many of your AfD nominations are a serious harm to the project. I ask you instead to reconsider your ongoing efforts at AfD asking yourself what is the real advantage such deletions of these articles give to our readers. --cyclopia^speak! 18:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

we use consensus. I'm sure you believe almost every article up for deletion should be kept. That Is simply not the case. We should not keep articles for WP:NOHARM to readers. I will continue to nominate articles for deletion. If articles are notable they will survive AfDs. Kind regards. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you believe almost every article up for deletion should be kept. - I'm sure you think using a lot of very wrong assumptions, and this is one of them. There is lots of stuff that I maintain can be safely deleted: original research topics, duplicates, hoaxes, unverifiable articles, unnotable living people, etc. Another of your misguided assumptions is that I justify my keeping with the argument that such articles are simply harmless. Instead, they are verifiable, reasonable, informative, encyclopedic articles: but people like you, again, erroneusly assume that since you don't find the topic interesting, then nobody oughts to know about it. We are here for the readers' service, but many editors seem to forget it altogether. In fact, you carefully avoided to answer: what is the advantage to our readers in deleting such articles? Curiously enough, when I ask this question, almost nobody ever answers. --cyclopia^speak! 09:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a repository of every single verifiable topic, nor have ever ever I said not interesting is a reason for deletion. Well established consensus of notability exists of many topics, you seem to think topics must be kept because there is a disadvantage to readers if they are deleted. That is not a reason for keep and would hardly pass in an AfD. Perhaps you could set up your own online encyclopedia where the bar for notability suits you. LibStar (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP is not a repository of every single verifiable topic - I know. Thanks for adding another straw man to the collection.
• you seem to think topics must be kept because there is a disadvantage to readers if they are deleted. - That's the whole point of an online encyclopedia: being of help to readers. Otherwise it's just collective masturbation. Do you contribute to Wikipedia to actually help people who use it, or just because you are bored? That such an argument would hardly pass in an AfD means only how broken is the project.
• Perhaps you could set up your own online encyclopedia where the bar for notability suits you. - This one suits me just fine, thanks. The notability bar as written in guidelines is, with some minor exceptions, quite fine: it is the way it is interpreted at times that is damaging. I don't feel comfortable leaving WP in the hands of editors that (as you admit above) explicitly ignore the impact of their decisions on who actually uses this encyclopedia. The more people like you come here to bully me asking me to "reconsider", the more I am convinced there is people who wants this project helpful for people, and who just uses it as a platform for their own egos. --cyclopia^speak! 11:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Racism in Italy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mongolian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Hi. As a contributor to the AfD

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Why is it OK for one user to label people they disagree with, cast unevidenced aspersions and act as if raising concerns about unsourceable BLPs are a crime but when another user calls them out on it they are a bully? Not very even handed was it?

I see no aspersions there, only reasonable concerns about the behaviour of certain editors. I have little interest in discussing PORNBIO itself because of similar concerns -it is a toxic issue. However I do not tolerate editors be told to go off wiki to discuss their opinions. --cyclopia^speak! 10:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have two options on wiki, accept consensus or find another site whose consensus you can accept. Its not bullying to point this out. As for your tolerance of attacks on myself and other users - well I'm sure you don't give two figs about whether or not I have a good opinion about you.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

You have two options on wiki, accept consensus or find another site whose consensus you can accept - No, you have a third, as in any other reasonably free society: argue your own position and hope to change consensus -if not today, one day. Minority positions have a full right to be voiced and represented. To intimidate editors who express non-mainstream positions is bullying. I don't fully understand what you mean by "attacks on myself and other users", but yes, I care little about your opinion of myself. I care more of the fact that consensus does not mean that alternative positions must be silenced. --cyclopia^speak! 13:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

secrets of nature
Thank you, editor interested in "political uncorrectness" and "deep secrets of nature", for quality articles such as Andiva and Life on Another Planet, for saving articles from deletion by improving them, for insight on consensus and bias, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awwwww, thanks! --cyclopia^speak! 11:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I do not care too much. I strongly disagree with the assessment, and I understand the no paper stuff. The way I read all the guidelines, it is as cut and dry as possible that it does not belong, but if the community disagrees, so be it. This is not something important enough really, and I am not sure why I am even arguing about it. From An American Jew.Sposer (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the right attitude. My philosophy, which of course can be and is actually disagreed by many, is that once we

we meet the spirit of notability, that is, when we have the technical conditions to have a meaningful article, we should have it, even if the topic is silly, obscure or bizarre. We're here to cater all kinds of readers, and what is trivial for us may be very important for others, in ways we cannot necessarily fathom now. Thanks for your input anyway --cyclopia^speak! 17:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

[3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --cyclopia^speak! 08:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have reinserted [4] content that is in violation of the

Your interpretation of OR is laughable. There is nothing OR in reporting context, nor there is any synthesis -no conclusion is put forward. Go harass someone else. --cyclopia^speak! 13:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its right there in print [[WP:STICKTOSOURCE|"Surce material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context." The WHO is SOLELY talking about common sources of death and to use that to make a comparison to unusual deaths is about as out of context as one could get. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no comparison, no change of meaning or implication, nor any usage inconsistent with the intention of the source. Also the "out of context" issue is about taking a sentence out of context to imply a meaning not intended by the source. In the article, the picture/caption is a nice reminder of "Well, to put this list of uncommon deaths into context, here we remind you what are the common causes, as listed by a very reliable source." That clarified, two questions: 1)Why aren't you discussing this on the article talk page? 2)What part of "Go harass someone else" is not clear? --cyclopia^speak! 14:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Racism in Italy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antimaterialism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to keep clogging that conversation with my reply, so I'll put it here. How many times can I bring up issues that can be fixed by editing? How many times can you say "it can be fixed by editing" when it doesn't get fixed? If the article continues to be bad, it doesn't matter how many people say that in theory someone else could fix it: in practice, it cannot be fixed. Efforts to be more rigorous in sourcing seem to have just resulted in people casting a wider net, looking for even mor dubious sources. Do we really need every death from "New of the Weird" reproduced in Wikipedia?—Kww(talk) 13:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to go to Mars now or in the foreseeable future? Nope. Does this mean it is impossible to go to Mars? Not at all. Is this a good reason to throw the towel about going to Mars? Not at all, if anything the very opposite. Same here. That it has not been fixed so far (and make no mistake, I fully agree there is a problem with OR) does not mean it will never be fixed or that it is practically impossible to fix it. If we had to kill every article with long standing problems (being them OR, POV or whatever), how many articles would be left on WP? A hundred perhaps? It's in the very nature of WP that we are not going to be perfect. Now, if all the effort you, Pbp, Obiwankenobi, TRPOD etc. put in this endless campaign on multiple fronts to kill this article was instead spent on the article talk page, where I tried a few days ago to draft some criteria, things would be different. I agree with you the current status quo of the article should change. There are genuine concerns. But even if it does not, it is still not an argument for deleton: not by policy, not by common sense, not by overall benefit of the encyclopedia. --cyclopia^speak! 13:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you greatly underestimate the number of worthwhile articles on Wikipedia and the amount of effort required to counteract a few of the editors that have currently taken an interest in the article. I'll try to contribute constructively to discussion, but it became a lost cause when editors began to disrupt the clean-up process.—Kww(talk) 03:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article can be worthwile and have long-standing issues. Most of them are like that. I personally think this article is one of them; you are free to disagree, but attempting repeatedly to destroy something that many find valuable and proper on WP only because you don't find it as valuable is not a good approach, in my opinion. That's the general problem in deletion discussions: the judgement of someone puts at jeopardy the availability of information for everyone. Of course this does not mean that we should not delete anything: lots of things have to be deleted for many good reasons. It means however that we should approach such controversial edge cases with care and an open mind.--cyclopia^speak! 10:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

During the recent AfD for Bisexuality in the Arab world (closed as 'keep') you will either have seen opinions expressed to expand the scope of the article, or voiced that opinion yourself. I am placing this notice on the talk pages of all who expressed an opinion of whatever type in that deletion discussion to invite you to participate in a discussion on article scope and title at Talk:Bisexuality in the Arab world. You are cordially invited to participate. By posting this message I am not seeking to influence your opinion one way or another. Fiddle Faddle 10:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to bother you here, but I want to be sure you read my message. Last Direktor's post on the Talk page makes me understand two things: 1) He never approved my edit 2) He does not consider necessary to discuss his edit. I might be wrong, but I think that as long he is not clearly assertive (and I am sorry but I doubt he will), there will be always room for unjustified revert. I have already been through that. --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you'll stay involved over on that article. A third pair of eyes is a great help to any discussion of this sort. And, to be frank, I am at the ends of endurance. --

talk) 11:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

@

DIREKTOR: - I hope so, I've been terribly busy these days in real life. Hope to get back at it soon.--cyclopia^speak! 12:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

@Cyclopia: In a few days, the article will be again open for modifications and I wander how things will be this time. I hope we will concentrate more on the contributions and less on the contributors. If for some reason you are too busy or not willing to participate to the discussion I will issue a 3O request and a RfC if the first won't work. My bigger problem here is that I brought a large number of sources supporting the fact that pressures had place to force the Italians to leave but this position is qualified as POV-pushing. Well the issue is that so far I have not seen any source saying the opposite. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cyclopia, do you think to have any time to follow the modification on the article. I have little doubt that any modification won't be controversial. So the implication of more people would be very beneficial. I am tempted to start modifying the article again, but I am not doing it because I do not want to take the risk to break this fragile peace. Perhaps in a few days I will enter in the talk page a proposed modification and wait a few days for comments. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I would appreciate if you could give me your opinion about surname articles.

• Are all surnames notable enough to be covered by separate articles?
• There are surnames which have the same origin but different spelling in different languages. For example Čorbadžić. This surname exists in Serbian, Bosniak and Croatian language. The other versions of this surname exist in Turkish language (çorbacı), in Albanian language (Corbaxhiu), in Bulgarian language (Чорбаджи). Should all of them be covered with different articles? Although I am not completely sure, I think they should not, unless there is some particularly notably family with many different family members on specific language. In case of the above mentioned surname the main article should be probably titled per anglicized version with other language version listed in the article and sorted within categories.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you are asking me but: as for everything else, just follow sources.--cyclopia^speak! 21:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you because I was impressed with your involvement in the dispute described a couple of sections above. Thanks for your reply. Cheers!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in the deletion discussion (requested by me) you wrote : "instead of lifting a finger to actually improve it (or ask people to do it on some relevant Wikiproject) prefers to just erase it?" - while I agree that improvement is better than deletion, this article is not improved by "lifting a finger". As I pointed out, the German article de:Endphasenverbrechen ('end phase crimes') lists more than hundred massacres in 1944/45 alone - I could put hours of work in this, which I don't have at the moment, and the article would still be woefully incomplete, and list only a fraction of Nazi war crimes. -- Seelefant (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably very accurate: so what? WP is a collaborative work in progress. I am not saying that you should finish it alone yourself. I am saying that if you think it has to be improved, well, then you can try to start improving it, instead than putting actual effort into destroying it. --cyclopia^speak! 22:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removal

Please do not remove tags without first improving the article. Articles with no sources cannot be assumed to automatically be notable

There is nothing to improve notability wise. The tag is simply nonsense. Please keep the discussion on the article talk page.--cyclopia^speak! 20:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Until that article gets to FL, there will always be something to improve sourcing-wise. As with unusual deaths and unusual chemical compounds, the fact that it passed an AfD doesn't mean that it's perfect and that editors can't propose changes and/or tag it

p 21:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Go. On. The. Article. Talk. Page. --cyclopia^speak! 21:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

If a cause of death is so common that there is an article on it, it cannot be unusual. Abductive (reasoning) 15:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is unusual is not the immediate death cause, in that case, but all the circumstances around it. And in any case we do not substitute original research, and your argument is textbook

WP:OR. We follow what sources say. Please discuss this on article talk page, not here. --cyclopia^speak! 15:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Use of a primary source when disputed/challenged is against Wikipedia Policy. Stop. Abductive (reasoning) 16:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. You are disputing a source using your own original research, and then I get lectured on sources? Rrrrright. And again, it is the whole context that matters, not the individual cause of death, otherwise we could classify all deaths as obvious, the ultimate cause being always "brain stops working". If you have a better source calling that specific individual case as "mundane" or something like that, then you have a case. Until that, we stick to what the sources we have at hand say. And why are you discussing this here? Please move this to the article talk page. --cyclopia^speak! 16:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Happy Yuletides!

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)

~TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi Cyclopia, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Cyclopia: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 11:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year 2014 }} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Thank you for your attention to my proposed deletion of this article. While I understand your stated desire to curtail overzealous deletions, it might be helpful if specific pages -- particularly ones which receive virtually no attention, link to few/no sources, are orphaned pages, contain little if any information, and cover generally non-notable topics -- just be allowed to go. If it had any useful info I might try merging it with another stub or two, such as

WP:PROD. Thanks.--cyclopia^speak! 05:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the