User talk:Cyfal

Archives

/Archive 1

Hello everyone!

• If I posted you a message on your user page, you can respond on your user page – I will add it to my watchlist.
• If you post me a message here, I will respond here.
• (If you prefer another method, it's also ok…)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ocean temperature, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stratification.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Cyfal (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cyfal. I saw you reverted my edit of the short description of the Cantino planisphere. The reason you give is interesting: "it is not a planisphere but a map". If you check the definition of "planisphere" in Wiktionary, the first meaning is "Any representation of part of a sphere on a plane surface", which is practically a synonym of map.

Regrettably, the authors of the entry planisphere in enwiki have taken the general word and applied it to only one of its specialized meanings, that of certain astronomical instrument. That entry is more aptly named Carte du ciel mobile in French and Planisferio celeste in Spanish.

The Cantino planisphere, like the Teixeira planisphere, the Caverio map and the Map of Juan de la Cosa, is a nautical planisphere, which is defined by Webster as "the projection of the terrestrial globe on a plane for navigators' use".

That said, I am happy with the current short description. The previous one, which called this map the "Earliest surviving map showing Portuguese geographic discoveries in the east and west" was completely wrong.

--Hispalois (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hispalois,

Thank you very much for your detailed explanation. I must admit I've only looked into Wikipedia's Planisphere article; but Webster's entry planisphere shows also that this term does not only refer to a "star chart analog computing instrument" but is in a more general sense, too. However, I don't really understand why you wrote that "Earliest surviving map showing Portuguese geographic discoveries in the east and west" was completely wrong ―isn't that stated in the article itself, the first sentence of the second paragraph?

Anyway, I think the current shourt description is the best one, because it's easy to understand – planisphere is a somewhat uncommon word.

--Cyfal (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a polite request. Please stop your interference. Do not revert the edit I have made. Opcouk (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opcouk, instead of simply reverting, you should discuss your contributions, if you have been reverted by two different users. The things you said on Talk:Pentax 6×7 do not convince me. Also please note that in principle all contributions to Wikipedia must be properly sourced, see WP:VERIFY. Simply claiming that you are authorised by the trade mark is not sufficient at all – on the contrary, this would be a case of WP:COI which is strongly discuraged in Wikipedia. --Cyfal (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"...not these two, and I doubt these have ever been called godfather of Britpop."

It is not exactly a crazy claim that Lennon and McCartney, and specifically their work in The Beatles is hugely inspirational to the entire genre of Britpop. Oasis, and Noel Gallagher specifically cited Lennon and McCartney as primary influences, Noel Gallagher is widely thought of as the face of Britpop.

I don't think it's a crazy claim. Catgiraffe (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is: Of course the Beatles hugely influenced not only Britpop, but whole generations of musicians; I only doubt that someome have ever called them "godfathers of Britpop". Anyway, my personal opinion doesn't count in Wikipedia – maybe I'm wrong –, but in all cases, especially if challenged, Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that you give a source for such claims. Hope that helps you to understand why I reverted your text. Of course I think it would be OK if your insert a sentence like "Britpop musician Noel Gallagher cited Lennon and McCartney as primary influences" in addition with a source. --Cyfal (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cyfal!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 10:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? I move the article with the summary make room for the article. Short after that you remove links with the summary the article does not exist. If you would just wait a bit when you see that someone else is working on that, you wouldn't have to put all the links back in now. Killarnee (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In principle you are right, but I didn't expect that you were creating the Palmbach article. I should have concluded that from your edit summaries, though, that was my fault. --Cyfal (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonexistent Russian? he's here.

But it doesn't matter, I translated the Russian article and worked it up to an article of, I hope, ENWIKI standard. All the best, and do be careful with those spiky edit-comments as they're very hard to undo! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chiswick Chap,

Maybe my edit-comments were a bit confusing but they were not spiky: I never said Korotich doesn't exist in the Russian wikipedia but I said "replaced non-existing interlanguage link by local link". The problem was that {{ill|Alexander Korotich|ru}} would link to https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Korotich if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Korotich wouldn't exist - and that page in the Russian Wikipedia does not exist. You can find these false links listed here with the remark "The corresponding foreign language page does not exist". Hope that makes my edit comments clearer.

BTW, thank you for creating Alexander Korotich in the English Wikipedia!

All the best --Cyfal (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to make claims about the type of indecent exposure being claimed that is alleged and is a claim pushed by protestors opposed to trans people. The testimony is also not needed to be quoted as it is not proven and is covered much more neutrally without details being included. The information does not need to be included as it is not neutral, potentially a misuse of wikivoice, and indecent exposure is pretty clear to mean a lot of things. The information is therefor not encyclopaedic and the original reason by an ip user was it was somehow of great value or essential for the article, when it’s clearly none of those and is not needed. In effect I have reverted the ip user injecting sensationalism and tabling into the article. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with any of your points. An article about a controversy should mention the facts why it's a controversy; there exists at least one testimony as sourced by the Los Angeles Magazine, not "protestors opposed to trans people". --Cyfal (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the facts have yet to be established. That is for the court case to determine, not the sources on both sides pushing a narrative. Until a legal proceedings conclude and the facts are clear then there is little to no way to work through the POV of both sides here. this is a case of while sources may be reliable the verifiability of what is being said is a challenge. The motivations of the protestors is different to the alleged incident and that must be taken with caution and with balance and neutrality in mind as the motives and actions of the protestors are not subject to a court case. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cyfal! Just wanted to notify you that I added a prod tag to an article you started back in 2008. The page has no references, reliable sourcing. If you know of some good, hard-to-find sourcing, just point me in the right direction and I'll be happy to dig, but I've exhausted all of my known methods. Cheers! MertenMerten (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sherwood (company) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Cannot find any reliable sourcing. WP:NORG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MertenMerten (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

I already did. --Cyfal (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]