Piccco

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! JesseRafe (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Hi Piccco! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Philip II of Macedon‎‎ that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. For example, none of the edits you've marked as "minor" this month are minor in Wikipedia's terms. NebY (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to inform me. I'll try to keep it in mind. Sorry for responding late, I don't log in too often. Piccco (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ariana (name), you may be blocked from editing. JesseRafe (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for the constant edits, I did not want to vandalize the Ariana (name) page. I thought the Mediterranean origin might have been more appropriate considering that the name was in use inside the Greco-roman world. Even if the name was indeed a toponym refering to the persian lands (as suggested by the 2nd etymology) the toponym (which might have given the name) was used, again, by greeks and romans. In any case, if you think that Bactria should stay in the infobox, I will not edit again. Piccco (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cremaster muscle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Involuntary muscle. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Re: Morris, Cox, Krieger

Thanks for pinging me on the frenulum debate. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that with a concerted effort these authors could be removed from all of Wikipedia on the basis I have mentioned in the talk. It will require a pro-active effort by all who wish to see verifiable and correct information on wikipedia on all pages related to the foreskin. Cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Thelisteninghand, I appreciate your interest in contributing in articles related to male reproductive anatomy. As we know, wikipedia is a place where various editors with various views are expected to cooperate and compromise. When it comes to the frenulum article, I decided to abstain from further edit-war and basically just exclude everything related to sensitivity from the page, which means that the article now includes only the anatomical information of the structure. I think that would be a decision that could keep both sides satisfied, considering that the things that were a source of controversy are not mentioned, but also anatomical information (which is what I mainly care about) is decently represented and not ignored. I may continue making small contributions in other articles about reproductive anatomy etc., where it wouldn't cause so much controvery. I wish you the best in the future as well. Cheers. Piccco (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps similar deletion can be done on the foreskin article. There is still the absurd assertion in wikivoice 'least sensitive skin'. Yeah, I give up also - but elsewhere I'm building a case against Morris and Cox in particular as they are so extreme they are not really part of the rational debate. You might find it interesting to look at the links I posted on the talk page, or maybe you know about Gilgal. Feel free to ping me anytime, cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk at Frenulum is ongoing. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thelisteninghand I thought that some parts from the frenulum article that referred to the corona of the glans could be used in that article instead, so that they wouldn't go wasted in a way. Now as for the frenulum article, maybe there is no reason to continue that discussion there anymore. I think the current version decently represents the structure and seems okay, especially compared to what it used to be. Piccco (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Hello, I'm Catalyzzt. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Human penis—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Catalyzzt (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

I saw your reversion on the penile frenulum page; was curious as to why the picture was removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neweditor1017 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Hi Piccco! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Aristotle Onassis several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Aristotle Onassis, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. There's no need to add "naturalized" to the first sentence (see MOS:ETHNICITY). Short descriptions should be as short as possible (see WP:SDSHORT). Thedarkknightli (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

?

Could you elaborate on how the skin sample study is fringe? Man-Man122 (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Man-Man122, It's not just the study per se. The existance of that claim in the article was problematic for several reasons. The claim is fringe because it is misquoted; the samples with which the prepuce sample was compared in that study are not the whole body, as it was claimed. Overall, the sentence was a remnant of much older versions of the page where aspects like "function", "sensitivity" etc. were discussed in lenght, but it's been a long time since those discussions have been removed from the page (including pro-sensitivity arguments from reliable sources). The claim is also completely irrelevant to "function". Plus, its existance in that tiny section is WP:UNDUE considering that function is barely even discused in the whole article. It was agreed that claims that are contradicted in the literature (prepuce sensitivity) or can be seen as controversial by users would have little coverage in the page. Finally, I want to inform you that there is no need to start unnecessary edit-wars in articles like this, because the current version is result of consensus reached from lengthy discussions with many editors from the past years and it's a compromisation.

Thank you Piccco (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, it didn't say whole body, but I can still see how it could be problematic. However, would it really be that problematic to include only the results of the study, i.e. just including the part where it says where the foreskin was in terms of the Meissner's index? I personally think it'd be relevant, based on the sentence before it. Either way, I can fully understand removing the sentence based on the hindsight and perspective you provided. Thank you for your explanation. Man-Man122 (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. Another reason the sentence was problematic is because it was vague; i.e. it doesn't clarify which part of the prepuce it referred to; the external shaft skin? the mucosal area? etc. Anyway, as you know, these topics can unfortunately be a source of controversy –and they have been in the past. Every now and then, users may jump in the page making drive-by edits without knowing that the version they see is result of compromisation. The older users who were involved in consensus-building generally avoid revisiting those touchy subjects, in order to avoid more unnecessary controversy and edit wars. Thank you for your understanding. Piccco (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you. Man-Man122 (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scrotal septum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scrotal arteries.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Foreskin RfC

Hello. There is an RfC about the Function section of the Foreskin article. You can participate in the RfC here. Prcc27 (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for alerting me to issues. I've no idea how to access wiki email but I'm taking part in discussion now. Thanks again. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC) Tell me how I can get to your emails please! Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Digenes Akritas, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Epic and Romance.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Piccco, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Neveselbert, thank you so much for your kind wishes. I totally wasn't expecting that. Happy holidays and Merry Christmas to you too. May you have an amazing time. Piccco Piccco (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

January 2024

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! DoctorMatt (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Doctormatt, you are right about that. I apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused you. I'm guessing you are referring to my edits in articles like Jamais-vu, somatoparaphrenia etc. For Jamais-vu, most of the information was taken specifically from here: The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory. 6.4 Jamais Vu. And for somatoparaphrenia, from here: The Parietal Lobe. Somatoparaphrenia and asomatognosia. Judging by your username, I'm guessing you are a specialist, so feel free to rework on any of my additions, if you find it necessary. You seem certainly more of an expert than me. Apologies, again. I'll try to remember your advice when making edits of similar nature. Have a good week. Piccco (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Piccco, thank you for your reply. My comment was just about the use of the edit summary, not about the quality of your edits, which look fine to me. I am not knowledgeable in this field (I work in mathematics), but I try to help out at Wikipedia where I can. Best! DoctorMatt (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Understandable. I wanted to save you time, in case you also wanted to verify the content. Cheers Piccco (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Piccco! Your additions to Jamais vu have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Diannaa, thank you for notifying me about this. I am, of course, aware of the copyright rules of wikipedia and avoid directly copying material from a source. I was under the impression that some minor paraphrasing is normally fine, but turns out in this case it was still too close to the original text. I will keep this in mind for the future. I will also rework on past edits in order to avoid similar issues. Thanks Piccco (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh thanks for notifying me. I did not see that on time, but it appears the section has closed already; the ESC tp might still be a better place for discussion for now. Thanks for the initiative though. Piccco (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Digenes Akritas, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Kowal2701, thank you for your kind invitation. To be honest, I'm not sure if I could contribute much to this wikiproject, because since then I haven't made any significant contribution in relevant articles. So far, I haven't joined any wikiproject in general. Perhaps I could keep it in mind for the future, however. Thanks again. Piccco (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

"Joining" is a pretty informal thing, even for groups that try to keep a list of participants. For example, I'm a regular participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, and I keep some related smaller groups (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine...) on my watchlist. If I happen to notice an interesting discussion, then I may join in, but I don't always consider myself to have joined those groups. Everybody's welcome. I recommend keeping an eye on the groups closest to your interest areas. It's a good way to find out what's happening and to both get help and also help others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @WhatamIdoing, thank you very much for spending your precious time to write at my tp. The truth is that at some point I did consider joining some Wikiprojects, but then I just kinda forgot it, perhaps because I realized that joining isn't essential, in order for someone to have a wikipedia career. You are right, however, that being a member, even if there's not much going on, can still be proven to be beneficial for editors. I'll keep it in mind to look for some projects that I am interested in and join them, when I find time in the near future. Thanks again. Piccco (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Minotaur

Hello Piccco, just noticed that you have been working away on the article for the Minotaur. I want to give you a heads up cause I was working on expanding it (in sfn formatted citations) via a separate userspace for convenience. I had a different layout in mind when expanding the article and how it could get up to GA and FA. if you are interested in its continued expansion feel free to check it out. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Paleface Jack, thank you for your message. The truth is that I wasn't planning to make large scale changes in the article, because that would require a lot of work. I mainly tried to tidy up the images and prioritize good-quality ancient artwork throughout the article.

I like the way you organized the "Mythology" section! Also, the "Iconography" and "Artistic depictions" seem to touch upon similar subjects, so perhaps they could merge into a larger section regarding the portrayal of the Minotaur throughout history (?), unless there was a reason you kept them separate. I believe the "Potential inspirations" (or "Comparative mythology") is a good place to write about the Minoan religion, with their bulls and labyrinths, which certainly had an impact on the Minotaur myth! Perhaps these two also have the potential to merge (?). We also have rich Minoan bull-related imagery that could be used there.

There's generally a lot of potential for improvement. I personally don't have the energy to fully commit to such project, but I'd be happy to help if I could. I hope it turns out good! Piccco (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand, and agree, there is potential woth this article. There are precursors to the tale and how it ties with the Minoan myth and motif of bulls. My focus has been split with a bunch of other projects (a complete revision of the original Texas Chainsaw film is priority rn). Paleface Jack (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand. Good luck with this and the rest of the projects you've taken up! Piccco (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

DelvetGiray

You think this is something that we can take to ANI? I've noticed that whenever suspected socks of BaharatliCheetos get spotted, they go radio silent. Shemsi Effendi went dark pretty quickly after I noticed them, and devletgiray seems to have done the same. Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, if i'm honest, even I am still learning how to navigate wikipedia and I'm not perfectly familiar with its rules, ANI etc. I am, however, almost certain that this is not something that an editor can be taken to ANI for. As you can see, the SPI cases can often end up clogging and they move very slowly. This is the reason why a case from early August is still open after a month in early September. I recently found out, however, that during a CU, sock accounts can be detected by the admin, even if they went unnoticed by other users, and even if they were "sleepers" (inactive). So I believe you can just wait for the cases to proceed, since I don't think that there's anything ANI could do for this case alone, unless there are other violations. Piccco (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Irene of Athens

Hello Piccco. I really appreciate the work you're doing on this and other Byzantine-related articles, but I'm a little confused about a couple of manual reverts you made. I recently removed the language label from the second parenthesis on Irene of Athens, deeming it redundant—the reason being that there's only a single non-English language present in the article (Greek), the name of which is already established in the first parenthesis. You reverted this as part of this edit. Reconsidering that perhaps the second label may still be useful to the reader, I then opted to simply remove the repeated link, which you have now also reverted. I can understand the first revert (though I don't fully agree with it), but the second revert makes little sense to me. Wouldn't MOS:REPEATLINK apply in this situation? TeoTB (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, this minor revert (part of a much broader editing session) was made on the basis of, what we call in wikipedia, "not an improvement", which is an edit that doesn't harm the article, but doesn't introduce any substantial improvements either. MOS:REPEATLINK is about not overlinking the text with the same link and making it unnecessarily blue. However, in the vast majority of articles, at least in the topic-areas that I read in wikipedia, that doesn't really seem to apply to such minor language tags. There's certainly no strict rule about this, especially when the content of a parenthesis is not extensive and doesn't disrupt the readability of a paragraph or lead. This layout is consistent with most similar articles. In fact, this is so minor, that I feel like it's not even worth discussing in depth. In any case, I like your activity in wikipedia too, as far as I've seen, so keep it up! and don't hesitate to reach out to me whenever you feel like it. Piccco (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I disagree on the "not an improvement" part; in my view, reducing clutter/avoiding redundancy without affecting clarity is almost always an improvement, even in situations as minor as this. However I do agree that for this article this issue is quite insignificant, and there's no real benefit to discussing it in depth; I was more so just looking to see your reasons for reverting. Thanks for your reply and kind words, I will be sure to reach out again if I need to. TeoTB (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe that might apply in some cases, where we have more than one surname or nickname and the lead may indeed become a little too crowded, like in the case of Michael II, for example. In any case, I'm glad to hear that. Happy editing. Piccco (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy editing to you too :) TeoTB (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Memnon: Primary Source Resources

Hello Piccco:

Per Wikipedia policy- I am here to discuss the edits about your disruptive edits to the Memnon page. Memnon is known in Greek, Etruscan and Roman history through primary source (ancient) author and translations. You continue to favor popular author Robert Graves to discuss Memnon's Ancient Greek name. There are more reliable resources than mythology books.

Here is one that I will add to the Memnon page and I would appreciate if you stop reverting my research.

Per Wikipeia protocol:

• Discuss edits: The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits. If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so. The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone questions one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale.

Magistracraig (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

To help your good faith understanding, the evidence of the text where Memnon written in Greek in a Greek Lexicon is accurate translated for all readers to benefit both from reading Greek and also being able to reference the texts (Homer's Odyssey for example)

Perseus project links to the academic Lexicon that you keep reverting to a secondary resource (Robert Graves /Theoi) neither of which are Greek Lexica.

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=memnon&la=greek#lexicon

In addition, I have just checked your source (Robert Graves) and on page 682 there is no reference to Memnon.

Here is the text you cited (to read at the internet archive:

The Greek Myths - The Complete And Definitive Edition (2017) Robert Graves

https://archive.org/details/graves-robert-the-greek-myths-the-complete-and-definitive-edition-2017-penguin-robert-graves/page/n595/mode/2up?q=memnon&view=theater

@Michael aurel not the inaccuracies in the article you agreed needed reverted. It is a complete fabrication that Robert Graves discussed Memnon's Greek name origin. Magistracraig (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Magistracraig: Do not call another editor's actions "disruptive" when their edits were made in good faith, predominantly positive, and in line with policy. Just because one (small) part of their changes was problematic (restoring Graves as a source), that doesn't mean anything they did was "disruptive". I will respond at my talk page, before taking the conversation to Talk:Memnon, which is where this discussion should be. – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Michael Aurel Thanks for the comment. What I did was basically restore the stable version of the article, like I had done in September. Magistracraig, to be honest I didn't pay attention to the sources, Graves is not "my source" and it if it wasn't good enough, I couldn't have known. I just knew that your version of the page, though edited in good-faith, was not in line with the wikipedia standards of what an article should look like. I'm pretty sure every experienced editor in mythology articles, like Michael Aurel, would agree on that. For example, WP:PRIMARY sources, while they are generally not preferred, they can be used, but cited properly within <refs>; similarly, the lead should be a short summary of the article, primary quotations are not needed. Also, there were likely some WP:UNDUE issues too. Piccco (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I've tried to point them to some relevant guidelines as well, and hopefully they'll engage on the article's talk page. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Michael Aurel Great. As I mentioned here, even the stable version that I restored, still has some major issues and needs some work, but it was definitely better than the new one. Normally, you and User:Paul August are really good at taking an abandoned article and transforming it, but I see that you are currently invested in other more important projects, so good luck with those! Piccco (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Cleopatra

Dear Piccco, if you dispute specific addition I made, then feel free to point it and I myself will delete it. But I made few changes and I do not wish to have make them all over again. I am not here to make edit war - I made changes I belived are better for site. If I had to provide additional sources, please tell me where and how, and don't remove work that took my time to made. I stand by all changes I made. If you had issue with specific notes I made, please correct them, not delete. I explained reasons for changes I made in previous eidts I made. If something is incorrect, I will accept, but if my claims are not disputed, then please name what exactly you disagree. I just returned to wikipedia after many years, and main reason why I quitted first time, is because I gave up after my edits were constantly reverted even after I provided sources, just because eidtors disgareed with one sentence in edition I made. If you find one of my statements controversial, then please, point it, not remove entire work I have done. Sobek2000 (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Remsense has already left a talkpage message to you; you should probably follow their advice for self-rv. It's not that your edits are necessarily bad, they don't seem in bad-faith, however you are a new account making numerous edits over several articles and someone needs to check their quality, because we cannot know your motives, and new users tend to make (intentionally or not) lower quality edits. This is normal in WP. Cleopatra, specifically, is a featured article and has high standards. Important additions need to be checked and reviewed by experienced editors (not necessarily me, but ideally those who contributed in the writting) in order to maintain its high quality. It is very easy for new changes to go unnoticed which may slightly lower the article's quality in the long run. The WP:ONUS is on you to establish consensus, not on older editors. If you provide your proposal at the TP with the source that verifies it, and other editors deem the addition helpful, it could very well be restored. There is nothing personal with you and your edits, I am merely restoring the version that experienced editors wrote and has long-standing consensus. Piccco (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)