FYI - related to Martian geyser: NASA's Mars Geyser Hopper. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did this need reverting? I suppose what I would really like answered is the second sentence of my edit summary. In other words, wouldn't it be more useful to link to the currently active merging process? If so, is the desired link Wikipedia:Proposed mergers or something else? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up including links to both the current process and failed proposal; I hope this looks okay. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical stuff is useful too. It looks okay to me too now. Thanks. --Cyclopia^talk 03:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm wondering what should I do since Neosiber keep removing referenced and relevant information claiming it is "gossip". I don't want to start edit warring, especially because I nominated Cher for featured article. Could you help me? Lordelliott (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. Thanks for the further heads up. --Cyclopia^talk 14:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Some editors have been constructively editing "Element 115 in pop". Those were modest contributions, but much more can be done to the expansion of content and other improvements. Hopefully this will continue over the years as would be expected for any regular article. As you have been actively involved with the theme, your considerations would be appreciated (as usual). Eka-bismuth (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your coments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks! --Cyclopia^talk 17:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kulindroplax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chaetoderma (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) 11:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Penis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind it going to AfD too much. I think it is an interesting topic that could have a long term WP:EFFECT. I have thoughts on wanting to work with the article long term and make it a GA and then perhaps a FA. It seems like a challenge for such a controversial article. That said, one thing that was going to happen was an AfD. It happened, and so be it. Casprings (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

No need to go to afd. I couldn't find any solid third party sources. If you've found some, just add them and I'll let it be.--Scott Mac 16:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can find. Thanks. --Cyclopia^talk 14:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 4 Vesta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Itokawa (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) 11:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For exhibiting rational judgement on a certain list which caused considerable overreaction and worse case scenario concerns. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, thanks --Cyclopia^talk 19:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful links Cyclopia. I'd added other comments but they didn't seem to go on my user page, not sure what I did wrong, Chrys Chryspatterson (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and I will look into writing a book about my father Willie Patterson, to find out what happened back in the late 1960's in the corridors of Fleet Street. After my dad's contract was terminated in 1969 he didn't speak again to Sydney Jordan. He was always a very principled person, could be arrogant, it runs in our family, not a bad thing, in my opinion, but useful also to have a lot of resilience. Which maybe he didn't have so much of. Chryspatterson (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be awesome! --Cyclopia^talk 10:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've tagged Peppered moth evolution#Controversy but so far haven't explained your reasoning on the article talk page. Please present proposals for improving the article, . dave souza, talk 18:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote something on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Evolutionary_biology#Massive_undue_weight_problem_in_Peppered_moth_evolution.23Controversy but I guess you're right I should use the article talk page. Thanks for the heads up. --Cyclopia^talk 19:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just spotted that when checking I'd not missed a talk page comment by you. I think it's a useful story of misunderstandings, press misrepresentation, and various false claims being made both by Hopper and by ID creationists, resolved by further research. There could be a case for splitting the detail off into a "controversy" article and giving it a minimal mention in the main article on the topic. . dave souza, talk

The story is indeed nice, but IMHO overall the article gives too much weight to fringe views -it gave me the impression, at a glance, that it wants to describe a real scientific controversy, which is problematic. Apparently IIRC there was a split article that has been then merged. I would keep the information, just perhaps more succinct and more WP:FRINGE-compliant. --Cyclopia^talk 19:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if we can tighten it up without losing necessary detail that would be good. Perhaps there could be a better title for the section to avoid any suggestion that it's a real controversy in science, but nothing comes immediately to mind. It might also help to have a brief summary at the start of the section. Anyway, best to sort it out on the article talk page. . . dave souza, talk 22:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I can move this thread there, for a start, if you agree. --Cyclopia^talk 22:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prometheus (film). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read your recent comment and I'm not sure how inclined I am to add anything further there either. It'll be interesting to see what the closer makes of it all. -- Trevj (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I was having this fantasy: admin erases discussion (apart from initial question), topic bans all the participants from the discussion (including me), and everything starts afresh. It can't happen, but otherwise I don't see a solution. --Cyclopia^talk 11:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cyclopia. You deleted my statement on the talk page of the Mister X. article. I find it odd that, while I too called for the political 'color' being stripped, you delete my statement in full and then go on to state the same viewpoint, essentially. I do not feel like adding the same statement in there again, so you win, but I do feel that bluntly deleting someone else's viewpoint -- which I did not formulate in a harassing manner, as far as I recall -- is not the way to go. You could have used my talk page to share your point of view and convinced me to edit my original statement instead.

I still feel that the article is (and will be) seriously lacking in reputable originating sources (as I stated in my new comment on the relevant talk page), since it all comes down to this personal blog that might even have conjured it all. Therefore, I am still in full support of deletion. On a humorous note, I would be OK with moving it to the conspiracy theory aggregator page. :)

Kindest regards, Mfhulskemper (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete anything regarding political color being stripped. I only deleted an egregious personal attack. The diff is there for everyone to see; check the AfD. I would never delete a politely expressed viewpoint -this would also be a serious infraction of policy. But this is an uncivil and thus unacceptable personal attack. The rest of your comment, as you can see, is untouched. --Cyclopia^talk 19:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean -- although it was not a personal attack but more of a general reference for people to stop hiding behind anonymous postings (I hope you agree that is not nice in itself :) ). I might have let frustration get the better of me. Doesn't happen that often, thus I am a bit disturbed by my forgetting it. Thanks for the edit; I stand corrected. Keep up the good work.Mfhulskemper (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually an IP address is less anonymous that a nickname, if you think carefully. --Cyclopia^talk 14:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a perfect world with only dedicated IP adresses -- one number per connection -- that would hold true. There still are a lot of people on non-fixed IP numbers worldwide, however. The more hacky types actually prefer them, and do their stuff from behind proxies to boot. :( But we digress. Take care!Mfhulskemper (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cyclopia! I've responded to your comments at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Propose adding guidance on etymology sections. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Finite-difference time-domain method. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks. --Cyclopia^talk 11:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bawitius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scales (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) 19:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ganoine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tissue (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) 11:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]