User talk:CipherRephic/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:CipherRephic. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi CipherRephic! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! --Edcolins (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi :)

I saw you reverted my edit on changing the infobox on the page 2024 United Kingdom general election with the reason "infobox: reverted change from TILE to TIE. to reiterate what the comment at the top says: "here is a consensus to use this infobox style, not Template:Infobox election... do NOT change the infobox without consulting the talk page to change the consensus." no such consultation has occured." I am no one to decide whether we use TILE to TIE. But I have to admit, I found your reasoning somewhat disrespectful. I have multiple times asked for arguments on the talk page for why we use TIE, and there's been a large lack of replies, so it's not true that I'm just chaging the infobox "without consulting". I know there is no consensus on using TILE, so I'm not going to go into any edit war before knowing whether a consensus for it can be reached. The only reason I added it, was because the previous infobox had been deleted, and I believed that an infobox was necessary, so I just added my own preferred version.

I inivite you to join the discussion on the talk page,Talk:2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#What_is_the_significance_of_seats_at_dissolution? so we can gather a better shared consensus on how to use the infobox, and prevent these potential editing wars.

Have a nice day :) @Thomediter Thomediter (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Thomediter Hi there,

Apologies if the edit summary came across as curt, I was just trying to get across the rationale as succinctly as possible. I'm well aware of the extensive discussions around the infobox, particularly on whether to put the seats at dissolution or at GE2019 (for reference, I'd favour seats at GE2019), my issue with switching TILE to TIE (even indirectly) was that there hasn't been a discussion specifically on that since late May that I can find, let alone one that found a consensus in favour of TIE - so, at least as far as I can tell, the consensus to use TILE from Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#Infobox still stands.

Again, sorry if the reversion came across as snippy, and I hope this helps clarify.

CipherRephic (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That's fair, it's all good. It was a small mess yesterday, with the infobox being removed and all, so maybe things just went through a bit too quick, by me too.

@Thomediter Thomediter (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

you can not revert my edits 73.189.125.13 (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I presume that you intended to undo my last edit, which inserted a MOS violation, than all of my edits? I worked on that assumption and fixed the MOS violation. Upd Edit (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Upd Edit Yep, sorry about that. I think it must've been done automatically by RedWarn with the AGF button when I was trying to revert the one edit. CR (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I don't know where to put this, I just wanted to say that I really like your userpage. Have a nice day! Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 22:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! You too :) CR (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

The edit was deliberate. The section removed is an unfounded and partisan edit made by people attempting to attack this institution 62.3.64.157 (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The section is supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia has a duty to reflect these sources - if new sources come out, the section will be changed to reflect that. At the moment it is both apparent and notable that such allegations have been raised, and it is therefore necessary to include these. CR (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Warburg effect (oncology). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bowler the Carmine Sorry if my edits on the topic came across as editwarry, I felt the edits by the IP reasonably constituted vandalism given their persistent blanking of sections relevant to the article. I'm no oncologist, so I'll be steering well clear of that article as it's clearly someone else's minefield to clear up. CR (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You reverted edits on Cranberry as vandalism. [1] It didn't seem like vandalism to me, so I reverted that. I thought you may have been responding to their second edit which looked like it was removing a number of citations, but was just consolidating the details by naming repeat instances of the cites. [2]. I may have missed something, so I'll just leave it to your judgement as to reverting again or not. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Willondon Ah, sorry. Thanks for noticing the error - the second error did indeed look like vandalism to me on first viewing. Absolutely right to revert my rollback. Best, CR (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

	Happy holidays!
	Wishing you a Merry Christmas filled with love and joy, a Happy Holiday season surrounded by warmth and laughter, and a New Year brimming with hope, happiness, and success! 🎄🎉✨ Baqi:) (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello CipherRephic, 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 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2010 Tarco Air Antonov An-24 crash. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @CipherRephic. Would it be possible for you to reconsider your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Tarco Air Antonov An-24 crash and relist the discussion? On the surface, four keeps and one delete might seem like a straightforward keep, however looking at discussion and the strength of the arguments, in my opinion, I don't think a keep closure was warranted, and the discussion could've benefited from more discussion, especially this comment pointing out the flaws of the keep arguments. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Aviationwikiflight I don't think it is possible, since the AfD's now closed, but you can lodge a a deletion review at WP:DRV. Hope this helps! CR (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Yes it helped, I've followed your advice and opened a DRV. The notification should appear below this comment. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@CipherRephic, as an fyi, it's very possible to revert your close and relist a discussion. If someone asks you to do so in the future and you agree, you just need to revert the three edits you made with XFD closer: one on the article, one on its talk page, and one on the AfD itself. Then relist as normal (noting that you had initially closed the discussion and were asked to relist it instead). -- asilvering (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering Oh, damn, is it? That's a troutable mistake right there, no idea where I got that impression. CR (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Dear CipherRephic , I need your help on this one Devanga - bringing this your attention. This is about a particular community of people in Southern parts of India, where i was shocked to see the following statement on that page. While i personally don't beleive in any kind of secorization and ranking of a particular community, i came to know a lot of people from that community have been offended by such ranking called Shudra. Could you please remove the following reference as you would agree that Wikipedia is not a place to rank or make claims that are unverifiable ?

--- statement from the page that needs to be removed ---

They are of Shudra status in the Hindu caste system. However, they use the Devanga Purana, a text sacred to the Devangas, to claim Brahmin status, despite having a non-Brahmin profession. They replaced their native local gotras with Sanskritic gotras. Phenomenological philosopher (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Phenomenological philosopher I think this is one you'd be better off discussing on the talk page - I'm no subject expert, and there might be a local consensus to include this which I'm not aware of. Once you've discussed it and established a consensus you can you the template {{Edit extended-protected}} (just paste that before your message) to request the edit and someone will come along to deal with it. Hope this helps! CR (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Just posting here as I made a small edit to part of your post to fix one of the totals in the infobox. Stray copypasta I expect 😊. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing No problem at all. It looks like there's some dispute as to the vote figure - the full results table and the parliamentary briefing have the 1.8M figure but the short results table has a seperate 1.9M figure. God knows what that's about. Distinct risk we might have stumbled into a Whole Thing. CR (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The BBC results also give the 1.94 figure. The solution is on page 20 of this summary from parliament.uk. It might be worth presenting the same way as they do? (i.e. parties with a footnote). Cambial — foliar❧ 16:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Personally I'm a bit sceptical of that - I reckon we should just present the GPEW results as one party. The GE2010 infobox doesn't include UCU-NF in the Tory vote count, and that actually was the Tories, so lumping in two seperate parties with GPEW seems a bit unreasonable. Could have a bit like the next general election infobox which clarifies that it's just GPEW rather than including Scotland or GPNI? CR (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

We should just reflect what most RS do on their election results pages. BBC lump them together but others may list them separately. (FT combines but comes up with yet another different number haha) Cambial — foliar❧ 22:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing going off precedent, all of the European Parliament election infoboxes (afaik, the only national elections with the greens in the infobox) counted exclusively GPEW votes - GPEW are also presented seperately on the next general election infobox, but that's sui generis as TILE rather than TIE. CR (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)