User talk:Agyle

Hello, Agyle! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —EncMstr 06:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hm.

Hi. Been editing various pages, usually as I'm researching something and come across more info than is in Wikipedia. Nobody's left any comments here, other than automated ones, but feel free to be the first! -Agyle 08:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hi Agyle, and welcome to WP! Thanks for opening up discussion on the lead to Renewable energy. I'll probably wait a few days, to see what others think, and then reply... regards, Johnfos 01:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

Hi Agyle, have noticed your name popping up and hope you are settling in to WP. I've been continuing to try to bring Renewable energy into line, as one day I would like to see it become a Good Article. But it is very large and unwieldy, and the reference formatting needs a lot of work. BTW, what is your special area of interest? -- Johnfos 08:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have scattered interests, mostly scientific, and lately more energy-related. My background is in electrical/computer engineering. I've designed portable electronics devices, and have an off-grid vacation cabin, so have some first-hand familiarity with small-scale energy-related topics.

Renewable energy is a tough article...it's big and I think includes a bit too much detail (arguably trivia) in some areas (e.g. Renewable_energy#Onsite_renewable_technologies or perhaps Renewable_energy#Aviation_applications), and US-centric subtle policy advocacy (e.g. Renewable_energy#Concluding_comment), which seems difficult to remove with editorial consensus. I have a hunch the article also harbors more plagiarism; the material I removed yesterday was lifted directly from cited sources, but much of the article lacks citations, making fact-checking and plagiarism detection harder.

I've created a couple new articles (recently charge controller), which seems a nice change of pace from editing large controversial articles, although some big controversial articles seem much more important, since poor quality can lead to widely-dispersed misinformation. While checking for plagiarism in the wiki article, I more often found other websites relying on the wiki article extensively, so a mistake can propagate widely, and outlast its inclusion in wikipedia's article. -Agyle 21:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IM AN IDIOT

Common Cold

Thanks for fixing the italicized quotations in the CC page. Mea culpa - I did not know the style. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 21:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked that up, as the italics seemed unusual, and in the process read a few unrelated details I was doing incorrectly; I'm sure we both have more to learn! Though while it's good info to know, I consider details like that, or even mistakes in grammar and spelling, less important than clear, accurate, well sourced-writing. Someone who knows the rules can copy-edit quickly, compared to the time spent researching. -Agyle 21:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on the vit c megadosage, incidentally, are you aware of the <nowiki></nowiki> tags? Allows Cat to be [[Cat]] WLU 23:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yep, that would have been a better way of explaining it. :-) I use nowikis sometimes, just didn't occur to me there. -Agyle 01:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virus classification sources

I use International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses Database, or sometimes the MeSH Browser. Hope these help, Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 04:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethanol

As you probably know, I'm the one who restored the {{fact}} flag you put into the lead of ethanol. As you probably also know, the article lost its GA rating recently. I am working on improving it to regain the rating. My opinion on the "drug" statement is that it doesn't belong in the lead.

I invite you to look at User:Karlhahn/ethanol051208 to track my effort. And please provide any feedback you think might be useful. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 21:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daikon

Responding to your inquiry of what my footnote ref sourced: thanks for pointing this out. The reference is confusing in this form, and as you had good reason to question, I did not take the time to confirm the facts pre-existing in the article's sentence before sourcing and adding the other terms to it. That reference does not make the claim that winter squash is one common name, but I did find another online which I can add as a footnote also: raphanus.Professor marginalia 00:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

columbian red

If you want to expand it, please expand the section within the Panama Red article. As the result of the AFD debate, columbian red was merged into panama red. I've reverted the recreation of the article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The debate result listed [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Columbian_Red|here] by admin (User:JForget) was "no consensus." I was editing the article during the time it was merged, beefing up the one-sentence stub to a few paragraphs with references, and the edit conflict was honestly unintentional. But doesn't JForget mean it doesn't require merging/deletion? My impression is that the majority opinion (out of five) was that most or all cannabis varieties should be in a single article, but there are 28 other articles, requiring more input on such a merge; until that happens, just including this single strain in such an article would seem odd. I don't think anyone meant Columbian Red should be merged with Panama Red (the articles claim a genetic link, but that's questionable and unreferenced). One alternative, short of merging all 28 strains into an article, might be to create a Columbian (cannabis cultivars) article, as there are several cultivated varieties of Columbian cannabis. What do you think? -Agyle 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to delete. Merging is clear consensus from the comments made at the deletion debate. This debate was not about the broader "lets merge all of the cannabis strains into a single article", it was solely about this particular strain. If I misread the consensus, and they actually meant "merge with Cannabis Strains article" then that's my mistake, and feel free to merge it into that one instead. I read it as "merge into panama red". Feel free to move this one into the main cannabis strains article if you'd like. However, it's pretty clear at this point that the consensus is that it does not merit its own page at this time. (and even with the beefed up information, it's still not establishing notability beyond what would be inherent if it were merged with one of the other two pages). ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where to merge is the question. Your suggestion to merge it into another cannabis strain article would make sense, but I couldn't find an established connection between Columbian red and any other strain. Merging it into a more general Cannabis Strains article would make sense too, but it doesn't exist. The only hierarchy is that it's a strain of the species Cannabis sativa, but that article currently mentions no specific strains. I'll create Columbian (cannabis cultivars) to cover different Columbian strains, if that sounds ok to you. -Agyle 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I noticed this discussion and thought I'd drop in my two cents. I was getting the clear impression that the consensus was to merge, even though I strongly disagree with that. I wondered why it was closed with "no consensus". Anyway, I think the expanded stub (good job, Agyle!) still deserves its own article. Like I noted at the debate, every taxa is notable, including cultivars. We even have an {{Infobox Cultivar}} for such articles. --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agyle, can you maybe pick a better name? Other than that, no objection. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I'll use Columbian (marijuana), as that's the plainest way of uniquely describing it. Thanks for the input. -Agyle 05:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for deletion, but I could have mentionned that a merge was necessary although I wasn't sure with which article it should have been merged so I have refrained on mentioning it on the closing. Obviously with a one-line sentence it looks always better to have it merged--JForget 23:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I see it is has been merged with Panama Red.--JForget 23:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Guard

By all means, if you want to add your personal perspective to the "official name" of the unit called The Old Guard please communicate to the mediator Tariqabjotu on their talk page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Tariqabjotu in order to see if you can add your name and position on the formal mediation page. -TabooTikiGod 05:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'll just watch. :-) I don't know the official name, and don't think it's a matter for subjective opinion, so I'll stay out of it. I did some internet searching, but came up empty. There aren't a lot of military-produced texts on the web yet, but I bet Google will get around to scanning books from a public military library in a couple years, which may help digital researching in matters like this. -Agyle 05:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already done my research and came up with some valid sources, see Mediation Page for my summary of the topic. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/3rd_US_Infantry If you feel that this logic and reasoning is valid then I would encourage you to voice your opinion on the mediation page. -TabooTikiGod 13:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider your sources suggestive but unconvincing on the question of an official name, to be honest, but also consider sources for the other positions unconvincing. If anything, I thought your sources suggested "3d Infantry Regiment" rather than "3d Infantry." But I have no other sources to add, and my opinion is only that the sources given do not clearly indicate the official name. I don't think that opinion would be of any use to the moderators; they have the same information, and will form their own opinions. -Agyle 22:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in your findings, Argyle. Regardless of how the name of the unit is listed at whatever source, the signifier, Regiment, is part of the official name, in order to avoid confusion with the 3rd Infantry Division. The Old Guard is one of very few regiments of Infantry (and besides the 75th Infantry Regt. (Rangers) -- and off-hand I can't immediately think of another -- which operates independent of a Division level command. That regiment falls under the umbrella of the USSOC, while the Old Guard is under the command of MDW. Ryecatcher773 02:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK newspaper reliability

Ping! --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 08:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snarl! --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 08:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ping! and Pong! --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 10:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 13:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cracked this now! --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 15:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civilitapology

I completely misread something you posted at WT:MOSNUM and responded rather testily, for which I apologize. I self-reverted the ankle bite. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of palettes article rewritten

Hello. I expanded so much the List of palettes article, to a point to need... FIVE specific separated articles more! so the original article now simply acts as a kind of main index. I hope you'll enjoy all of them. Yours.Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:VHSV_in_Great_Lakes_region_as_of_July_2007.png

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:VHSV_in_Great_Lakes_region_as_of_July_2007.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Rosaniline hydrochloride.png

File:Rosaniline hydrochloride.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Rosaniline hydrochloride.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Rosaniline hydrochloride.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good news - DYK nomination of Turkestan cockroach

Hello Agyle! Just a quick note to let you know that another user, Tentinator (talk · contribs), has nominated your new article Turkestan cockroach to appear on the 'Did you know' section of the main page. I've reviewed the nomination and have passed it, so keep an eye out for it on the main page soon. Nice work on that article, keep it up! :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 21:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding primary sources to bruxism

Per MEDRS we should not use primary sources. At least you do not claim any efficacy and have merely added these drugs to the list of drugs which have been studied... but please use a secondary or tertiary source. Also you are entering the url in the doi field of the cite journal template. The doi is not the same as the url.

[1] ^{[non-primary source needed]}
[2] ^{[non-primary source needed]}
[3] ^{[non-primary source needed]} + WP:MEDDATE

Please review MEDRS when selecting sources to support medical content on Wikipedia. Thank you, Lesion (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Turkestan cockroach

On 24 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Turkestan cockroach, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Turkestan cockroaches are replacing crickets as feeder insects? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Turkestan cockroach. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Harrias ^talk 00:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Hay!

Nice work sourcing the bit on haystacks in the hay section -- I'm good with adding sources to that article, as I've nipped and tucked at it for years, but have not had the gumption to tackle an overall improvement drive on it. The main thing is to realize how widely different techniques are throughout the world, and particularly between wet (UK/Europe) and dry (USA/Australia) climates. Anyway, if you continue to have interest in the topic, I'll continue to try and be of help. God knows I've fed and stacked enough of it. Just was laid up for a while last year when I fell with a small square bale (well, it wasn't small, that was the problem, it was an 80-lb bale!) and badly sprained my ankle... might have broken something but was too stubborn to go to the doctor... it's mostly better now, though...Montanabw^(talk) 22:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care with Rainbow trout article

Agyle, the Rainbow trout article just went through the Good Article nomination process, is currently under peer review in advance of a Featured Article nomination. I removed the boldface for steelhead based on the fact that it is merely a form of rainbow trout, not a subspecies. Before the GA, the article was very biased toward steelhead and had a lot of inaccuracies. I'd like to keep it moving forward to FA status and will rely on the peer review advice in doing so. Thanks. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see eliminating bold to de-emphasize it as unimportant, but if the article can't even tolerate the use of the term "steelhead trout," it should re-split into a couple-sentence stub that effectively explains it's a an insignificant form of rainbow trout, with a link to the the main article. Like it or not, steelhead trout is an extremely common term, and pretending it doesn't even exist is counter-informative. --Agyle (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article pretends that "steelhead" doesn't exist, it just balances the use of the term in context with its relationship to rainbow trout. The term is used throughout the article in nearly every major section. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't clear enough, I was referring to the reversion of “steelhead trout” back to “steelhead”, and that's the term that appears nowhere on the article, despite it being a common (in my opinion) term that redirects to the article. I understand that either are common names with no authoritative recognition or definition, but a scholar.google.com search of primarily scientific literature suggests steelhead is used about as commonly with the word trout as without...I show 19,900 hits for "steelhead trout" (with quotation marks), 710 for "steelhead rainbow trout", and 22,700 for "steelhead" -"steelhead trout" -"steelhead rainbow trout". (Note that "steelhead rainbow trout" includes punctuated variations like "steelhead/rainbow trout" or "steelhead (rainbow) trout"). And that's not even getting into the commonly spoken vernacular “steelies,” which I'd also consider worthy of encyclopedic mention, but that may well reflect my regional Michigan bias. :-) --Agyle (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Input on new standards for cryptocurrency articles on Wikipedia needed.

Since you seem to be heavily involved in the area, I would like your opinion on potential new standards regarding altcoins on Wikipedia. You can find the debate at Talk:Cryptocurrency#The_Crypto_Question_-_New_Standards. Best regards, Citation Needed | Talk 20:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalizing the Maya calendar and Long count articles

Seriously, You just removed text supported by citations to the gold standard of Maya research, Schele and Stuart. Are you even reading this stuff before deleting it? Do you know anything about this subject or is this just vandalism? Senor Cuete (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The citations I removed linked to personal websites and other self-published material. I did not read the entirity of the sources. The authors, based on my searches, do not seem to be recognized experts, or independently published in any related fields. I am guessing that you mean these self-published sources in turn cited reliable sources, which does not make the self-published sources reliable. If I'm wrong, and I did remove citations from Schele and Stuart, it was an accident. I have responded in detail to the removals in the Talk sections of the two articles. The edits were made in good faith, in accordance with my understanding of WP:SPS (Self-Published Sources), were succinctly but clearly explained in my edit comments, and are in no way vandalism. Please remember Wikipedia's suggestion to assume good faith (WP:GOODFAITH) from fellow contributors. ––Agyle (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acetominophen/Paracetamol

I apologize for over-reacting today. Paracetamol has been a much longer slog than I expected. I would have left it alone if I'd known it would be this much work, and I let my frustration get away from me.Formerly 98 (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skaneateles Lake

Nice work on re-doing the copyvio material on this article. I was going to do it myself in a day or so: the editor who put it in is a college student who's doing it for a grade, so I was seeing if they would clean it up or not. That's no matter, though.

One thing - be careful with US government material. It's true that it's not copyrighted and is in the public domain, but using it one can still run afoul of WP:PLAGIARISM if the material is not rewritten. Best, BMK (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inedia

I accidently reverted your edits which I restored again, sorry.--Jondel (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cariblatta lutea page

Hello. Thank you for finding all that information for the Cariblatta lutea page and for advice and fixing the problems! I am sorry about the mistakes I make. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Cariblatta_lutea Happy1892 (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Happy1892Happy1892 (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Removal of Darkcoin and Zetacoin

I wondered what qualifies you to remove Darkcoin and Zetacoin from the table in the Crypto-currencies wiki? I had a weird feeling that somebody with no knowledge of the matter would do this.

You've allowed many copycat coins to remain in the table, which have no notable features, and are currently used only by 'pump and dump' speculators. Again, why is this? You have also allowed coins with massive premines like Auroracoin to remain in the table. How do you consider Auroracoin 'notable' when most experts consider it to be a scamcoin? Did you speak to any actual experts before deciding to allow Auroracoin to remain, but taking out Darkcoin and Zetacoin?

Or do you see this table as 'first come first served.' As in, you're just assuming that all the recent additions are scams, even though you have no evidence whatsoever to back up this assertion?

Please explain your position. I'm fed up with self-appointed authority figures on Wikipedia, who have no technical knowledge on the subject at hand, messing around with perfectly valid entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbentolila (talk • contribs) 15:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David, I have no special authority on Wikipedia. Anyone can edit articles on Wikipedia, and how an article is shaped by multiple editors generally comes down to consensus opinions. The consensus of Cryptocurrency's editors who expressed an opinion on the topic felt that inclusion in the table of "notable cryptocurrencies" should be based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Regarding my decisions to remove Darkcoin and Zetacoin from Cryptocurrency#Notable cryptocurrencies's table, but keep Auroracoin, I explained my reasons in Talk:Cryptocurrency#Tentatively removing Zetacoin and Darkcoin from chart. I don't decide which articles are kept or deleted: one person nominates an article for deletion, anyone can contribute their opinions, and an administrator makes the decision. In Auroracoin's discussion, somebody else nominated the article for deletion, I was one of seven people who unanimously responded that it should be kept, and an admin decided it should be kept. In Zetacoin's discussion, I nominated the article for deletion, two people have unanimously agreed (one suggested merge & delete), and no decision has been reached. Regarding Darkcoin, no article was created.

Regarding the suggestion that Auroracoin is a scam, that's irrelevant to keeping an article, though an MP's opinion that it's a scam is included in Auroracoin's article.

Regarding the suggestion that I apply a "first come first served" standard, in AfD discussions I suggested keeping the recently-introduced Auroracoin, and deleting the older Primecoin. I do not consider their relative age.

Regarding the suggestion that I have no knowledge of cryptocurrencies, I read about the topic on a nearly daily basis.

Regarding the suggestion that I have no technical knowledge, I hold a BSE in computer engineering from the University of Michigan, and have many years of experience in software and hardware engineering.

Regards, Agyle (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are already too many crypto-currencies and every week a dozen or so new ones are disclosed. You're obviously an expert about them and if you tell me not to create a new entry about an European one, I'll follow your advice since it's frustrating to work on texts soon fully deleted. The novelty of this eventual entry is not to match it with the most recent altcoins but the novelty is about an historical point of view.

The vatiCoin was imho created before all the now so popular national coins such as the auroracoin we've both voted to keep. Regards. ONaNcle (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ONaNcle, I have experienced the frustration of working on articles that are deleted. I tend to work less on articles that are very popular, as they can devolve into petty bickering over trivial issues (e.g., Bitcoin), but editing articles of marginal notability always carries that risk. Judging notability doesn't require technical expertise, but guessing which articles will pass an AfD discussion is still difficult.

If a cryptocurrency topic seems questionable, I would create it as a draft, for example Draft:NXT, and mention it in Talk:Cryptocurrency in case anyone else would like to contribute. Drafts do not get deleted, and can allow work to begin before a topic is clearly notable, or before reliable sources are located.

Vaticoin may have been earlier, but obviously lacked the press coverage of Auroracoin. Everyone is trying to duplicate Auroracoin's success, but I think it depended to a certain extent on the Icelandic government's unusual position of restricting/forbidding both their normal currency and cryptocurrencies from being traded outside the country.

Regards, Agyle (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your quick answer and your advices. I don't feel proud at all about this draft http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Auroracoin&oldid=601544587#Similar_alternative_currencies but it's just a start... ~~

Agyle, you're my hero

I edit on many of the same articles as you, though not with the same steady quality and quantity. I always appreciate your contributions. Thank you. Chris Arnesen 01:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris! :-) Likewise, I notice your edits try to stick to reliable sources, adding and removing material objectively. We've disagreed on some subjective calls, but it's nice having another NPOV WP:RS supporter for the important stuff. I tried editing Bitcoin a bit, but burned out already; too many people trying to promote/demote certain viewpoints. You have more patience than me! Agyle (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your work at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vertcoin and other cryptocurrency articles. really top notch stuff. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, thanks Hell Bucket. :-) Vertcoin was just a mess of non-RS cites. I looked at MazaCoin afterwards, also up for [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MazaCoin AfD], expecting the same, but was surprised it was like the opposite: a bunch of mainstream media coverage not even discussed yet. Looks like you're all over the topic spectrum on Wikipedia too...my main hangouts are obscure natural science articles; so much less controversy! ;-) ––Agyle (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I have to be a jerk since I just discovered your damage to the Vertcoin article via http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Vertcoin&oldid=612302422 . How diligently did you have to misread the removed content to misinterpret it as alleging that Bitcoin uses scrypt? Obviously you guys are nuts about original sources at all costs (wherein publishing anything elsewhere becomes "Wikiality"), but then pointing to the project page itself for every individual fact becomes 'advertising' and it becomes impossible to create a useful factual article. 108.58.216.74 (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parcoblatta divisa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lobatae (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) 08:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bowman

Hi. Good job on this edit. I am glad to see somebody improved upon it. However your comment should have been simply 'Added Main template pointing to Bowman Gum, reworked introductory paragraph'. The rest of the comment comes off as arrogant. It was infact an excerpt from a larger work that I wrote. An earlier part of that work was used in 1940s Bowman. The articles I did on Topps might also sound like one long article as well if you put them all together. It was a research project that I was shifting over to wikipedia but it has long since been set aside. So I agree it does sound jarring when out of context. Anyway it was a great improvement but remember to keep things classy by making a purely factual statement about the edit instead of an opinion piece. Libro0 (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gastropod taxonomy

Thank you so much for taking an in-depth interest in gastropod articles and their taxonomy. I do apologize because our template note had become out-of-date and confusing; I have changed it. WoRMS is without question our reliable source for taxonomy of marine gastropods. The article on changes in gastropod taxonomy since 2005 is now rather out of date and should no longer be used as a guide. But thanks very much for your edits and notes because without them we would not have realized we needed to change the template! Very best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed your edits on pages relating to Gastropods; perhaps you'd be interested in joining WikiProject Gastropods?
If you would like more information, please visit the project page or the project talk page.

Alpine Chough

I've undone your last edit to this, with a reason. If you aren't happy with that, let me know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Draft:Ripple Labs, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Donald Sterling may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

family and had "told Mr. Sterling that she would 'get even'" with him.<ref name=lat20140426>{{cite news | last=Knoblauch | first=Austin | date=April 26, 2014 | work=The Los Angeles Times |

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re: Vax gold key

Hello — Thanks for your contribution to the article currently titled “Vax gold key”, and especially for the photo. I discovered this two-sentence stub a few weeks ago and decided to help it out, including a request to change its name, since it's not VAX-specific. I think it could be a small but useful component of Wikipedia. At the moment there's an AfD countdown timer to deal with; I plan to add a number of incremental edits in the hopes of improving it at least to the point where its value is more obvious. I would certainly be receptive to any other ideas you might have towards improved content and/or saving it from the bit bucket. 50.181.30.121 (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yeah, I came across it through the Deletion discussion. I can see other areas where content could be added, but the deletion discussion seems to hinge more on notability, rather than its current content. I'm not planning on further additions, as it seems to have a decent chance of being deleted regardless. Agyle (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, always welcome to state a preference in the AfD discussion. So far I believe there are only three, including myself and the editor who filed the AfD nomination, which seems rather few on which to base a decision. Another informed voice could only help. 50.181.30.121 (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 25 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Bully Kutta page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gaelcoin

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Draft:Gaelcoin, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Gaelcoin. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Agyle. Unfortunately, you can't copy content from deleted pages on Wikipedia unless you can name every contributor to it - Wikipedia doesn't own content, the contributors do. :) It looks like the bulk of this text was added by User:AntonieGeerts, but there are other contributors as well. I'll restore the history list and merge the pages to correct this copyright problem. In the future, please make sure that you either take the history with you or otherwise provide necessary attribution to the individuals. You can read more about this at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and are welcome to stop by my talk page if you have any questions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reddcoin

Hi, I see that you have been involved in other cryptocurrency wikipedia pages. Can you work with me to determine what on the Reddcoin page can be maintained from what is currently posted. Reddcoin is in much the same place as Vertcoin in terms of development and press coverage, and Vertcoin seems to be satisfactory. Thanks. --bigreddmachine (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I didn't find vertcoin satisfactory, and I also don't see reddcoin as having adequate independent RS coverage to meet general notability guidelines (GNG) either. The forexminute.com article seems like it may be a reliable source. Many Wikipedia editors accept anything as a reliable source, but according to WP:RS, forum posts, blog posts, amateur websites and the like just don't count. Primary sources like reddcoin.com can be cited, but are not counted toward the GNG requirements. I think promoters would make better use of their time tailoring stories to entice normal news organizations like The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal to cover Reddcoin. After they publish stories, a Wikipedia article on the subject would be easy to justify. Agyle (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - What is the next course of action to take then? I don't see how Vertcoin and some other currencies can be allowed when the same justification that limits coins like Reddcoin applies to them. What is the final process for approving/disapproving a page? I appreciate your help and can see your points, but I would like everything to be treated fairly and equally. If the page is taken down, is there an other location where Reddcoin might be able to be listed - even just as one line - until such time as there is adequate press coverage? --bigreddmachine (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between articles, as far as notability judgments, are often inconsistent. This happens when small numbers of people respond, and for gray-area topics it can admittedly be very arbitrary which way the decisions go. I'd say this article has maybe a 25% chance of surviving this AfD nomination. Most current cryptocurrency articles clearly meets GNG criteria; while Wikipedia articles like Dogecoin attract ever-accumulating non-RS references that should doubtless be removed, its core is based on articles in the LA Times, the Guardian, CNN, NBC News, CoinDesk, and half a dozen other established news sites. Vertcoin has only one, the International Business Times, but surprisingly that was deemed sufficient to meet GNG. There is never really a "final process" on Wikipedia, since a removed article can be reproposed when new coverage comes out, or an approved article can be renominated for deletion a while later (though it can be frowned upon if it's done frivolously). If it is deleted, I would wait for more clearly reliable-source coverage of the topic before trying again. There's really nowhere else that I think Reddcoin would be usefully mentioned in Wikipedia at this point, as it just doesn't seem noteworthy to independent sources. Auroracoin caught a lot of press because of its nationalistic hook, and Mazacoin kind of followed on its coattails, but other 2014-launched alt coins have needed to do something fundamentally different to attract much notice (e.g., Ethereum). Alt coins like Vertcoin and Reddcoin seem to offer almost no innovation, just minor adjustments to standard parameters, and have little purpose other than the creator and early adopters trying to make money off later investors. Reddcoin's "use it to tip people on social media" comes several years after Bitcoin was used to tip people on social media. Maybe it will catch on due to better UI integration; time will tell, but it hasn't caught on in independent media so far. One way to try and game the system is to cause a quick price jump, which can be done a number of ways; IBT, ForexMagnates, and ForexMinute are prone to provide coverage even for some temporary price manipulation, and being idiotic news sources they treat any spikes as signs of popularity. Agyle (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bitcoin Foundation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

” <ref>{{cite news | work=Business Insider | last=Williams | first=Mark T. | date=25 February 2014) | url=http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-williams-bitcoin-lehman-brothers-type-event-2014-2 |

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to UFO sightings in outer space may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

to some sort of UFO.<ref>{{cite web|author=Oberg, James|title=Gemini-7: Lessons and Legends (A 30th Anniversary Revisit – "Formation Flying", "Lessons Learned" Later, and one "Bogey"|url=http:/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to International Organization for a Participatory Society may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

could mean different things to different people; need reliable cite for their later decision." }} In March 2012 a website for the interim organization was established.<ref>{{cite web | title =

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions

Hi, Agyle -- Sorry I let our conversation lapse back in March at WT:PLANTS on the implementation of the WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD category hierarchy. I've made a start at doing this for a bit of North America and Central and Western Asia. You had a few points that I never did respond to. Since you seem to be an active editor with an interest in this, I thought you might like to help. Perhaps you're not convinced of its merits yet. Anyway, I think it's better than the alternative (category clutter). I've made some progress on proposals for disassembling, upmerging, and redirecting categories that aren't included in the WGSRPD hierarchy. There appears to be a lot of overlap currently and it should be dealt with. Each category requires an explanation on what regions are included and excluded. For a good example, see Category:Flora of Subarctic America. Perhaps we can keep the conversation at the talk page for WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD and notify the main project when we have a good collection of proposals. I'm not a particularly active editor at the moment, but I'd appreciate any thoughts you have. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 23:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	When I see a bulk list of 20-30 citations, I know who posted it before I even look at the signature. I may disagree with you fairly often, but there's no denying your dedication and knowledge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breatharianism

Could we add a smaller bit that is well documented (noted in specific articles of Therese Neumann and Giri Ball for example in Wikipedia itself) ? --

Book Source is here noted in paragraph (a rather well-known book) Paramahansa Yogananda, in his "Autobiography of a Yogi" (published by Self-Realization Fellowship), reports that he met Therese Neumann and that from 1923 until her death in 1962, she consumed no food other than The Holy Eucharist, and claimed to have drunk no water from 1926 until her death. It is noted that on July 1927 a medical doctor and four Franciscan nurses kept a watch on her 24 hours a day for a two-week period. They confirmed that she had consumed nothing except for one consecrated sacred Host a day, and had suffered no ill effects, loss of weight, or dehydration. Yogananda also reports meeting Giri Bala when she was 68. At that time she had not eaten nor taken fluids for over 56 years and existed purely on Light.

B) below on Inedia page, under Hinduism is noted Therese Neumann -- yet, she was not Hindu but a Catholic (Christian) Mystic. Perhaps this could be moved to the Christian Section. There is an article on Wikipedia on her and this can be included also: Paramahansa Yogananda, in his "Autobiography of a Yogi" (published by Self-Realization Fellowship), reports that he met Therese Neumann and that from 1923 until her death in 1962, she consumed no food other than The Holy Eucharist, and claimed to have drunk no water from 1926 until her death. It is noted that on July 1927 a medical doctor and four Franciscan nurses kept a watch on her 24 hours a day for a two-week period. They confirmed that she had consumed nothing except for one consecrated sacred Host a day, and had suffered no ill effects, loss of weight, or dehydration.

Autobiography of a Yogi is an autobiography of Paramahansa Yogananda (January 5, 1893–March 7, 1952) first published in 1946.

Disambiguation link notification for June 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Busboy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Server (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) 08:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MeowBit

Howdy. Some trademark lawyer site talked about MeowBit as a way to view dot-bit domains. Does this meet your standards? http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=1e64678d-266c-4bb3-858f-ab1381f878d7 i.e. if I put MeowBit back on the dot-bit and Namecoin pages with that as the citation are you going to delete it? Thank you. ElizaBarrington (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eliza. Unfortunately, I would challenge that being a reliable source. While it's an indication of independent notability, the article (listed as a "blog") is significantly wrong, and WP:RS calls for a "reputation for fact-checking". The sentence on MeowBit says: "A ‘.bit’ domain registration costs around seven cents and the sites are not accessible using traditional web browsers – instead users have to download free software – such as MeowBit – in order to view these sites using Windows browsers." The two main errors, obviously, are that the sites are accessible using traditional web browsers, and no additional software is required.

I looked at other coverage of MeowBit, but didn't see any I'd consider a reliable source. Some editors suggest that CryptocoinsNews (as a whole) is reliable, but this article is also egregiously wrong: "It’s impossible to access .bit domains without either a Firefox and Chrome plugin or a piece of software called MeowBit." CCN's frequency of errors distinguishes it from publications like Bitcoin Magazine or CoinDesk, which I consider generally reliable sources; both are cited in Namecoin, in fact.

FreeSpeechMe/MeowBit promoters may also want to consider issuing a press release, as a way to attract coverage, and control the message so that accurate information is more likely to go out. I don't think either made it out of beta, so perhaps the occasion of a 1.0 release for either, if it comes, would be a good time to do that. Or perhaps owners of one of the namecoin or dot bit websites would be interested in a cross-promotional joint press release; dot-bit.org already provides info on FreeSpeechMe on its front page, so may be more amenable to cooperation than its competitors. Agyle (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Becca Stevens changes

Hi, thanks for these. Do you work for Stevens? Some of your changes make the article sound like an advertisement so I'm reverting back and Wikifying. Feel free to ask me anything.--Aichik (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aichik, no, I have no connection to subject, and first read of the person a couple days ago in the AfD nomination. I'm an active Wikipedia editor, and lately have been evaluating AfD nominations in the web/internet/tech categories; what I viewed as a careless AfD nominator on a tech topic led me to look at their other recent nominations, which included this biographical subject.

Writing about the recognition/honors a person has received tends to be somewhat inherently promotional-sounding, which I'm guessing is what you found ad-like. I appreciate your edits, though personally I preferred the paragraph form to a bulleted list, as I thought it better handled the distinction between what is referred to as an award versus being "named" something, and better distinguished when there were multiple winners or people named. While lists are great for larger or more complex collections of information, I'm a fan of prose in Wikipedia where practical. No big deal though, just a stylistic preference.

Thanks for the note. ––Agyle (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of GameSpot

As I agree with your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gry-Online, I added notability template to GameSpot, but I was reverted ([4]). Perhaps you'd like to AfD it? (If you reply here, please echo me, thanks). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. I think notability is a valid question for the subject, due to lack of references to independent in-depth coverage, but many editors misinterpret the term to mean popularity (e.g., "it's got a top 1000 Alexa rating, so it's notable!"), and I think it would be fighting a losing battle to even raise the question. It is clearly a popular, often-cited website, and its Webby awards satisfy one of the tests of website notability; the only thing it lacks is significant coverage, and even that might be met with the vast number of short but non-trivial coverage taken as a whole. The article is unfortunately based almost exclusively on Gamespot sources, skipping over and downplaying controversies that others covered, but that's not a notability problem. Here are a few links if you're interest; I think the first Forbes link is the only piece I might call significant coverage on its own, but others do offer some coverage, and Wired had a number of short articles on different aspects of the company.

––Agyle (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this analysis. I think it is valuable, and the links would be useful if posted on article's talk. Since you also raise the issue of biased coverage, I think you may want to raise this there as well, and tag the article with NPOV template. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Esoteric programming languages

*Sigh* Thanks for making me hate the world a little bit more. --Ørjan (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ørjan, I'm sorry that you're unhappy or angry. I'm not sure what specifically triggered this, but I'd guess it was the removal of unverifiable information. While I'm not sorry about that, its side effect of causing unhappiness is unfortunate. ––Agyle (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That and the removal of every mention of the esolang wiki and its surrounding community, just because no one else seems to mention us. The only thing in the external links section is now the ridiculously outdated DMOZ page... --Ørjan (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Busboy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scared Stiff (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) 08:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mass LDS nomination

It doesn't look like your mass LDS leaders nomination is going to succeed (much as I want it to). I think we're going to have to go back to nomming one at a time. p bp 20:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pbp, perhaps; I think it depends on whether the closer bases the decision more on the arguments, or more on headcount, the same as with the individual AfDs. (In other words, whether the closer follows WP:CLOSEAFD or not.) Nobody has cited any independent reliable sources, or presented a different argument from in the individual AfD deletions. I think the only difference in bundled nominations is they attract more people dedicated to keeping articles regardless of Wikipedia guidelines, since there are more sympathetic editors who had followed changes to one of the various nominated articles, while the neutral editors who stumble upon the nomination in the biography AfD list will be the same as for an individually-nominated article. It's too bad the AfD guidelines preclude indicating bundled AfDs in their title...appending "(13 articles)" would attract the attention of more editors, which I think is appropriate for AfDs that consider a larger number of articles. ––Agyle (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the closing nom close as delete or redirect? Absolutely. Will he/she? I doubt it. The headcount is pretty strongly keep, and admins are loathed to go one way when there's a strong headcount another way. What will likely happen is this will be closed as no consensus without any prejudice to re-nomming individually or to merging. p bp 22:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected, the nomination was closed as no consensus without prejudice toward individual renomination. I am going to nominate a couple of them individually. p b p 13:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you check out the individual renoms of the LDS official articles. p bp 20:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Selkirk

Hello Agyle, We both have had issues with user Gulliver on the Alexander Selkirk article. He seems to be demonstrating ownership of the article WP:OWN. His editing seems contentious and he appears to not be concerned with consensus. I advised him so on his talk page. I agree that the google book links should be included as well. His motivtion for removing them is weak. It is much easier for someone to verify a source when it is easily accessible. Some do not like that idea that someone could interpret the source differently and edit out their interpretation. Some feel they must own an article. I will add some discussion to the talk page supporting that position. 172.56.11.89 (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus in your favor if you want to restore the links. I would but I do not want to appear as engaging in a edit war with Gulliver. 172.56.11.89 (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agyle, I restored your links as I had only 1 revert so I now have 2RR and that is it for me for awhile. I will start a ANI if he does another Revert today as it would be his third and also because of ownership concerns. Good Luck and feel free to contact me via talk page. 172.56.11.89 (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agyle, I posted a nice warning on gulliver's talk page here: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr.Gulliver&oldid=618918006#Edit_warring_and_ownership_concerns_on_Alexander_Selkirk

Inevitability thesis

Just thought that I'd let you, as a participant, know that based upon the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inevitability thesis, I have somewhat boldly turned Inevitability thesis into a disambiguation page. See also Talk:Inevitability thesis. --Bejnar (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

proposed deletion of Anthropod

You might want to see this page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropod (2nd nomination) Llightex (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I invite you to help me judge this matter on cryptocurrency?

I recently removed Blackcoin from the crypto, and another user quickly came and undo my editting. Claiming he has 'more expereince'. However, his edits lacks credit, when I look further into the matter, I realize he was the same person that previously tried to 'stop Blackcoin's page from deletion', he claims his sources on the blackcoin page as from 'Reuters' and 'wall street journal', when the reuter one was a press release, and the wall street journal release was a blog. (I have also stated so in the blackcoin talk page now.) Same user also previously tried to added Blackcoin to cryptocurrency and kinda ignored other users asking him to wait and just added it anyway. (he cited blackcoin page valid, hence can add blackcoin to the table, when my above discoveries just shows blackcoin references are all blogs) For my discoveries on blackcoin reference, I am trying to discuss on blackcoin page, if you have time, I will like you to take a look too. I hope inviting others to take a look as a 3rd party judge is the right thing to do here. WinterstormRage (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad User Agyle is away from our wikis for months now ; he was indeed the one to know more about the policy dealing with altcoins such as auroracoin (my favorite) and even Vaticoin, the surrealist one. ONaNcle (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed too bad then. Can sure use someone that has an expert say, cause there are too many sabotagers that knows wiki rules and hide behind them. (sigh) WinterstormRage (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WinterstormRage, you have already been warned about your personal attacks and disruptive behaviour. Making repeated unsubstantiated claims that other editors are saboteurs will get you blocked. Greenman (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The personal attacks happened before the main warning and User Winter will soon learn about wiki policies ; we all know how frustrating it is to keep an entry we don't like ; the second death of deletionpedia made me use other mirror sites and whatever vert black or purple coin doesn't suit... it could be included outside the main wiki. ONaNcle (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nxt for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nxt is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nxt (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Auroracoin

Draft:Auroracoin, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Auroracoin and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Auroracoin during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Vitalik Buterin

An article that you have been involved in editing—Vitalik Buterin —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of cockroaches of the United States (July 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tseung Kwan O was:

Lists must include entries that have their own pages on English WP. Many of the entries listed do not fulfill this requirement.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of cockroaches of the United States and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tseung Kwan O (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Agyle, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Tseung Kwan O (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Agyle. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of cockroaches of the United States

Hello, Agyle. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "List of cockroaches of the United States".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Agyle. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Agyle. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Agyle. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]