User talk:Ciotog

Image tagging for Image:Gwc-logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gwc-logo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 20:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Kathy Dettwyler
An editor has nominated the article Kathy Dettwyler for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Articles for deletion/Kathy Dettwyler. Add four tildes like this &tilde;&tilde;&tilde;&tilde; to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Kathy Dettwyler during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 17:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

section on woman premiers in jeopardy
I thought that you might be interested that User:TRFA is stripping out a section in the woman article on women's advances and is stripping out a list of women premiers and other political leaders such as Tansu Ciller, Condoleezza Rice and Nancy Pelosi from the woman article. Dogru144 18:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Talk:Infant formula
(Takes a page from WP:Etiquette) I know you're being sarcastic in this post, but I don't think that's helping us resolve the issue. Please re-read my comment that you were replying to and attempt to post constructively by highlighting which statements you have POV concerns with and recommending alternatives. dpotter 05:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your updates and explanation - I agree with your sentiments on perceived POV. I'll respond in more depth on Talk:Infant formula. dpotter 14:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Excellent "clean-up and organize" edits at breastfeeding - thanks for your hard work. -- MarcoTolo 01:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, you too. It certainly makes it easier knowing that someone else is working hard on it as well. Ciotog 10:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry
I thought you also had removed the word 'of' in the breast article, making it incorrect English.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 02:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Jack Newman (doctor), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Atomic1609 22:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Infant
Semi'd per request on WP:RFPP. Cool username, BTW. My daughter is left-handed. You do know it literally means 'awkward', right? :) - Alison ☺ 16:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? I thought it meant "sinister" ;) Ciotog 16:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Emo rap
Hi, I have been having difficulty working with another editor. His talk page seems to tell a story of a difficult to work with editor: User_talk:Xcryoftheafflictedx

Because of an edit you have made to emo rap I am asking for your assistance in mediating a dispute. The relevant details are found here: Talk:Emo_rap and in the history of changes to emo rap AThomas203 02:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually don't have much interest in emo rap, I was just cleaning up some disambiguation links and fixed one for the article. I also happen to check up on pages I edit in the next few days and happened to notice that this article had an unnecessary redlink, so removed that too. Good luck with the article! Ciotog 06:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Celil
My apologies. KazakhPol 03:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on user's talk page Ciotog 04:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Breastfeeding Activists
Hello, Thanks for stopping by the List of Breastfeeding Activists and helping to clean up. I'm literally learning as I go. It's been fun to add names and sites to the list as I run across them and I'd really appreciate help in lists of people involved in breastfeeding research today. Did Wiki really delete a Jack Newman page? Please stop by the Marian Tompson page and suggested any additions. I'm thinking about writing a page on Lactivists and Lactivism, mostly 'cause there's that great New York Times article to reference. --I&#39;m Nonpartisan 04:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Lactivism would certainly be an interesting article - worthwhile just to be able to say "boob-nazi" :) I've never been to keen on "list" articles, but you did a great job of making it relevant.
 * Yes, the first Dr. Jack Newman article was speedy deleted (to be fair it was very stubby), and Kathy Dettwyler was nominated for deletion but voted "keep". I wonder what will happen when I create the Marianne Neifert article... Ciotog 04:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Marianne Neifert, but you might have better luck because I created a Breastfeeding Activist category and added Kathy Dettwyer, William Sears and Marian Tompson to it. Hey, If Marianne Neifert is working in the field today, list her on the Lists of Breastfeeding Activists page, and then you will have her twice. I'm very interested in building up the breastfeeding information on Wiki in hopes of creating a portal for it. There's no other place online that acts as a central information place. I think that the List could become a pre-portal as more and more information is linked to it. The Baha'i Faith portal is my inspiration here. FYI, how about changing the title of the Dettwyler page to her full name, or the name with which she signs her articles?--I&#39;m Nonpartisan 02:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Marianne Neifert might be more notable than Dr. Jack Newman as she's much more active at promoting herself as a "childcare" expert, so I don't think an article about her would be contended, but I generally don't enjoy creating bio pages. As for Kathy Dettwyler, according to WP:NCP you should use the most "recognizable" form of a name, and since she calls herself "Kathy" on her own website and is most often referred to as "Kathy" outside of journal and book citations I decided to use it. Katherine A. Dettwyler does redirect to Kathy Dettwyler. The Baha'i Faith article style might do well for the breastfeeding article... Ciotog 10:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for directing me to that naming convention link. There's lots to learn here at Wikipedia! --I&#39;m Nonpartisan 01:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

William Sears
As I'm still a novice, give me an idea as to how best to do this on the "Lists" page. I've internal linked Dr. Sear's name to the Wiki page about him, where it states that he coined the term attachement parenting. But, that's not good enough? Would I just give it a reference number and then link it directly to the attachment parenting page? I've seen other sites be able to link to a section of a long page. How do you do that? Thanks for all your help, I really appreciate being able to ask you for directions.--I&#39;m Nonpartisan 03:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it was fine unreferenced, as the attachment parenting article gave the citation. I might have simply added the phrase back in without the reference and mentioned more clearly why on the talk page, as I don't think it's such a disputable point but the nature of wikipedia means that there's always someone not satisfied. :) The references section seems out of place on a "list" article. Ciotog 03:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Sean O’Neal
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Sean O’Neal, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Sean O’Neal seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Sean O’Neal, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Sean O’Neal itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 16:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the Sean O'Neal page isn't very good - I'm sure I intended on expanding it and cleaning it up later, but didn't get around to it. Thanks for the prod though, Twintone. (BTW, how's retirement? ;) Ciotog 23:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice work
Thanks for your good edit to Newline. Cheers, CWC 01:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

DVD region code
I'm sorry my edit came across as inserting HOWTOs — my intention was to bring together all the information scattered across Wikipedia about how DVD region codes were implemented and (not) effective. Most of that information came from regional lockout — I just edited it together coherently. As it was (and still is, to some degree), there were snippets of information everywhere, but not in the article that should deal with it. Anyway, I've rewritten it, so have a look at it and tell me what you think. Thanks! 124.148.83.128 14:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sleep
Hi Ciotog, you're right, that link to rest wasn't much good, I was just being a little lazy. The real problem is that first definition of sleep isn't good enough - defining sleep in terms of rest has a circular reference feel to it. Also, I just don't think it's necessarily true that sleep is the state of "natural rest" (whatever that means) - take sleepwalking for instance. Anyway, there must be a better definition to do with states of consciousness or something.

I'll raise the question on the Talk page. Would appreciate your input.

thanks Brian Fenton 21:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

External links at DVD region code
I've noticed that you've tried to hammer out some sort of consensus about these before. Due to the continual editing of that section, I'm trying to sort of pick up from where you left off and have a through discussion into which links should be in the article. I'd greatly appreciate your input at Talk:DVD region code. Thanks! 124.148.75.247 13:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sed (disambiguation) Learn the alphabet?
Quote: (Undid revision 156822170 by 208.127.155.20 (talk) - please learn the alphabet)

Oh, sure, I'm a three year old trying to mess up things. How about you learn some respect? People make mistakes and realize it, we don't need someone making a rude remark to get people to notice.

. *cough* Assume good faith 208.127.155.20 04:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can't take some good-natured ribbing, perhaps you ought to limit your wikipedia editing. Ciotog 11:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Breastfeeding
Hello! Glad to see there's other folks who care about breastfeeding, editing here on Wiki. Thanks for putting the article back in Category:Infant feeding -- obviously it needs to be in both. I was doing a huge amount of work and that got by me in the process. (And there's still a bunch of articles in Category:Infant feeding that need to be moved to Category:Breastfeeding, if you care to lend a hand. I just couldn't do them all.) As for that other very tiny change -- actually "main articles" should always be placed at the very top of the category listings. (I'm amazed you even noticed!)

Were you aware that there was no Category:Breastfeeding before I, in effect, "re-created" the category last night? I was astonished -- and appalled when I discovered the reason: if you look at the history for the category, you'll see that one particular editor took it upon himself to redirect the former category and merge its contents into Category:Infant feeding. Ridiculous, to say the least. Needless to say, I wasn't about to go on my way without remedying the situation. While I was at it, I also came up with a nice bunch of other categories to add as parent cats. (You may have noticed that I just added them all to the article, as well.) I'm also planning on adding Category:Attachment as soon as I've created it, so I think I've got "all the bases" covered pretty well now -- but let me know if you think of anything I left out. Regards, Cgingold 13:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To tell you the truth I hadn't noticed the Breastfeeding category was "new", but I'd be happy to add pages to it as I find them, and fix categorisation of others. I can somewhat understand the attempt to limit "overcategorisation", as moving pages to a sub-sub-sub-category could be seen as an attempt to hide pages, which may have been ProveIt's concern, or perhaps since all pages in the Breastfeeding cat were also in Infant Feeding. I don't think ProveIt has an ulterior motive, he's just trying to clean up categories. Ciotog 14:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I finally got around to checking to see if you had replied here instead of at my talk page. I just want to add a brief comment regarding ProveIt's one-person "vanishing act" on Category:Breastfeeding. I obviously can't say whether he/she had "ulterior motives", but the simple fact is that what he/she did was strictly contrary to the rules & procedures for Categories. ALL proposed renamings, deletions, and redirects (which are, in essence, deletions) are required to be taken up at Categories for Discussion, so that other editors can have input on the proposal. I have no idea why he/she wanted to "disappear" Category:Breastfeeding by up-merging it, since no explanation was offered. But I don't have the slightest doubt that Category:Breastfeeding would be almost universally viewed as a perfectly valid category if it ever came up at CfD. Cgingold 02:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PS - FYI: Quoting from Wikipedia:Categorization: "Using a space or asterisk after the pipe is the customary way to categorize an article in a category with the same name, indicating that the article is the main topic article for that specific category." Cgingold 03:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

DVD an acronym
Hi, after reading all the material in discussions on DVD and including achived material I cannot concur that DVD is not an acronym. The discussion uses a variety of incorrect sources (including the OED). The discussion is mainly concerned with whether it is video or versitle (which to my mind has little relevance to its staus as an acronym).

In the paper "Recent Developments in Thermal Modelling of High-Speed Dye Recording" published in the Journal of Applied Physics. - Appl. Phys.:Vol.42, No.2B : 834-840, 2003 - the abstract refers to CD (Compact DIsk) and DVD (Digital Versitile Disk). This paper was written by physicists working for Philips. They are clearly acronyms (and note that the word pronouncible is subjective and has cultural values - CD is defined as an acronym and so is IBM). They are just as easy to roll off the tongue as DVD.

Cheers!

Candy 12:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Aside from the "initialism vs. acronym" debate, I think not saying either is the best way to reduce contention. Let the reader decide whether DVD is an acronym, initialism or just a few letters randomly strung together. I think the "versatile" vs "video" debate to waste too much time and effort that could be better spent elsewhere (for instance improving the rest of the article, rather than quibbling about the lede. Physicists quibble about these things too, so I wouldn't put all my faith in one company's researchers over others, it's better to be neutral. Ciotog 14:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Watching
Hey, Thanks for watching the Breastfeeding List page. I always appreciate you coming up behind and giving me a copyedit. Looks like a few other folk have noticed the page, but I've had to try to teach them a bit about providing content and references. Not much luck there so far--I&#39;m Nonpartisan 02:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:KeepersOfJericho.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:KeepersOfJericho.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing of Overactive Let-Down Page
Hi, I'm new and trying to edit this page. I have taken a look at your edits and they are the most constructive. I would like to make my topic more encyclopedic while at the same time adhering to the wiki-world. Thanks. Mommamea 21:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jimjiminee.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jimjiminee.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for fixing my goof! Blackworm (talk)
 * No problem! When I clicked on the link, it complained about me trying to edit the page badly, so I figured I'd help keep anyone else from having the same thing happen to them :) Ciotog (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for tidying up the Inter-African Committee article. I've just added one more sentence to it. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Campaign to erase leaders on woman page
Hi. I'm writing to you since you had some interest a few months back on the women leaders. There has been a campaign to deem them superfluous and to blank them off the screen. Then, the parties involved declared a "consensus." (I restored the deleted material.) Thought you'd be interested, Cheers, Dogru144 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

LLLI pageq
Hi there,

Would you please do me a favor and stop by the La Leche League International page for a visit? There's an "editor" who is creating a Critisism section in order to promote their own page and agenda. I don't think it's valid, I've reverted once, and I'd like to do so again, but first I'd sure like to hear your thoughts about it.

Thanks, Candace --I&#39;m Nonpartisan (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Breast Lead image.
Is yet again being debated, this time there's a survey being conducted, just a heads up in case you missed it.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 04:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sean O’Neal
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Sean O’Neal, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Magioladitis (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Female genital cutting
Please note that per WP:CHALLENGE and WP:BURDEN, you are responsible for sourcing the material that you've restored to the FGC article. As a courtesy, I won't revert immediately, but if the material is still unsourced at around this time tomorrow, I'll remove it. Thanks. Jakew (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in WP:BURDEN that suggests it was appropriate to delete without requesting a source. In fact if you see WP:PRESERVE (linked from WP:BURDEN) it strongly suggests deletion as a last resort. I certainly agree that the claims need to be sourced, but this isn't the way to go about it. Ciotog (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN clearly states that "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." This clearly indicates that it is appropriate to delete the material; there's really no room for argument about that.  Regardless, per WP:BURDEN, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor [...] restores material", which is you.  If you're saying that you don't intend to source the claims, there's no point in giving you 24 hours, so I'll delete them now.  If, on the other hand, you do intend to source the claims, I'm happy to give you that time.  It's up to you.  Jakew (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole Middle East section is bare and needs to be fleshed out (or deleted). The entries for Oman and United Arab Emirates don't state anything about FGC whatsoever - nothing about laws or prevalence for or against - and neither do the other countries listed - at best there's a cite that's not explained. The only really contentious statement was that Lebanon has laws against FGC, which should be removed if a citation can't be found. I don't speak Arabic so it would be difficult for me to find a source, I'm in the process of asking for assistance on the talk page to provide real content for this section. At any rate feel free to do what you think is right. Ciotog (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Caesarean section
"You fix my edits!" is an improper command. You are dangerously close to violating WP:3RR. I suggest you put the wording you want for the alternative theories on the talk page. I have no problem with them being listed. If, without consensus, you add the theories in again with the skeptical editorializing in the same edit I am not obliged to accept the edit and try to fix it. μηδείς (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.


 * Please go right ahead and start a dispute resolution. Ciotog (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fables-title.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Fables-title.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

List notability
Hello, Ciotog! You reverted the removal of a list entry in a stand-alone list that did not show it was notable and worthy of inclusion. The standard 'proof' of notability is that it has a Wikipedia article about the company/person that is properly sourced. However, you can absolutely include reliable, third-party, published sources as citations in the list entry that show the company/person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, it just hasn't been written yet. This is the consensus of Wikipedia and you can see it specifically mentioned here: WP:CSC
 * Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future.  This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers.

I'm sure the company you've included is Notable, you just need to show it. If the company does not meet Wikipedia's Notability standards, please remove it and any other redlinked entries that lack that proof (as above) from that article. Of course, please do not add the company if you have a Conflict of Interest. Thanks! Stesmo (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve E433
Hello, Ciotog,

Thank you for creating E433.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"Please translate the article to English as it was on English Wikipedia"

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with. Remember to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Wakowako (talk) 09:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)