User talk:The Cunctator

Old content at User talk:The Cunctator/Old and User talk:The Cunctator/Oldest.

A cheeseburger for you!

Wow, the Cunctutator is still an active Wikipedian. I had thought you were just a legend... Cheers! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the legend lives. Though it's good to see people still can't spell my handle. --The Cunctator (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Climate Scientists NPOV tag

Hi! I've been busy the past week fleshing out the manual list page List of climate scientists. I count 87 new names I've added in, all to existing bio pages. This picks up many of the top authors in climate science. I feel this list page is much better reflective of the professional field now. On that basis, would you be willing to remove the NPOV tag from that page?Birdbrainscan (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's much better but it still overweights contrarians - I count about 10 out of 200 names when the representative sample is more like 2-3 out of 100. So basically if the list of 10 contrarian/skeptic/deniers remains there should be another 100 prominent climate scientists added to properly reflect the actual field. --The Cunctator (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: missing revision history

Well, there's the August 2001 dump in UseModWiki format, which contains every edit from when Wikipedia started until 17 August 2001. Your message led me to discover that a version of the dumps in XML format has recently been released ... I tried import it into MediaWiki so I could process it and perhaps import some edits into the modern Wikipedia database. It comes agonisingly close to working but doesn't quite import properly ... the conversion tools are still in a beta form. As for edits beyond this time, I don't think they're available. As for the scientology example, there's a content edit at ScientologY on the Nostalgia Wikipedia], and edits at that title go back to 12 February 2001 in the UseModWiki database dump. Graham87 04:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got the XML dump to work! Graham87 09:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87: awesome. So there's just an August 2001 - October 2001 gap? --The Cunctator (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost, more like August 2001 to potentially around 20 November 2001, a month before the snapshot used for the Nostalgia Wikipedia was created. Graham87 01:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yeah this is (to the degree I care and I know I shouldn't) this is personally frustrating for me because I made an insane number of edits in that period. --The Cunctator (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christine A. Merdon

In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I spent about 20 minutes looking for the proper template but couldn't find it on Category:Public domain copyright templates. Also, I did some editing of the text so I wouldn't say it's okay to copy verbatim. --The Cunctator (talk)

dril's identity

Hi Cunctator, I reverted your edit to dril adding the author's real name. I've written some of my thoughts on this issue here on the talk page; that discussion resolved in a consensus not to name him, but among an admittedly small group.

Although I take the position that his name should not be included (given the present state of secondary sources), I'm not an absolutist on this point. Whether his name should be included in the article is a fair question, and the conditions to help us answer that question will continue to evolve as people continue to write about dril. I have little doubt that the Wikipedia article will and should include his name at some point in the future. Either something big will happen like the author doing an interview "as themselves", which would unequivocally signal that his name is no longer subject to privacy considerations, or we will pass some tipping point where a significant number of sources have used the name and rendered the issue a moot point.

Currently, I don't think we've passed that tipping point. It's true that one or two web publications have named him since the dox, but the majority of publications omitted his name as an ethical consideration of privacy at the time of the dox, and most publications that have written about him since the dox have omitted the name without comment. There are points on both sides, but on balance I feel there's a stronger case not to publish the name right now—and Wikipedia policy should lead us to err on the side of omitting the name, rather than erring on the side of including it. If you still feel his name should be included, an RFC would probably be the best way forward. Again I'm not 100% against inclusion but, short of an unequivocal sign like the author's self-identification in the press, I think a discussion and consensus would be warranted before making the decision to include his name. —BLZ · talk 19:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandt Luke Zorn: - Also dril has announced Paul Dochney holds the copyright for dril content. Given that the previous "consensus" involved three people, let's reopen the conversation. If you really think this requires a formal process we can do that, but I suspect we can hash it out on the talk page. --The Cunctator (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC's not necessary, just thought I'd pitch it if for wider/outside perspective. A regular discussion's OK with me, too. —BLZ · talk 20:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear The Cunctator,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.

Best regards, Urhixidur (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Twenty Year Society

Dear The Cunctator,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Twenty Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for twenty years or more.

Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaveravel (talk • contribs) 11:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Because someone who's been around as long as you and done as much good work as you have, probably doesn't have enough barnstars. Andre🚐 16:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating the page for "Sex"

truly appreciate it Rodmjorge (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I almost definitely didn't create it, was just an early editor. The early edit history of Wikipedia is quite broken, unfortunately. For a while, which includes the fall 2001, I tracked my edited/created pages: User:The Cunctator/Edited pages. I did create the pages on fascism, comedy, and Tupac Shakur. -- The Cunctator (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Collective PAC

The article Collective PAC has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Pretty much all news articles I could find mentioning Collective PAC were either about its founders or articles where its founders were quoted, with a short snippet mentioning that they founded a PAC. You could make a decent case that Stefanie and Quentin James are notable, but the same can't really be said for Collective PAC.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You alive, brother?

So I took 18 months off to sulk about being stripped of my admin badge. Am still annoyed about it, but am back to editing. Are you well? Manning (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I'm chugging along. The Cunctator (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Detentions following the September 11 attacks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Detentions following the September 11 attacks 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/Detentions following the September 11 attacks until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 22:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Johnathan Davis (businessman) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Johnathan Davis (businessman) 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/Johnathan Davis (businessman) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

cyberdog958^Talk 23:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]