Icarosaurvus

A barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For proven staying power. Wakari07 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Information

Please see this. I hope this time admins will pay attention to his behaviour. M.Karelin (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear colleague, could you summarize some of the topics discussed [1] [2] [3] [4]. As I see you can read the sources, unlike the opponent. Forgive me if you thought I was not being polite. This is a translation that is not always accurate. Please rate the quality of his argument. In my opinion, his work will noticeably improve when someone indicates his bad behavior. Other topics with his participation can also be interesting. Sincerely, --Путеец (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Hello, I'm Usernamekiran (AWB). I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Portal:Current events/2018 March 12— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Usernamekiran (AWB), please check again. You reverted my removal of the vandalism, added by the user directly before that edit. Please note that the individual pages for dates take some time to sync with the current events portal. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Katsuobushi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fillet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Icarosaurvus (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions abd time spent improving Wikipedia... I like what Im finding and would like to help. In many different ways, I feel I can be an asset to the efforts. My name is Nathan and have drive; one chance is all I need. Thanks again. Truly. KniceNotes (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Journey to the West, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tongan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Icarosaurvus (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   22:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

"A question for you all"

What a weird question - as if one genocide can be justified by invoking another. This whole discussion is disturbing; why is that apologists and deniers have willing enablers? And what makes these individuals so willing to share their beliefs publicly? I share your concern and I'm tempted to hat that section as "off-topic comparative genocide studies", but not sure if should do that as a proposer. Oh well. --K.e.coffman (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Hatting is likely not a bad idea, but neither of us are uninvolved editors, at this point. What I find perhaps most alarming is that he framed it as "objectively true" that the majority of Americans thought it best if all Native Americans died, and that killing them somehow made Jackson a man of the people. I am at the point where I am wondering what constitutes disruption of an ANI thread, between that user, and the fellow who seems to be trolling by claiming that no one is assuming good faith. Icarosaurvus (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Both statements would be repugnant. I think most Americans are ashamed of what Jackson did; or at least I hope so -- you never know these days. Another reason why such comparisons are inappropriate is that the Nazis literally saw themselves as walking in the footsteps of other European colonisers. See for example, Wendy Lower in Nazi Empire-Building and the Holocaust in Ukraine.

Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", so, unfortunately, one can encounter both ignorance and lack of sensitivity. But at least the discussion is heading towards "support", so hopefully the thread will be archived soon. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Icarosaurvus, I came here to express regret that your honest wish that Jackson had been brutally murdered as an infant, in response to my substitution of American themes for Torpilorul's Romanian ones, has caused someone to criticize you. I have no love for Jackson, and I pretty much share your opinion of him – at least to the extent that I think we'd have been better without him. And K.e.coffman, I think you're wrong. I don't think most Americans are ashamed of what Jackson did – they should be, but the general populace is mostly clueless about Jackson, and likely have a positive view of him just because he's on the $20 bill. But fortunately, many more people today are ashamed of Jackson than was the case in the past. Icarosaurvus, here's a source for my "objectively true" statement: "most Americans wanted the Eastern tribes to be removed at once or exterminated." It is my understanding that was, shamefully, the attitude at the time. But yet there are people who still admire the likes of Jackson or Custer (and, in similar misplaced admiration, Lee and other Confederates). But even though I personally dislike Jackson, I can understand if someone admires his generalship at the Battle of New Orleans for example. What Torpilorul was saying about Antonescu seems a parallel (and he confirmed so on his talk page when I asked him). He claims to be a 20 year old kid (with a misplaced admiration of Antonescu). I'm trying to AGF, but if he's really some neo-nazi skinhead, then shame on him (as JFK said, and if he fools me twice, shame on me). But his use of the qualifier "local Jews", which I hadn't noticed initially, has me reconsidering. Mojoworker (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

References

No harm done; I admittedly have a rather exceedingly negative opinion of Jackson, for reasons I've mentioned before. (To the point where I feel he is one area where I cannot be objective; His economic policies, for all I know, may have been sound, but I am inclined to hate them simply because of his actions towards my ancestors.) I would still be loathe to call the statement objectively true, though I'd certainly admit to 'arguably true'; I suppose it depends upon whom one counts as Americans in that statement. (It one limited one's sample to those eligible to vote at the time, however, 'objectively true' is definitely believable.) I appreciate you coming here. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

In my comments, I said "are ashamed", meaning "today". In any case, what I found offensive about RnP's comment was the attempt to speak for all Romanians, as if all of them were supporting Antonescu's murderous policies towards the Jews, today. Societies evolve, and for the better -- just look at the German society's reckoning with the past. That's why I said that I hope that most Americans (today) are ashamed for the Trail of Tears. There's nothing wrong with acklowledgeing the shameful legacies of the past. It's healthy, actually. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Mollie Tibbetts

Hi I have been noticing this has been removed multiple times, as you said. I have stated this time only about the first degree murder charge.

Law and crime

• Disappearance of Mollie Tibbetts
  • A first-degree murder charge was filed against 24-year old Cristhian Bahena Rivera in the case of Mollie Tibbets, a University of Iowa college student who was pronounced dead after going missing one month ago. (ABC News)

Honestly this is very notable. It definitely should be added. --74.133.176.183 (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Your work on the current events portal is generally good, but for stories, we need to have widespread international interest, and this story doesn't quite make the cut. Now, this case absolutely does deserve an article, and if you wish to write on that topic, the article is a great place to do so. Still, the murder charge is part of the same story; to people in other countries, this is a pretty standard murder in another county. It's important in Iowa, and I daresay the United States, but it fails in regards to widespread international interest. Thanks for asking about this; we all have a learning period, and you're doing pretty good so far. Current events just has its own eccentricities. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You know, if I add it again, report me to WP:AIV or WP:AN then and get me blocked. This is notable. --173.184.195.86 (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

It is notable enough to have an article; this does not mean it belongs in current events. We almost never cover individual deaths unless they have greater widespread implications, such as the assassination of a sitting political leader. Tragic though this was, this does not, and we cannot predict that it will per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Please let this go; you, for the most part, do good work, and I do not want to see you sanctioned over a news item. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/2018 November 8

Hello. Just saw that you removed additions by anonymous IPs who attempt to spread conspiracies about the Jim Acosta doctored video by InfoWars. Well, they seem to come back again, so I was wondering if protecting the November 8 was in order. I'm reverting them, but I don't want to start an edit war. Cheers.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd say certainly, though I have no power to do so. Might I recommend contacting an adminstrator, such as Oswah or Ponyo, and making your case? Icarosaurvus (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Dispute.

I have now provided a source for the event that was deleted. This is scientific news. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 14:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I cannot say I cared either way about the probe; I only objected to the inclusion of an unsourced news item, and am happy to see that it is now properly sourced. Icarosaurvus (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)