User talk:Cinadon36

Your GA nomination of Ad hominem

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ad hominem you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ComplexRational -- ComplexRational (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Albert Camus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Albert Camus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ad hominem

The article Ad hominem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ad hominem for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ComplexRational -- ComplexRational (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Albert Camus

The article Albert Camus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Albert Camus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Bravo! czar 02:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Czar, coming from you means a lot. :) Cinadon36 08:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nominations

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Albert Camus at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Ad hominem at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the info bot, I 'll see what I can do to fix it. Cinadon36 10:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ad hominem

Hello! Your submission of Ad hominem at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Alex2006 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Alessandro57:, I 'll have a look as soon as I can. Cinadon36 18:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

GA nomination of Anarchism

Hi – the article is has been a good article for 10 years, I'm assuming it was a mistaken nomination and I will delist. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I see what has happened now from the comments on the talk page, I've responded there, Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, @Goldsztajn:. Cinadon36 11:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Ad hominem

On 16 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ad hominem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the fallacy of using ad hominem arguments was first discussed by Aristotle in his Sophistical Refutations? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ad hominem. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ad hominem), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for creating anatomy of the human heart! buidhe 22:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Buidhe, it 's my fav desert, but I 'll have to run an extra mile to burn the calories! :) Cinadon36 06:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hi I’ve just reviewed Révolte dans les Asturies. Thanks for creating this article, and happy editing! Mccapra (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mccapra! I 'll make some yogurt ice cream out of them! Yummi! [1] Cinadon36 07:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Anatomy of the human heart

Zhu 2015 is missing its full ref. Would you mind adding it? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Cinadon36 16:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Albert Camus

On 23 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Albert Camus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Albert Camus's novel The Plague is based on an epidemic in Oran, Algeria, and examines how a government could turn tyrannical? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Albert Camus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Albert Camus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (Talk) 00:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Million Awards

	The Three-Quarter Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Albert Camus (estimated annual readership: 880,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Three-Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

	The Half Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Ad hominem (estimated annual readership: 670,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh! Many thanks Reidgreg. Cinadon36 09:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Instantly restoring cn tagged part

I wonder why you restore this -since 2019- cn tagged part [[2]] without addressing the issue on the cn template. If you can address the issue that's already raised it would be fine but otherwise I'm afraid this part will go per wp:OR.Alexikoua (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing the issue. Maybe Talk page of the article would be a more suitable place to discuss it. Anyway, I will address the issue, but I need some time- a week or so. If I wont, please feek free to remove it. Thanks, Cinadon36 04:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ad Hominem article

@Cinadon36: Greetings! I saw that you got Ad Hominem to good article standard. I'm sure you're aware that, unfortunately, articles usually lose quality standards because many editors add or remove what they want to articles, especially highly viewed ones. If you could get a quick glance there are edit what should and shouldn't be there that would be great. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Wretchskull: for letting me know. I will have a look. Cinadon36 13:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: You will probably have to look at it occasionaly because people add things without any consensus, and usually add content that has MOS errors or just poorly sourced (or sourced with unreliable refs). Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I get your point. Cinadon36 05:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Help pls

At Pre-Socratic philosophy#History, I d like to place the wikitable to the right of the text. Cinadon36 13:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done see Special:Diff/1021576585 - You needed to add floatright on the table class - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 13:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks @Rich Smith:. :) Cinadon36 13:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pre-Socratic philosophy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Melissus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pre-Socratic philosophy

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pre-Socratic philosophy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

André Laks moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, André Laks, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ... discospinster _talk 18:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Discospinster:, it seems Andre Laks lacks notability. I created the article since I saw articles about him at french and german wikis, but I am not sure if he is notable enough. Mind, I am not familiar with french or german language. Cinadon36 09:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

References don't have to be in English, you can use Google Translate to see if they are appropriate. ... discospinster _talk 13:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Discospinster: Have a look at those to articles. DE, FR. Refs dont look like article from RS. Cinadon36 17:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The references are to works by him, not about him. That does not in itself show that he is notable. ... discospinster _talk 20:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pre-Socratic philosophy

The article Pre-Socratic philosophy you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Pre-Socratic philosophy for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pre-Socratic philosophy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naturalism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pre-Socratic philosophy

The article Pre-Socratic philosophy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pre-Socratic philosophy for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Pre-Socratic philosophy

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Pre-Socratic philosophy has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Congratulations on taking it to GA status.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Twofingered Typist:, I much appreciate it, your work has been great, as always! :) Cinadon36 04:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Pre-Socratic philosophy at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pre-Socratic philosophy

Hello! Your submission of Pre-Socratic philosophy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 20:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Pre-Socratic philosophy

On 12 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pre-Socratic philosophy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that pre-Socratic philosophy included some of the earliest attempts to explain the cosmos as an ordered system without reference to the gods? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pre-Socratic philosophy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pre-Socratic philosophy), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Humanism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Helvetius.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks bot, will take care. Cinadon36 06:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Socrates

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Socrates you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ardenter -- Ardenter (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Socrates

The article Socrates you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Socrates for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ardenter -- Ardenter (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Completion of the initial Socrates review

I've completed my initial review of Socrates. My assessment was "on hold". Most problems are simply about wording. For my reasoning on each point see the review. If you want sentence by sentence grammatical and Manual of Style suggestions, just notify me. Thank you! Ardenter (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Name pages

Hi Cinadon36 and sorry for only seeing your comment at Talk:Maiorana now.

I asked NarkyBlert to summerize their opinion at Talk:Maiorana, guessing if they didn't WP:3O would remove the disagreement, but got no response.
I feel I've been clear enough whether asking at WP:3O, WP:APO or Talk:Maiorana and always linked back to the fuller discussion. I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor or admin so my solution might not be line with Wikipedia's guideline for name and dab pages, that's why I've been trying to start a discussion among seasoned editors. Thank you 22:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, no problem dear. For 3O to be valid, the opinions of both users have to be on the talk page of the article. My advice is to re-start the discussion, this time at talk page, wait a couple of weeks, and if there is no response, proceed with your changes. If there is a response from one user, discuss the issue. Hopefully, other users watching the page will contribute their opinions. Follow that path, and if there is any problem, ping me again.Cinadon36 05:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll try that, thanks. 00:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Renewing an expired notification from March 2020

(no worries at all, but your notification had expired)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in edits about, and articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Copy edit for Socrates

Thank you very much for my barnstar! I have really enjoyed copy editing this article and hope it gets the green badge it deserves. I really do feel that scholarship is missing a trick, though. The only real question, surely, is whether Socrates or Plato believed in reincarnation, given the Phaedo and the closing pages of Republic, or the detailed analogy in Phaedrus, where the emotion of love is seen as the result of our encounter with the divine form of Beauty in the outer reaches of the universe, before our return to a new life here on Earth. In fact, the whole thrust of many of the Socratic dialogues of Plato is to try to prove that our intuitions about virtues, such as love, courage, piety, justice, cannot be explained rationally, and the whole point of this endless questioning is to prove that we must have acquired these ideas in a previous life, since we cannot even define what we mean by them, and understand them only intuitively. Richard asr (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Richard asr:, This is a very interesting dimension on Socrates. I find it fascinating, Socrates, the first king of reasoning, reaching such a conclusion. Makes you wonder on the limitations of reasoning...Anyways, your point is very interesting but I would be hesitant adding something at the article. For, to add something, I must notice that RS are making it a big theme. And while reincarnations is discussed in some sources, it is not an extensive discussion. Nevertheless, I would like to ask you, what is your source, and if you could possible share? After GA-assessment, I will re-read RS and try to bring the article to a FA status. We will be in touch anyway! Thanks again for your help! Cinadon36 10:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cinadon36, You'll have to remind me what RS is. I don't really have any sources for Socratic belief in reincarnation, so it's not really appropriate for the article. It is my own view, from reading the works of Plato in English translation. Original research, I suppose, but I'm surprised that it seems to have been downplayed by scholars over the years. It seems quite clear to me that Plato is having Socrates discuss the virtues in order to support a theory of reincarnation. In Meno for example, he takes a different tack and demonstrates, or tries to, that we possess knowledge that we don't know that we have. The opposite of not possessing knowledge that we think that we do have. But to the same end; to show that we possess knowledge that must be a memory, however vague, from before we were born. The whole of Plato's Socratic output, to my mind, at least prior to Laws, seems designed to this end.

I have transposed most of Plato's Socratic dialogues, massively abridged, into early sixteenth century England and cast them into a novel which is complete and (hopefully) awaiting publication, with Hannah Bokenham playing the part of Socrates. My intention was to investigate Plato's religious stance, since he gives hints that he is initiated into the mysteries, the ancient mystery religion, perhaps the Eleusinian Mysteries, and it is the exact nature of this that interests me. Transposing and abridging his works has been a very exciting journey and leaves me certain, in fact, that this was his prime motive: to try to prove the truth of the mysteries by intellectual means. Anyway, to bring Plato into a readable form for the non-specialist—into which category I include myself—is hopefully a useful thing to do in its own right, giving the reader a birds-eye-view. It is set in the genre of suspense, since many will know that Socrates was executed in the end. Richard asr (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Richard asr: RS stands for Reliable Sources.WP:RS. I should have made a wikilink, I know, sorry for omitting. As for Socrates reincarnation, I guess scholars tend to focus on more abstract issues rather than specific beliefs of Socrates- which are hard to separate from Plato's thoughts. It is hard to reconstruct the thought of any ancient philosopher. Cinadon36 18:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Your edits to 'Humanism'

I apologise in advance for any offense this comment may cause, but there is no kind way to say this. I was reading this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism#Criticism and found the 'Criticism' and 'Antihumanism' sections almost impossible to understand.

I think you should stop editing Wikipedia, or at least get someone fluent in English to heavily review your edits before you submit them. I understand that you are not a native English speaker, and may not realise quite how bad your English is. You are making some very basic grammatical errors while stringing out sentences with many clauses, perhaps trying to sound smart, but I often can't even tell what you're trying to say. I truly feel that you are making articles worse with your edits. Frankly, the quality of these sections is so poor that I would rather start from scratch than attempt to translate them back into readable English. It's also hard for me to trust that you have a complete understanding of the subject matter rather than repeating words you read in some random sources, when you can barely communicate those words properly.

Palm Puree (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Consistency with other articles (Plato's Symposium on Wikipedia)

For example, in the article on Plato's Symposium on Wikipedia, Socrates is given as the last speaker where the article states: "Socrates is late to arrive because he became lost in thought on the way. When they are done eating, Eryximachus takes the suggestion made by Phaedrus, that they should all make a speech in praise of Eros, the god of love and desire. It will be a competition of speeches to be judged by Dionysus. It is anticipated that the speeches will ultimately be bested by Socrates, who speaks last."

The current lead version is inconsistent and your reverts seems to put it back to being inconsistent with "..Socrates, who speaks last." ErnestKrause (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no need for consistency with other articles. Pls discuss this at the talk page of the article- more editors might be interested. I 've changed the title of the section to make it more relevant to the topic. Pls feel free to change it if you think it does not reflect your thoughts. Cinadon36 19:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes

In light of your many contributions, neutrality, and understanding of our policies and guidelines, I would like to ask your thoughts about Mass killings under communist regimes. As much as summary not being my strength, this is the best I could do to describe the whoel diatribe, which dates back to many archives. This is a very good summary. Please, read them whenever you can because you and Czar's help is desperately needed because they just keep saying there is consensus, there is no issues, "per sources", etc. when clearly that is not the case. Even The Black Book of Communism and Rummel are misinterpreted and do not support the article (see my "Analysis of main topics and sources").

Essentially, the problem is that scholars do not actually agree that "Mass killings took place in some/many communist states." (see Valentino 2013: "Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing"), which makes this article remaining as it is even worse, because it clearly does not reflect what scholarly sources say and even misrepresent them. Like us, they only agree that awful things and tragedies did indeed happen and many people have lost their lives. Instead, Proposition B is a perfect summary. What I propose is to have a single article about history of genocide and mass killings, where we discuss the views of scholars of why they happened, what can we do to avoid them happening again, etc. but without using any single label or category, whether capitalism, Communism, totalitarian, etc. Same thing for Crimes against humanity under communist regimes, another content POV fork.

I understand all this is long but if I'm right, this is a very serious policy violation, and the article can result in circular reporting (it already has in a way) and shape our own memories (see Ghodsee 2014, Neumayer 2017, Neumayer 2020, and Dujisin 2020, among others; see also Kaprāns 2015). Davide King (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Davide King: thanks for your nice words, but I can't help. This is a matter that I would need to dig into in order to provide a descent opinion and I do not have the time. But I would suggest you to consider noticeboards of WP (ie on Sources). Previous RfC is not the end of the road. You are right that the article has many gaps and might actually be OR. Thanks for reaching me.Cinadon36 20:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

No, thanks to you for your comment. The fact you stated I may well be right that "the article has many gaps and might actually be OR" is both comforting and sad; comforting because I'm not crazy in seeing problems with it, and sad because I think your work would be very helpful, and because it looks like that page mainly attracts either supporters or those who have contributed to it directly, and so we're just arguing in circle, with me and other explaining source analysis, original research, etc., and they just stating the article is fine, no issue, etc.

"I would suggest you to consider noticeboards of WP (ie on Sources)." That is exactly what I told Czar, though I believe a proper RfC about the main topic (because we disagree on it, see TFD's Proposition A and Proposition B) is warranted, and an AfD could be next, if there's no consensus on the main topic, especially since the last one was a decade ago now. This, the result of my source analysis and research, is a more accurate and neutral summary of what scholars actually say and support. Davide King (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Socrates GA nomination

Hey, I have kept an eye on the article. Since several editors have made copy editing, maybe there is not anything left that the article now needs to pass. I will read it tomorrow, and if you need help with sth, tell me. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Ktrimi991:. Maybe some pictures of Socrates statues, without citation, should be removed...I dont know.Cinadon36 04:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to pics like that? Nah, I do not think they should be removed. They are pics taken by a volunteer, no need for a source in the form of a book or journal article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know I left a comment wrt. Sophoclo-crates. BTW, I saw you mentioned interest in Ad Hominem. A small something, perhaps not for the article, but perhaps of historical interest: Schopenhauer postulated AdH to consist of two types, the one now described in the article, which he called "ad personam", and the other one an argument based on an opponent's belief, which he called "ad hominem", but which, IIRC, we now know as "ex concesso". Both types are "to the man", either in stead of "to the case", or in stead of "to the truth". I hope you enjoy trivia :) MVH, T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Fascinating! I knew Schopenhauer worked on that field but didnt know this piece of info. Interesting! Thanks! Cinadon36 09:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, and alas, more remarks on mr. S. As an aside: let me know if you want refs for AS on AH for your archives; most material is in his Vorlesungsmanuskripte (Berlin University Lecture Manuscripts)(Do you read German?), which perhaps are not within everyone's reach. Thx for your patience :) T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Humanism

Thanks!Cinadon36 06:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

No worries, good luck with your planned GA nomination. I noted a [clarification needed] tag in the Themes --> Humanism and the meaning of life subsection; I wasn't sure what "each person must quest for a good life without the expense of others" means so I left it there. Otherwise the article is in good shape so once that is fixed, it should pass GA, I think. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Many Thanks for your work @Baffle gab1978:! I rephrased the specific sentence. [3] Hopefully it is better now. Cinadon36 09:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, that makes more sense now. Good luck with your planned GA nom. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Protectorate References

I added all resources using cite book template and also added links to authors on Talk:Second Anglo-Afghan War. Thank you for looking into this. 199.82.243.110 (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the high quality sources. Cinadon36 13:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Socrates

I messed up the ping so wanted to note: I changed the formatting in your replies on Talk:Socrates/GA2 because they were hard for me to read in the way they were rendering before. I know it's generally bad form to change others' comments so I wanted to let you know. I'll respond to your replies after I'm done going through the text for the first time myself—would be too confusing for me to keep track of otherwise. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: Much better now, I was also having difficulties with the previous version! Cinadon36 07:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC) PS-Should we also break the discussion into sections? coz the text is too dense when editing. Cinadon36 09:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I'll break it into subsections during my next round of the review. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Saw you've been responding—thanks. I'll hopefully finish my review in the next week or so and will then respond (if needed) to your comments. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort @AleatoryPonderings:. I know it is not an easy task. Hope you are enjoying it as much as I do! Cinadon36 19:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi - my comments re pagination weren't about the pages cited, they're about the pagination of the essays cited. So "Reshotko 2013, p. 158." didn't make sense to me because the Reshotko essay is:

Reshotko, Naomi (3 January 2013). "Socratic eudaimonism". In Nicholas D. Smith (ed.). The Bloomsbury Companion to Socrates. John Bussanich. A&C Black. pp. 136–155. ISBN 978-1-4411-1284-2.

This was the general problem I was noting - the papers cite pages that aren't in the page range of the essays they cite. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, silly me! Will fix! Cinadon36 16:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll do "legacy" this week and any final comments. Getting closer! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to be taking so long on this. I'm in the midst of my own exams this week. Hopefully will be able to finish soon-ish. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: No worries mate! Who s on a hurry? Not me! You are doing a terrific job. Cinadon36 04:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:André Laks

Hello, Cinadon36. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "André Laks".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Liz:, thanks for the notice. Cinadon36 09:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Socrates

The article Socrates you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Socrates for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AleatoryPonderings -- AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

		The Philosophy Barnstar
		Congrats on passing Socrates! Job well done on a huge project and highly vital topic. czar 18:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Czar:! Cinadon36 06:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT

Just a quick note to remind you about WP:DEFAULTSORT; it's essential for bios to define that. Schwede66 19:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Ingeborg Beugel

On 30 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ingeborg Beugel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ingeborg Beugel left Greece following death threats and reported attacks after she questioned the prime minister about pushbacks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ingeborg Beugel. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ingeborg Beugel), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Schwede66 00:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Cinadon36!

Happy New Year!

Cinadon36,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you @Abishe:! Wishing you a happy New Year as well! Cinadon36 14:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Έξω πάμε καλά

Τι κάνεις φίλε; Εδώ θριαμβεύουμε βλέπω...μπράβο! Να είσαι καλά, και να μας ξανάρθεις. ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice words @ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη:. Indeed, I have contributed to a few important articles. This is why I love WP, you learn a lot by studying a topic and on top of that, you help others learn as well! Spreading knowledge, isn't that a joyful feeling? Stay around! Sorry for replying in English, it is for the sake of other users that might be reading us. Cinadon36 08:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Azov Battalion

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [[4]] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is section header of discussion.The discussion is about the topic topic. Thank you. --SKWills (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

O Thin k This is how i is done. I am bringing that Shameful Humanism page that Promotes Humanism and Attacks Religion, Especially Islam and most Especially Christianity, to the Attention of Arbitration. The page is Objectively not Unbiased. It is Clearly a One Sided promotion of Humanism. you used Exclusively Humanist Books to Write it and even the Critisism of Humanism came from the Books and You made no Effort to even Hide its Biases.

SKWills (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Pellumb Xhufi

I have been asked to coordinate discussion of the issue of the reliability as a source as Pellumb Xhufi. You are one of the editors who has either used Xhufi as a source or expressed a concern about the use of Xhufi as a source. The place for the discussion is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Pellumb Xhufi. Your participation is not required but is encouraged, and may be the best way to have your opinion considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thanks for the notification but I cant help right now.Cinadon36 15:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Humanism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks bot, I will take care of it. Cinadon36 06:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings @Cinadon36

Hi, I am User:Bookku, On Wikipedia I engage in, finding information and knowledge gap areas in Wikipedia and promoting expansion of related drafts and articles. Came across your user profile from resource exchange.

Requesting your visit to Draft:Irrational beliefs and Draft:Superstitions in Christian societies and help expand the topic areas if you find any of topics interesting. Wish you very happy Wikipedia editing.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Bookku:, I will have a look in a couple of days and see what I can do. Cinadon36 09:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I shall look forward to your esteemed visit to the articles as time would permit you, many thanks Bookku (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Coronary artery bypass surgery

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Coronary artery bypass surgery you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tom (LT) -- Tom (LT) (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Coronary artery bypass surgery

The article Coronary artery bypass surgery you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Coronary artery bypass surgery for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tom (LT) -- Tom (LT) (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

A gift from some newbie on Wikipedia

MrDragonBoi has given you some kittens! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companions forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else some kittens, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kittens}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

MrDragonBoi (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @MrDragonBoi! Mew! Cinadon36 18:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Cinadon36. Thank you for your work on Father Antonios Papanikolaou. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@SunDawn: thank you for your kind message.Cinadon36 17:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Male expendability

You are being contacted because you participated in this NPOV noticeboard discussion. There is now an active RfC on this issue on the Male expendability talk page. You are welcome to lend your voice to the discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

KJP1

Hi Cinadon36,

I have nominated KJP1 for a free merchantise giveaway. It is entirely up to you, if you wish to vote or not. If you do, you can either Support or Oppose on (click) Merchandise giveaways/KJP1. SethWhales ^talk 09:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Humanism x2

Hi @Baffle gab1978:, thank you very much for undertaking this task. I will keep an eye on the text but should you need anything, have a question, something is puzzling you, don't hesitate to ask! Cheers! Cinadon36 11:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you; I've found the c/e mostly straightforward until I reached the "Themes" --> "Religion" section, where some muddled text compares the works of several authors. I *think* I've correctly interpreted what is being said but you might like to check it over; the diff is here. I've also changed the "Criticism of humanism" subsection to its own section and moved it further down the article; this seems to be in line with most articles with such a section. I still think the article is rather essay-like in places. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 12:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your C/E. Your changes are mostly correct. I feel the word "inception" might not be the best option as it implies a specific moment in time when humanism was incepted. Some may disagree with that, pointing that humanism came to light after advances made in a long period of time by many people. But still it is much better than the previous version. Also, I had to attribute various authors to avoid NPOV issues since very few opinions are universally accepted. Lastly, please let me know where the article has essay-like issues, and I 'll try to fix them. Thanks again for your input. Cinadon36 13:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I've finished my copy-edit. Per the above; I've changed "inception" to "beginning". I've re-titled some of the sections and moved material around; the subsections "Themes" --> "Politics" and "Humanist psychology and counselling" are now in a section called "In public life", for want of a better title. I've marked "Geographies of humanism" as an essay-like section; i think this could be removed or largely rewritten to present a worldview of this movement, though you'll need excellent sources and judicious editing.

There's also some confusing text. In "In politics", what does "contemporary humanism is sculptured by two main axons" mean? An axon is a nerve fiber—it cannot sculpt anything of its own accord! In "Humanist organizations" final sentence, who are the "High-profile members of academia and public figures"? I've added a few more tags where I've found confusing text and/or missing refs. Anyway I feel I've done my best with this one but I think it will need more work to bring it to GA status. Good luck with it and cheers, Baffle☿gab 12:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Baffle gab1978, you have been a great help. I 'll see what I can do to further improve the article. Cinadon36 08:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• axons Axioms, perhaps? Let me know if I can help with any specific phrasing/translation stuff, Cinadon. Glad to see this article being improved! czar 11:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @Czar, thanks for your suggestion but is not actually an improvement. I used the term "Axons" having in mind the greek word "άξων," which in english axis, not axon. My silly mistake. Does it make sense now? Since I am familiar with the meaning, I can not tell. What do you think? Cinadon36 13:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Eva Kaili source

I have replaced the Newsit citation with To Vima. I still think Newsit was fine, but since To Vima was readily available with the same information, I see no problem. Apart from newsit, iefimerida and cnngr that you already mentioned in the Eva Kaili article talkpage, are there other major Greek news sites you consider problematic as sources to be included? Note that I disagree about iefimerida, but I want to work with you. Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)