Jump to content

User talk:CycloneYoris

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This week's article for improvement (week 48, 2025)

[edit]
Hello, CycloneYoris. The article for improvement of the week is:

Emergency management

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Kidnapping • Crop

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Kefalonia International Airport

[edit]

The IP was removing content that had been tagged with Citation Needed tags - why are we restoring them without sources? Removal of unsourced information is explicitly permitted by WP:V. Danners430 tweaks made 09:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Danners430: At least they should've explained why they were removing it. Unexplained removal of content isn't helpful regardless if the content is sourced or not. I went ahead and restored the reference that the IP removed for no apparent reason. CycloneYoris talk! 10:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree - I mean, just look at the userboxes on my talk page... but it is explicitly permitted whether we agree or not. I did miss the sole source they removed. Danners430 tweaks made 10:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Danners430: No worries. I just restored it a while ago… and I would've gladly accepted the IPs' edits had they provided an edit summary to explain their actions. I have nothing against those who remove unsourced content, as long as they provide an adequate edit summary along with their edits. CycloneYoris talk! 10:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a difficult one - as much as I agree (I despise users that don't use summaries)... unfortunately it's not a requirement, so if we do revert users for no reason other than not explaining their edits, it's us that may be in breach of policy. I do agree it's an annoying set of circumstances, but that's what we as recent changes patrollers (and adjacent) have to live with. Danners430 tweaks made 10:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
A barnstar for you!
Thank you for being part of the fight against vandalism on English Wikipedia, and being one of the top five most active pending changes reviewers in the last 30 days. Your hard work is very much appreciated, please keep it up. – DreamRimmer ■ 14:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help

[edit]

Dear @CycloneYoris please answer me

I hope my follow-ups won’t cause any issues for my account. I published a draft that hasn’t been reviewed yet, and it was edited by your bot. I wanted to kindly ask you to check it, and if it’s approved, please proceed with transferring it Draft:Ahmadreza Asgari He is a player of the Iranian Lalook (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lane kiffin

[edit]

Please fix the false revision to lane Kiffen page he is still the HC of Ole Miss, idk why this keeps being changed but its worrying that the reviews keep getting accepted befor anything is confirmed ~2025-36592-16 (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 49, 2025)

[edit]
Hello, CycloneYoris. The article for improvement of the week is:

Computer algebra system

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Emergency management • Kidnapping

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

The Signpost: 1 December 2025

[edit]
  • Comix: Madness
    It could happen to anyone.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whittaker family (2nd nomination)

[edit]

Hi I am Barkeep49. I recently saw that you choose to relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whittaker family (2nd nomination) with the comment Delete or keep?. This comment is both obvious and also incomplete to the point of being unsatisfactory by its failure to address the serious claims of BLP issues that participants in that discussion raised. Given this concern, I reviewed your relists just from today. Many of them seem to be appropriate outcomes but I do have some questions, thoughts, or concerns about several of them:

  • I share the concern about the lack of a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jailbreak (Roblox) and think that the comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Smithers is like the Whittaker family particularly unhelpful, though at least Smithers doesn't have the BLP issues of Whittaker.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VA-38 (U.S. Navy) seems like a particularly aggressive close. I tend to be more willing than most closers to close before a relist, and I'm not sure I'd have been willing to close that as a redirect.
  • Conversely, I would be quite willing to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/התקווה and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/טאהש and in fact will be doing so shortly after leaving this message. There is no serious opposition to removing this articles and so it is only a matter of weighing whether there a consensus for deleting or redirecting. Given this, it is the kind of discussion probably best closed by an admin to avoid cognitive biases in favor of an outcome you could implement (see also WP:RELISTBIAS).
  • I almost lumped Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/강수연 in with the two above, but I actually think this one could be reasonably relisted if there were a policy based reason given, but I also think most closers would find it ripe for closure rather than relisting. In other words this is barely within closer discretion to relist, but would need a policy based reason to do so and in particular why the policy does not weight the discussion towards an outcome.
  • Speaking of policy based reasons, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vranyo requires a short explanation either within the {{relist}} template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the current state of the discussion sufficient to determine a closure result because third relists should generally not happen per WP:RELIST. Final relist. Keep or delete? does not satisfy that requirement.

I know there is a lot here. Please don't hesitate to ask questions if you have them. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragan Obradović was closed with the similarly aggressive close as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VA-38 (U.S. Navy) at the same time as I was leaving the above comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: I'm not sure what you find aggressive about it? These AfDs are all unopposed, meaning nobody has proposed anything different from what the nominator is proposing. Perhaps I could've mentioned this in my closing rationales, but I thought it would've been unnecessary since the lack of opposition would be quite obvious to anyone. What could possibly be the purpose of relisting an unopposed nomination? I'm frankly not sure what you're so concerned about. I'm not closing any AfD where consensus is unclear or disputed, and I'm usually always careful before relisting any discussion as well (even if you consider that I've done a poor job with my most recent relisting comments). CycloneYoris talk! 04:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your question. Two people is a small number to achieve a consensus at AfD. WP:SOFTDELETE certainly allows for AfDs to be closed with one or two participants in limited circumstances. But crucially that kind of consensus is very weak and can be "undone" by any requesting editor. There isn't really any such thing as a "soft redirect". Instead you have found a normal consensus which can only be undone by you changing the close or by a consensus at DRV. It is aggressive. Were it not for the other concerns, which I appreciate you taking on board, I wouldn't have necessarily commented about it, but since it came up in my review I did want to note it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfD close

[edit]

Sorry about bumping into you there, my bad for not refreshing the page before closing. A relist would've been fine too, it's just that we'd had the whole spate of similar redirects recently all of which closed as delete with the same arguments so in this case I figured the I'd close it. Rusalkii (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusalkii: No worries. I guess you made the right call, since most participants had voted to delete the redirect, and consensus would've remained the same regardless of the relist, in my opinion. CycloneYoris talk! 00:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 50, 2025)

[edit]
Hello, CycloneYoris. The article for improvement of the week is:

Judgement

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Computer algebra system • Emergency management

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I'm always surprised when i see your name on Top Pending Changes Reviewer list, Tireless Contributor. Destinyokhiria 💬 21:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Destinyokhiria: Thank you! :) CycloneYoris talk! 22:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 51, 2025)

[edit]
Hello, CycloneYoris. The article for improvement of the week is:

Spoken language

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Judgement • Computer algebra system

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Christoph Waltz

[edit]

Hey there. You reverted a change to Christoph Waltz in Diff/1326871616 as "unsourced". The change added the year that his Austrian citizenship was recognized, which is sourced in § Personal life. Since he wasn't naturalized as an Austrian citizen, we probably should not list the year in the infobox (but don't quote me on that, I didn't look up any policies for that), because he didn't acquire the citizenship that year. He's always been an Austrian citizen, so nothing really changed that year.

I'm probably just being (way too) pedantic about your edit summary, but I just wanted to point out that this wasn't "unsourced" per se, it was somebody misunderstanding either the source or how recognition of citizenship works. I still agree with your revert, and I'm not trying to imply you did something wrong. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Gurkubondinn. Yes, perhaps I could've worded it differently, but I didn't think of a better edit summary at the time. Maybe "not an improvement" would've been a bit better, though. Thanks for pointing it out. CycloneYoris talk! 21:54, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 52, 2025)

[edit]
Hello, CycloneYoris. The article for improvement of the week is:

Telecommunications in Kazakhstan

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Spoken language • Judgement

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vikram Solar

[edit]

Hi, I hope you don't mind me asking for a bit of clarification on the relist.

No rationale was given, and from what I saw, the main concerns raised throughout related to article quality (sourcing problems and presentation), rather than a demonstrated failure of subject notability. Several independent sources, including analyst reports and in-depth business reporting, were identified in the discussion and cited as meeting WP:NCORP. After the relist, the first delete comment largely repeated earlier points about article quality without engaging with the sourcing analysis or the NCORP-based arguments already on record. The subsequent delete comment asserted an absence of SIGCOV, but did so without demonstrating this through source analysis, and that point was directly addressed with additional independent sources.

As such, the delete-side arguments were primarily on issues of tone and sourcing quality rather than on notability itself. Many of these concerns have already been addressed to a substantial extent, and, in any event, matters of cleanup, restructuring, and refinement are generally things editors can continue to work on outside of AfD. Thank you for your time. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EmilyR34: Editors are clearly still divided between keeping and deleting (since none of the delete-side arguments have been retracted), which is why I decided to relist this. Will add a relisting comment to clarify my reasons for doing so. CycloneYoris talk! 06:16, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned in the relist that the votes are clearly split, but I see that six people have voted keep and two delete. The nominator has been banned for sockpuppetry, so their vote should be discounted. How is this "clearly divided between keeping and deleting?" EmilyR34 (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EmilyR34: The two delete votes occurred after the first relist, which is why they should be considered (and I'm obviously not counting the nominator's vote for obvious reasons). I'm not sure why you're making such a big deal out of this. It's just a simple relist! I've relisted thousands of discussions already, so I know what I'm doing. I will not comment on this any further. CycloneYoris talk! 10:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are not required to retract their arguments, and choosing not to respond is entirely acceptable. The absence of a response or retraction does not, by itself, indicate that concerns remain unresolved. What matters is whether the issues raised have been addressed in substance. One delete !vote was really about article quality, not notability, and those points have since been fixed. The other delete !vote raised SIGCOV but didn't explain why the sources already cited don't count, nor did it engage with the new ones added later. At this stage, the differences look more about article improvement than notability. I do not think a second relist is necessary or aligned with WP:RELIST, given that there are six keep !votes and two delete !votes, and the nominator's vote will be discounted. I would therefore kindly request that the relisting be reversed and that an admin weigh in instead. EmilyR34 (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic light reversion

[edit]

Hello CycloneYoris! I recently fixed a Category:CS1 maint: date and year error on the protected Traffic light article, here (also removed a stray bracket in title). Today I saw the error return, so I fixed again. Confused I looked into it & turns out my previous fix had been reverted by an IP Editor here & you accepted it. There was no edit summary to explain why they reverted my edit that fixed an error & the editor has only one edit to their name. So I'm wondering why you'd accept that edit? A mistake perhaps or am I missing something? Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LooksGreatInATurtleNeck! Whoops, sorry about that! I thought that they had reverted their own edit, which is why I accepted it. Guess I should've double-checked before accepting. Thanks for pointing it out, and take care as well. CycloneYoris talk! 21:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello CycloneYoris! No worries, accidents happen! Thanks for getting back to me. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fell through the cracks?

[edit]

Hi there, I have seen that you take on a primary role in closing and relisting AfDs and RfDs, thank you for this work. I noticed that the discussions on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 11 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 13 have all been either closed or relisted, but there are still several active discussions going on at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 12 (including one that I had opened, so I admit that I have an involved interest). Was this intentional, or did this date just fall through the cracks? Thanks again and cheers! ~ oklopfer (💬) 19:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Oklopfer. Hmmm, I'm honestly not sure. I usually always go through the logs to make sure I didn't leave any discussion behind. Perhaps I should've double-checked the 12th. Anyway, I'll go ahead and relist your nomination, since I noticed that you've requested a relist there (and nobody else has performed a relist as we speak). Cheers, CycloneYoris talk! 21:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly, much appreciated! ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:01, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Chah-e hasan , jazmurian" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Chah-e hasan , jazmurian has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 23 § Chah-e hasan , jazmurian until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!!

[edit]
A barnstar for you!
Thank you for being part of the fight against vandalism on English Wikipedia, and being one of the top five most active pending changes reviewers in the last 30 days. Your hard work is very much appreciated, please keep it up. – Destinyokhiria 💬 16:29, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CycloneYoris

[edit]

Can you close the discussion about deleting Baharwa article ? Stakventner (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stakventner: Nope, sorry. Please be patient and wait for an admin to close it. CycloneYoris talk! 23:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
when will that happen ? Stakventner (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Stakventner: Given that there isn't any solid consensus yet, I'm afraid it could take a week or so for someone to close it. CycloneYoris talk! 05:19, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has been inactive for several days, and no one is participating anyway. Why not close the discussion ? Stakventner (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Stakventner: The AfD was relisted by Sandstein. Please be aware that a discussion cannot be closed due to inactivity, and every discussion is relisted several times until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris talk! 20:06, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January–February 2026 Backlog drive

[edit]
January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol

New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points.

  • The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026.
  • The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive.
  • Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants.
  • Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points.
  • Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds.
  • Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New SVG

[edit]

I am utterly confused about keeping said redirect/template at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 21#Template:New SVG. That redirect is unused so useless. Both keep arguments are about the Template:Show SVG, not about the redirect.

Do I overlook something? The Banner talk 23:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: Both participants are referring to the Template:New SVG redirect (which is the one you nominated for deletion), explaining the target's function of creating new SVG files from wikitext; and which proves why it was created in the first place. CycloneYoris talk! 23:53, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is done by Template:Show SVG, not by the redirect. The Banner talk 00:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: Hmmm, I see. I'll reopen and relist the discussion since you're unsatisfied with the outcome, and it'll be useful for seeking further input as well. CycloneYoris talk! 00:47, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. The Banner talk 01:42, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 1, 2026)

[edit]
Hello, CycloneYoris. The article for improvement of the week is:

Outpost (military)

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Telecommunications in Kazakhstan • Spoken language

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Maybe wiki help

[edit]

Yes I am new here. A noob one might say. But while offline here -- I've been online with music festivals for 4 decades. Wikipedia encourages a user to contribute and cite sources. I did that. Why do you edit out the truth and history just because its not in "your format". I'm here to learn, share, and contribute. SouixZ6 (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Souix26: Huh? What "truth" and "history" are you talking about? I simply reverted your edits because they had formatting issues; no need to be overdramatic about it. I recommend reading WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing Sources, which will guide you on how to properly add sources and how to fix your formatting errors. CycloneYoris talk! 09:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This or any feedback is truly appreciated. I will look at your suggested links because this resource and now community has high value and importance to us all.
To be clear, the front page of Wikipedia encourages to edit and post even if a novice. My citations are valid but -- YES format is king. I'll stick at it. Thanks
p.s. I bet you get the idea of the edit -- can you help? The facts check out SouixZ6 (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SouixZ6: Sure! I'll post an introduction note on your talk page, where you'll find more helpful links. You can also visit the WP:Teahouse, a forum-like page where newbies ask for assistance. CycloneYoris talk! 09:49, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for engaging me here. Nice to have a human although random human input.
To be clear, I am Philip Blaine and this is not a vainglorious post. Its just facts that have been deleted by revisionist history people from many years ago. Yes, long standing Wiki data has been deleted (Its all in the history)
My citations are only from prestigious sources like the LA times, Billboard, LA Weekly.
Coachella is a popular topic. It has a justifiable filter but this is different.
Outlandish to ask but -- Any chance you could help edit my contribution into an acceptable form? Again, I check out on at least 8 citations.
Either way -- Happy New Year
Stay Awesome and be excellent with your peoples!
Philip Blaine
M:213.422.9497 SouixZ6 (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SouixZ6: Sure, I'll see if I can reinstate the content you added. Please don't disclose your personal information, though, there's no need for that here lol. Thanks, Happy New Year to you as well. Cheers, CycloneYoris talk! 10:36, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, respect on you looking out on personal info. Point taken. I just wanted to be honest and real. Where ever you are -- have a fun and wonderful new year!
Any attempt to reinstate my edit would be super cool. Cheers! SouixZ6 (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm realizing and learning a lot more today. Thanks for helping SouixZ6 (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SouixZ6: I tried to restore your edit at Coachella, but the references/sources you added aren't working. Could you provide other sources for your changes? Cheers, CycloneYoris talk! 18:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, any engagement here its truly appreciated. I'm out of my depth so I'm going to leave this alone. I thought it was a very modest and factual edit. But I get it. I now know about the conflict -- Thanks. FYI, Here are the links that I messed up.
This one refers to the event Goldenvoice and I did together that was the precursor to Coachella
https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/organic-feature-legendary-dance-music-festival-8516857/
And this one in the LA Times refers to me as the art director:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/blogs/culture-monster-blog/story/2009-04-20/a-report-from-coachella-temporary-architecture-notes-on-camp
Happy New Year! SouixZ6 (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, CycloneYoris!

[edit]
Happy New Year!

CycloneYoris,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ☎ 06:37, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Volten001 ☎ 06:37, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Estonia on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 03:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CycloneYoris&oldid=1331040373"