User talk:Cybercobra

If I have left you a message: please answer on my talk page, else inform me.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on your talk page, unless you request otherwise.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Note: In order to keep this page from becoming cluttered with outdated posts, I clear comment sections from my talkpage on a regular basis after I have responded to them. So, just don't be surprised if you're responding to my response and your original post is no longer here.

Behold, the glory of Wikipedia!

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cybercobra.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Félix Rodríguez (Central Intelligence Agency); Interface inheritance; First Satanic Church; Language-independent specification; Car game; Penrith High School; Prebound; CPython; Sick man of Asia; United States v. Cruikshank; Hamish Macbeth; Resource starvation; Mortal Coils; Old Major; Third-generation programming language; Eurasia; Christian communism; Type polymorphism; Very high-level programming language

Cleanup: Open gaming; Chat room; Internet fax
Merge: Captain Britain Corps; Standard; Red Hot Catholic Love
Add Sources: Ace of Spades; GNAT Programming Studio; Left communism
Wikify: Economy of North Korea; Wonder Twins; Language binding
Expand: History of communism; Anarchism and Marxism; Programming paradigm

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radical changes to Bibliography for Ayn Rand and Objectivism

Greetings, Cybercobra, and thanks for creating Bibliography of Ayn Rand, that is a welcome development. I'm concerned at some of your other edits to the Objectivism bibliography though, particularly moving long lists of works into the Ayn Rand prose article. Would you care to start a discussion at the Objectivism WikiProject page to decide on the best distribution of the content? Thanks, Skomorokh 08:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm of the opinion that bibliography articles besides those that list the works of an author/group, i.e. those that are effectively spun-out "Further reading" sections, are improper in that they violate WP:NOTDIR and are prone to accumulating cruft. Thus, I've been splitting up Bibliography for Ayn Rand and Objectivism into "Further reading" sections of the main articles and the new Bibliography of Ayn Rand article. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree with your stance on standalone further reading articles, but shifting the problem into articles themselves is not really helpful. Further reading sections work best when there are half a dozen or so books to choose from; Ayn Rand#Further reading has far too much content now to be of practical use to readers.

By analogy to dealing with "In popular culture" sections, I think the best solution is to put all the disputed content into a standalone article, and then having a discussion to decide whether it can be salvaged. I've initiated a discussion on the project page that I welcome you to join. Regards, Skomorokh 09:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree said sections are too long, but not being versed in Objectivism, I don't feel qualified to prune them, and attempting to honor WP:PRESERVE leads me to leave their contents unchanged (beyond some simple sorting/categorization) from the original bibliography. Once they are on the right pages, the sections are located at places frequented by users qualified to prune them, so I take the opposing view with regards to where the pruning should take place; but quibbling over where it happens is admittedly a trivial issue. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian Style Prod

I believe this is a formating issue. What you have done to this article is changed the format from Parenthetical referencing (or general reference summary) style to footnote style. (See WP:CITE) Accordingly, Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Adding_the_citation states " WP:CITE] "Once a style is selected for an article it is inappropriate to change to another, unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style." Which is re-enforced by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Consistency... "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." This appears to be supported by 3 arbitration decisions.

Hence, I propose that this is not a duplication of references but merelly a dispute on formating. I must add that being the first major contributor to this article, I particularly enjoy being able to browse through the references in the article as demonstrated in the August 2009 version of the article. (The two colapsable tables: 1) References and 2) References sorted by source (ie.: Dictionnary, Encyclopedia, Online, Scholarly Work, etc.).

I do understand however that this is a Nonstandard subpage and that it should be deleted... however, I believe the content should be merged into the article in the afformentioned format (ie.: a collapsable table) to which readers can chose if they wish to see the references. Alas, if the facts show that this is a complete duplication then it should be quite easy for you to prove... however, this is not the case, because there is more information within the original referencing system then the current referencing system (ie.:footnotes). It's simple logic. Some information is duplicated... Not all is duplicate... Hence, the information is not completely duplicated. Please consider a merging the information, as well as the talk page into the main article prior to implementing any deletion/Prod. Thank You!!! --CyclePat (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary stuff is non standard and should not be retained. This is a content issue as far as I'm concerned. I agree the subpage should be deleted. 88.172.132.94 (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]