User talk:Pincermitosis

Welcome!

Hi Pincermitosis! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Neopaganism in Italy has been accepted

Neopaganism in Italy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Tavantius (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello, I'm 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E0C1:A3E1:922:144. I noticed that you recently removed all content from a page. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use your 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. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E0C1:A3E1:922:144 (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pincermitosis:Pincermitosis/sandbox2 moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Pincermitosis:Pincermitosis/sandbox2. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has too many problems of language or grammar and error. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 14:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I didn't mean to publish it,

hould I draft all my other sandboxs as well?

Pincermitosis (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't created them yet so no worries!

You can use Wikipedia:Article wizard to create your own drafts more easily.

Happy editing! 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 14:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject

Hi, btw a WikiProject’s been created on oral tradition if you’re interested, it’s at WP:WikiProject Anthropology/Oral tradition taskforce Kowal2701 (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm now onboard! Pincermitosis (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western canon

Just fyi, I reverted your edit to Western canon because the article is about the Canon. It doesn't need a long list of 17th and 18th century philosophers, it only needs a few to illustrate the point.

If it is of any consolation, you are far from unusual in making such good faith edits but the result is that articles get bloated to the point that they fail the tl;dr test. (If an article is tightly edited, crammed with essential information, but still too long, it can be WP:SPLIT. So one to note for [long-term] future reference.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I understand that, but wouldn't you agree that Giuseppe Mazzini (romaticism) and Marsilio Ficino (Neoplatonism) be considered as majour canon philosophers, influential enough to be mentioned? Giambattista Vico is considered by some as the father of Philosphy of History, would that not be related to the western canon? Pincermitosis (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes if you can find a citation that explicitly identifies them as "canonical" – per WP:NOR, you can't do so based on your own knowledge ore experience. (I'm not defending the current list as it is poorly cited too, so do please feel free to prune it.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC) amended 15:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @JMF hope all is well! I added the information back with references let me know what you think and what we should do about the rest of the un-referenced information

Pincermitosis (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, that is exactly how it should be (and should always have been) done.

As for the others, we can (a) boldy delete them (which is maybe too provocative) or (b) tag them with {{citation needed}}, leave it for a month for a response, and then delete them or (c) search for supporting citations, if you are willing. I advise option b for now in any case. If you are motivated, then obviously c but that is not an overnight task. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will try and focus on this page for a bit. Thank you for the advice and encouragement! I only stumbled on it trough the "suggested edits" function, but now looking at the article and the discussion (wow!) I see there's quite a lot of work needed to improve it. Pincermitosis (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Fulesta has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Fulesta. Thanks! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thabk you @Vanderwaalforces! I couldn't find anything specifically related to that date of the shows starting from 2008, I only translated it from the Italian article where this reference is also missing. I found a few websites mentioning this show happening throughout the years, all pointing to different dates. I picked the one that looks to be most reliable however that article is referring to the 2016 edition. Pincermitosis (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about removing it entirely on the grounds that it is unverifiable? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well the 2008 edition is unverifiable, but the 2016 version is. Pincermitosis (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fulesta (November 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SafariScribe were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Read the guide to citing WP:OFFLINESOURCES.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Fulesta and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pincermitosis! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Pincermitosis! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

-- 21:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

Hello, I'm Significa liberdade. An edit that you recently made to Brotherhood of Myriam seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Natale di Roma, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison what's your rational for removing 'religious ritual category'? There's literally photos of the religious ritual at circus maximus carried out by the religious association Pietas Comunita Gentile, it's also documented in the references. Before deleting content, please can you make sure you read up on what it is you're modifying. Thank you Pincermitosis (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a defining feature of the category. It is extremely clear that you don't know how categories work. Please review before adding non-defining features. ^SMason_Garrison 14:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what you're saying is the order of the words is wrong? I haven't reverted the edit to exactly the same previous edit, you can see I've tried to add the right sub category so that it would appear on this category page of rituals by religion. You can see there is a category for many religions, but there isn't any for the Roman religion. Pincermitosis (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you need to discuss this change rather than adding back the category. The issue is that this is a "ritual is a sequence of activities involving gestures, words, actions, or revered objects." A religious festival is not a ritual, and that the categories you have added are not defining for a religious festival. ^SMason_Garrison 14:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I thought you made a judgment regarding something that you were not educated about. Natale di Roma is not only celebrated as a festival and a parade, part of the celebration is the rite itself, which you can see in the photo and described in the sources cited Pincermitosis (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a "defining" feature. I have strongly encouraged you to review how categorization works, and I have done so assuming good faith. Please extend me the same courtesy. ^SMason_Garrison 15:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I don't think you're acting in bad faith, I just don't think you understand the topic. What you say could be true for any religion but in Roman paganism the festival is part of the rite, it is a rite. The dances, the banquets, the parades, are part of the ritual so the whole day is a ritual, the festival is part of the ritual, not the other way around. Pincermitosis (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't think you understand how categorization works. The evaluation I made was about your understanding of categorization, not about the merits of the content question. ^SMason_Garrison 15:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're saying that Natale di Roma is not a ritual and doesn't belong in its own sub category of rituals by religion.

I'm wondering if you're also so sure there shouldn't be any sub category for other Roman religious practices like Roman triumph, Sellisternium, Lustratio, cultus,Votive offering, Ablution etc. I suggest before you reply you read the pages themselves, you're going to read the word "rite" a lot in those pages. And I guess if you disagree you'll have to go and delete it from all those pages? Pincermitosis (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say "No, you're saying that Natale di Roma is not a ritual and doesn't belong in its own sub category of rituals by religion"? Because I've asked you to familiarize yourself with a policy. ^SMason_Garrison 16:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly you're saying that my claim is against the policy, you undid my edit because? Because in your view Natale di Roma doesn't fit the requirements to be in that category which is "religious ritual" Pincermitosis (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No -- I removed them because you placed the pages in container categories as well as less specific categories when they were already in a more specific one [1][2]. ^SMason_Garrison 16:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well that's fine but I don't think you did it the right way. I think you should've created a new sub category for Roman religious practices, that's where it should go imo. I made one but you'll notice it still doesn't appear in the right page, are you able to fix it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ancient_roman_religious_practices Pincermitosis (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think I shouldn't have removed the incorrect categories and started a discussion with you? ^SMason_Garrison 16:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could fix it, but I'd rather have you learn how to fix it. Please take a look at how other categories are formatted. ^SMason_Garrison 16:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Ancient_roman_religious_practices&diff=prev&oldid=1261906594 and this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confarreatio&diff=prev&oldid=1261906667 ^SMason_Garrison 16:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think, since you clearly know what you're doing and are an experienced user, instead of deleting them, could've simply fixed what seemed to be the issue like you did now. If I'm understanding you're point, you didn't have a problem with the content but with the code. But there still is a missing subcategory for 'rituals by religion' → 'ancient Roman rituals' where to put evocatio, lectisternium, lustratio etc Pincermitosis (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But then you would not learn how to do it yourself ^SMason_Garrison 16:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's correct now, can you have a look please?

Category:Ancient Roman rituals Pincermitosis (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! However, Ancient roman religious practices should be the parent of Category:Ancient Roman rituals. I've flipped it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Ancient_Roman_rituals&diff=prev&oldid=1262069057 ^SMason_Garrison 12:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help! Pincermitosis (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pincermitosis! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Natale di Roma several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Natale di Roma, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 14:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Modern roman rituals

Hello, Pincermitosis,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Smasongarrison, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Modern roman rituals, for deletion, because it is a very short article that doesn't provide readers with enough context to determine who or what the subject is.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Smasongarrison}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

^SMason_Garrison 14:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's fine that page was created in error, it was supposed to be a category page as you probably read by now in my previous reply to you Pincermitosis (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modern roman religion has been nominated for merging

Category:Modern roman religion has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 14:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in participating in a study about Large Language Models (LLMs) usage?

Dear Pincermitosis,

It is our pleasure to invite you to join a study at the University of Minnesota! The objective of the study is to understand how large language models (LLMs) impact the collaborative knowledge production process, by investigating knowledge contributors’ interactions with LLMs in practice.

If you have used LLMs (e.g., GPT, Llama, Claude...) when you contribute to Wikipedia (eg. Editing Wikipedia articles with LLMs, using LLMs when interacting with other contributors), we’d love to join the study! You will be engaging in a 45-60 min interview, talking and reflecting about your experience with Wikipedia and your perception/usage of LLMs in Wikipedia. Your valuable input will not only help us understand practical ways to incorporate LLMs into the knowledge production process, but also help us generate guardrails about these practices. All participation would be anonymous.

To learn more and sign up, please visit https://umn.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bqIjhNRg9Zqsuvs.

All the best, LLMs and knowledge production Research Team Phoebezz22 (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]