User talk:Cyclopia

Hello! I'm afraid you misunderstood my intentions with my edits. I certainly did not mean to censor or whitewash anything, as you said. I did not delete the information that was in the template (and which you have now restored), but simply moved it to the appropriate section, where I expanded on it and supplemented it with sources. I came here just to find a consensus and avoid an edit war, even if it's just a matter of details, and I certainly don't think we would have reached that point (the only thing I have already changed is the opening sentence, because the part you had inserted didn't make much sense within the sentence and created confusion; it seemed that “convinte for racing” was his nickname XD. Furthermore, being encyclopaedic as an entrepreneur and not as a criminal, that part should not even be there but in a specific section, as with any other additional “activity” of the biographee that has no encyclopaedic value. I therefore moved the part to the dedicated section below. In simple terms, I integrated the sources you provided with those already present). The other things to correct would be, first of all, the template. Do you think that parameter dedicated to criminal charges in the template is necessary? I read in the template sheet that it is optional, and since criminal charges are not the focus of the entry, I thought about removing them. In any case, if we decide to keep it, we need to integrate it. He was not only convicted of rape but also of drug possession, and then, if I am not mistaken, the rape conviction was ultimately for only one girl, not “several”. Secondly, do you really think that the information about the two companies being unicorns is irrelevant? Perhaps it could be integrated into the body of the entry instead of the introduction. Let me know! You are surely far more expert than me, I'm on wikipedia only from 2023, while you it's been decades since you started to edit. Respect. 9002Jack (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the heads up. First of all, I believe this discussion is more pertinent to the article talk page :) and I'd continue it from there after my reply.

That said, my opinion is that the subject is encyclopedic because of both his entrepreneurial career and his criminal convictions. Media coverage is substantial for either: it is not just a minor part of an overall biography of an entrepreneur, it is one of the two things for which he is known. In popular culture he is almost certainly more known for the criminal episodes than for his entrepreneurial career. I disagree, therefore, that this part of his life should be removed from the lead or the infobox.

As for details:

• As far as I understand, the rape conviction is for at least two girls (e.g.) and further there is another conviction for attempted sexual assault ().
• I cannot find proper info on the drug possession charges (I'm sure there are, I'm asking for sources on that since what I see covers mostly the sexual assault and related charges)
• The companies being unicorns seems a minor quirk to me (but YMMV); it seems it is an arbitrary classification of companies. It seems relevant to me in articles about the companies more than Genovese, but if we keep it in the article, I'd keep it in the section about his entrepreneurial activities.

Thanks a lot for your input! cyclopia^speak! 12:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, just curious. Why did you use mdy dates when dmy dates are standard in Italy?? Regards Denisarona (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, this is not the Italian wikipedia :) is there a MOS guideline about that? cyclopia^speak! 16:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

This is the English language wikipedia. It is standard to use dmy dates in the article set in the country where dmy dates are normal (e.g. France, Italy, Britain, Ireland, etc.). It is standard to use mdy dates in the article set in the country where mdy dates are normal (e.g. The United States). Regards Denisarona (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this. Would you kindly link the relevant WP:MOS? :) cyclopia^speak! 10:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe MOS:DATETIES. Denisarona (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems that a format is preferred only when dealing with «topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country». For other countries, no format seems preferred. Anyway feel free to edit and put dates in dmy format, if you wish. cyclopia^speak! 12:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not something that I wish. For example, in most European countries, the standard use is dmy dates - there is no connection to the English language. Denisarona (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Also check out Date and time notation in Italy Denisarona (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Listen. I'm Italian. I know how date and time is written in Italy. If you prefer another format for the article, be bold and change that. If there is a specific guideline that I am not following, let me know about that (the one you linked does not seem relevant). Otherwise, I feel this conversation is useless. Have a wonderful day. :) cyclopia^speak! 10:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I am disappointed you removed the endorsed PRODs on this article, which is wholly unsuitable for an encyclopaedia. In contrast to your de-PROD rationale the article lacks reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Instead of harassing editors for objecting to PROD (see WP:DEPROD), bring the article to AfD if you are concerned. Thanks! cyclopia^speak! 12:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

To be clear: I'm absolutely unsympathetic to neofascist conspiracy theories about Wikipedia. The fact is, however, that sadly there was an attempt at framing WP actions as nefarious by such outlets. That is a documented fact. I'm in doubt if this deserves a whole article but PROD is for uncontroversial deletion, and this doesn't seem at all like a clear-cut case, since the issue could and perhaps should be covered somewhere. cyclopia^speak! 12:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Please don't label a simple, polite note, the first time I have ever had contact with you as "harassment". Your rationale stated that the article has reliable sources, that's not really correct as every single source is listed as unreliable at WP:RSP, except VOZ which nonetheless appears quite a poor source. We will have to agree to disagree as this PROD, which I didn't place and was endorsed by another experienced editor had been in place for five days without objection. The creator also chose not to contest deletion, despite continuing to edit. AusLondonder (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but to comment on an user talk page just to vent that you are 'disappointed' with them is not constructive and as such is kinda harassing. That said, coming to the article: it also cites MSN, which is considered reliable by WP:RSP. Yes, sourcing is weak and I placed tags acknowledging that it is heavily biased - things that are not grounds for deletion, let alone a PROD. What other editors did or thought is entirely irrelevant, since it is enough for one editor to contest the PROD to make it invalid. I suggest again to bring the issue at a proper venue instead of complaining here. Thanks again. cyclopia^speak! 16:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

(apologies: I confused the "MSN" source; that is indeed reporting an unreliable source. That said, I still stand by the opinion that it is not such an obvious case to merit PROD. I would have no qualms with article deletion if it can be shown at AfD that there is no hope to source it properly. cyclopia^speak! 16:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)