User talk:Psychonaut/Archive 14

Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Orphaned non-free image File:Escape from Robotropolis.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Escape from Robotropolis.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

With the first one, I copied that from the page on Wikipedia I found so the copyright violations would not have been by me then. Best to look in the history for who did that on December 2004. Jackninja5 (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer Beleiutz?

Hello! Your opinion on this guy? -- Victor Blacus (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! That account's editing interests (Jorge, Paula Seling, Mihaela Rădulescu, Disney, etc.) very closely matches Beleiutz's. The nonsense edit summaries (e.g. [1]) are also a match. I'll ask for a global lock. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Victor Blacus, I've filed the report at Meta:Vandalism reports#Vlad Georgian (Beleiutz sockpuppet). —Psychonaut (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Russia Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

De Gruyter

I saw your message on Saehrimnir's talk page. Have you heard anything about the accounts? I got a notification to fill out some form about three weeks ago and have heard nothing since. I emailed Saehrimnir 7 and 14 days after filling out the form but I have yet to see a reply. It sounds like you got something from De Gruyter. I am unsure if I messed up something on the form or if it just takes a long time to process. Any information would be appreciated. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Muphry's law

Hi Phychonaut,

About the page Muphry's Law, which I edited. You removed the edit because a reliable source is missing. I'm not sure how to add such a source. I am, in fact, the person named in my edit, Jan Willem van Dormolen, and this morning I came up with this new variant of Muphry's Law, on Facebook, in the (closed) group Vertalerskoffiehoek. If you can help me how to do this correctly, I'ld be greatly obliged. I've created an account for Wikipedia now to make things easier.

Greetings and thanks for your attentiveness, Jan Willem Afoklala (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, User:Afoklala, and thanks for your message. Unfortunately, the invention of yours is not eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia—according to our policy on What Wikipedia is not, our project is not meant to document neologisms and personal inventions unless they have attracted significant coverage in reliable sources. Nevertheless, I hope you stick around and consider contributing to Wikipedia in other ways! —Psychonaut (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Request

Iam requesting you to remove the deletion tag placed on Dhruv Bhandari & Asianet Television Awards The pages which was deleted formerly as because of creation by banned or blocked user does mean that the page should not be recreated? Hopefully. --Roshan025 (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Accusation of SockPuppetry

Hi, I noticed that I have been an accusation of sockpuppetry and I want to address them before it gets out of hand. I replied to the post regarding me being a sockpuppet of another user Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/036386536a. However I noticed that the fact that I edited Mascot Derby was also under consideration. This page is the page that Wikipedia linked to me when I first signed up to edit in order to try and teach me the ropes and how to use Wikipedia. Id imagine this is why there has been a recent flurry of activity on this Wikipedia page, although I cannot speak for everyone else. Finaltime18645 (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Accusation of SockPuppetry

Same is true here (re: above Mascot Derby edits) - I signed up and Wikipedia directed me that page to guide me through the process of editing. I know nothing about Mascots or Derbies, but do have an ok grasp of grammar. --These bones (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Your recent revert

I noticed your recent revert. Considering the fact that another user has made some edits on the article, is the revert still valid? Mhhossein (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It didn't seem to me that the intervening edits were substantial. If you want to undo my revert and take responsibility for the blocked user's edits, you may do so. In that case, however, I'd advise you to first carefully check for and correct any violations of copyright and NPOV. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Parahuman page

I really feel guy is ruinined page because I feel honest he hate the page look somewhat confused and seems he make claims it's "Neologism" because of thier "No third party sources" put despite word parahuman were referances in some third-party sources like [2] with even link to parahuman page and second they refer parahuman word are refer as alternate names like 'Human-Animal hybrids' or 'Chimerazation'. 70.61.121.86 (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I see. Have you tried discussing your concerns with him? I see he has already raised the matter at Talk:Parahuman#Removed material but doesn't seem to have received a response there. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
K, Thanks 70.61.121.86 (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Dhruv Bhandari‎

Popped up on my watchlist again, a week after I'd done a G5 deletion that you'd tagged. I'm not very familiar with the sockmaster involved, so alerting you to see if an SPI might be needed. —SpacemanSpiff 12:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • The prior article versions aren't the same but the prior two versions by the socks were created only about 20 days ago, so it'd be reasonable to suspect a sock. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for letting me know. However, it's too early at this point for me to tell whether the article was recreated by the same person. I'll have to wait and see what other articles they create to see if they fit the pattern. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"Third-party snark"

I don't mind your removal of my post here — it was impulsive — but where do you think you get off calling it "third-party snark"? This is what Kutsuit said to me when I'd blocked her for three days recently: [3][4]. For that, she was blocked for two weeks, not by me, and immediately created many socks for the exclusive purpose of harassing me. You can see quite a few of them in my talkpage history, where she repeats over and over the choicest phrases from the edit I've linked you to. These contributions to my page were all revision deleted, so I realise you can't read them, but you can read the original that I have linked you too. (I hope nobody decides to revdel that; it can be useful to explain the situation to people who opine from a position of ignorance.) She then attacked me globally, again with the same phrasing (perhaps it might be called "snark"?), see [5]. I'm not a third party here, I'm a party, sir/madam. As for the rest of your edit summary, pointing out that you've removed the "This user assists at the dispute resolution noticeboard" template because the user can't participate at Dispute Resolution "while blocked": if you had informed yourself before forming an opinion, you'd know that there's no "while" about it. She has burned all chances of ever being unblocked. Not because I'd oppose it (I wouldn't), but simply through her actions. Any future appearance of her original account is more likely to be here than at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Bishonen | talk 10:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC).

I honestly don't know why I wrote "third-party"—looking back it doesn't make sense, as I was aware that you were the target of her attacks. Please accept my apologies for the offence caused by this error. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
OK. Bishonen | talk 13:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC).

The standard notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

In response to your question on the AfD Breitbart is usually not considered a reliable source. It's probably best to refrain from linking articles from them if they contain a large number of negative allegations about a living person. Otherwise, have fun!Bosstopher (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"University "

Respected Sir,

University don't have nay problem if Wikipedia(or anyone other) use this content(text)on any website we are donating this content to Wikipedia for publish. so can i undo that changes if Wikipedia approve this time ..? talk

Please stop posting messages about Lovely Professional University on this page. The conversation you are replying to is at User talk:Jagdishsarai. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

OmgWeegeetime

OmgWeegeetime (talk · contribs) is at it again. Check his edits and his edit summaries ("joke country of North Korea") and the like. 05:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've issued the user a final warning for WP:NPOV violations. Hopefully they'll get the message. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Dawn Eden here. Just want to say thanks for all you do in checking my page for unsourced information, etc. 40.136.187.162 (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem, Dawn. :) —Psychonaut (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Savitribai Phule Pune University

Oh my, you didn't even bother to read what I just wrote to JustBerry who posted basically the same content as you. Since it seems he/she deleted what I wrote for unknown reasons, probably because he/she knew I was right, here's the quote for you:

"Savitribai Phule Pune University:

You OBVIOUSLY didn't read all of the sententences I put in what I edited. Let me rephrase (but in not exactly the same words maybe): "These are not written rules, rather they are rules orally told by supervisors to the patrolling guards". This OBVIOUSLY means that there are no written sources I can cite, because Wikipedia does not accept orally sources.

I have emailed the director of International Centre twice to get written rules, but he has yet to reply. Be sure that once I get a WRITTEN rule by the director Mr Khare I will cite it directly. In the meantime I will definately put what I wrote back up.

And sorry to say it, but you misused your position in Wikipedia badly by not analyzing the sententences properly before deleting the contents."

Dmateh (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Dmateh

Yes, I read what you wrote to User:JustBerry. Did you read the reliable sources guideline that we both directed you to? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
@Psychonaut and Dmateh: I received and appreciate your ping, Psychonaut. @Dmateh: If you're dealing with article content, particularly criticism, it is important to have reliable sources so that other readers can verify your claims. Please see Wikipedia:Criticism#Neutrality_and_verifiability. --JustBerry (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
User:JustBerry and Psychonaut:
Of course I've read the WP guidelines and reliable sources article before writing on WP. The problem here is that there ARE no written sources on this (a severe limitation of the university of course) and I even mentioned that I have emailed Dr Khare (Director of International Centre) twice (first time was over a week ago) but have not received a reply yet, to get a source I could put in.
If you feel like you have to erase unsourced content, use the "citation needed" function instead and I'll remove it as soon as I get a reply from the Director (Dr Khare) and replace it with the written source. I am guessing you are reading many articles on WP so you know that is common practice, so why not use it instead of us keeping deleting and re-adding the same contents forever?
If there would be written sources for everything it would be great, but reality doesn't look like that. A great portion of WP would be deleted if everyone demanded a written source for every statement, making WP basically totally useless.
Your erasing of my texts make me curious if you have a bias favouring the university, which of course both of you know should not be expressed on WP pages. You both know the neutrality principle of WP of course, otherwise you should not edit on Wikipedia. My wordings are totally neutral so I am NOT violating the neutrality principle in my Criticism text.
Dmateh (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Dmateh
Dmateh, even if Dr. Khare e-mails you a list of written rules, I'm afraid that you can't reference these on Wikipedia. We require reliable sources supporting all claims, and private correspondence which has not been published in mainstream media usually doesn't count. Even if you manage to find a published list of rules, it can't be used to support the main claim you are making, which is that the university has been criticized for the rules. Again, you would need to find a reliable source attesting to the criticism. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Psychonaut
Well, I can find MANY unsourced claims in the article about the university, and several sources of dubious reliability. Read through the article and you will see them also.
You want me to delete all unsourced and unreliably sourced claims in the article? (It's a real question, not a retorical one, and I expect an answer to it. If you say yes, I'll do it without a doubt, and check the page every day to make sure nobody reenters the contents).
In the meantime, I will change my heading "Criticism" to something more neutral, because you might have a point there, but I will put up basically the same content again. Not only because I personally have experienced my claims around 20 times, but also because the article right now is unfairly balanced towards how "good" the university is - there is basically no criticism whatsoever in the article, and of course a Wikipedia article has to be balanced.
Dmateh (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Dmateh
I'm afraid you're mistaken, Dmateh; there is no policy which states that Wikipedia articles should be balanced. In fact, quite the opposite is true: the degree to which an article covers praise or criticism must be proportionate to its coverage in reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources criticizing (or praising) the university, then this criticism (or praise) must be removed from the article. This is documented in our policy on the neutral point of view.
Incidentally, thank you for offering to help improve the article. But before removing any unsourced claims from the article, please first make a reasonable effort to locate and provide reliable sources for them. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree per and with Psychonaut --JustBerry (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Psychonaut
You're asking me to use my unpaid time to find sources for something someone else wrote? Obviously that is an unreasonable demand. Dmateh (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Dmateh
No, I was hinting that it would be seen as disruptive for you to zealously enforce a rule that you feel shouldn't apply to you in the first place. In fact, we even have a guideline that specifically addresses this scenario—it's called Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If, after reading it, the idea of volunteering your time to improve this project collaboratively remains so distasteful to you, then I suggest you find a different hobby. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

If the conversation does continue it might be helpful if it's moved to the articles talk page. As far as I can understand Dmateh is putting in unsourced material in the article and it's all pretty coming down to what wikipedia considers original research. And seems there's minor edit war and the point is attempting to be made that Dmateh may be blocked if he continues such disruption. That it?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much. It seems the ANI report got a few more eyes on the article so that should help. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

More info please

Hi Psychonaut, can you please tell me the name of the sockmaster you are alluding to here? Feel free to reply here. Much appreciated, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the SPI. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI: I ran several of the Big Boss articles through CorenSearchBot several days ago and it didn't find any copyright violations. That does not mean, of course, that there are no copyright violations in those articles. I think the bot is sometimes buggy. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I never use the bot, myself. Manually finding copyright violations in articles on Indian media is like shooting fish in a barrel. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Artistic incompetence

Category:Artistic incompetence, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

RX Request

Hello, Psychonaut. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

QB (singer) and Qurat-ul-Ain Balouch

Why dont you also move John F. Kennedy to Jfk page as you did Qurat-ul-Ain Balouch to QB (singer). Instead of threatening to block me discuss the issues politely. WikiBulova (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean about John F. Kennedy. Regarding your changes to Qurat-ul-Ain Balouch and QB (singer), I have not threatened to block you. I just left you a polite note explaining that you haven't moved the pages properly, and informing you of the correct procedure. Please open a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please do not restore your edits as they are disruptive to the edit history. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add comment on [QB Edits]. Thanks. WikiBulova (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for C. L. Blood

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Wishes

Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
 Mouth full of sweets,
 Home full of lamps,
 And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
 §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
 Mouth full of sweets,
 Home full of lamps,
 And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
 §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

CCI clerking

Thank you for addressing the CCI requests that I haven't had the time to look at. A couple of things to keep in mind, though:

  1. Please don't open CCIs with the username in the title when a user edits under his/her real name for obvious reasons. We usually use the date (20151115) as a substitute title.
  2. Declined requests go to the archive (I've already moved the two you have closed so far).

I'm currently running my semi-automated analysis on the three that you have opened to reduce the backlog a little. MER-C 20:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, MER-C. Where is the guidance about not using names as titles recorded? I didn't see anything about this at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Instructions. Regarding the archiving of requests, I didn't think that ones accepted for processing on the main CCI page count as "declined". I'll update the instructions page to make this clearer. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The instructions may be out of date, as nobody is bothered to update them. I don't remember it being written down anywhere, but it is long-standing practice. MER-C 21:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've updated the instructions and moved the CCI page in question. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup

Hello, Psychonaut. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the e-mail, User:HazelAB. Your instructions say to use a special link to sign up for a newspapers.com account. However, I already have an (unpaid) newspapers.com account. Should I skip the sign-up step, or do I need to create a separate account? —Psychonaut (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You can use the account you already have. Newspapers.com will just activate it so you have access to all the content. Please fill in the Google form, though, so I can let them know what email address you've used to register. Also, please make sure to provide the same email address in the Google form as you used to sign up at Newspapers.com. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Your account has been activated so you should have access now. HazelAB (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it seems to be working, thanks! —Psychonaut (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

List of tools for static code analysis

You reverted my Checkmarx entry on List of tools for static code analysis. It is true that the Checkmarx article itself was deleted several times (probably because of advertising or non Encyclopedia makeup), but Checkmarx should still be in this list. --FlippyFlink|talk 17:05, 20 November 2015

According to the selection criteria at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, entries should appear in this list only when they are notable enough to have their own article. If you feel the topic is notable enough for its own article, perhaps you could create one that avoids the spam issues that got the others deleted, and then link to it from the list. (You will need to get an administrator to unsalt the title first.) —Psychonaut (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Imitatum

Could you reopen the CU (change the status to CU request) and add the diffs for the two other accounts. This is the first time I'm coming across this farm so I'd prefer if you do it. Also, reg Kartiktiwary, this one seems awfully similar, I clearly remember having to delete some Purvanchal related copyvios before so was wondering if you have any knowledge of that. —SpacemanSpiff 14:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I see User:NativeForeigner's gone ahead and done a CU; the results don't support a link to Imtitanium, at least for GSS-1987. Do you want the diffs anyway? (I don't think the behavioural evidence is conclusive on its own.)
Regarding Kartiktiwary, I don't think I've encountered the account operator before. But then again, with so many copyvios on India-related articles, it's hard to keep track of who's who. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
No, that's fine. I really couldn't see how two accounts that weren't pinged suddenly figured out about the SPI, but if it's unlikely then so be it. There's obviously something fishy if not socking. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Prowareness Article

Hi Psychonaut,

I have added an article Prowareness recently in Wikipedia, I assure you that i have gone through all the terms and conditions of Wikipedia.org before doing the same. All the contents in the article are true to best of my knowledge and of neutral point of view. We will not be doing any promotion or advertisement using the Wikipedia.org Also we have just started the article and are in process of updating the article with proper and decent content which might be helpful for the community. Again , It just information which we shared.

Please let me know if you find any discrepancies in the same.

Alos regarding Scientific Games Corporation it was a mistake, my apologies.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjiv04 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that you've read through all the terms and conditions here. Is it possible that you overlooked the ones on sockpuppetry and disclosure of paid editing? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Psychonaut
Can you please remove the speedy deletion from the article prowareness
Thanks,Sanjiv04 (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi User:Sanjiv04. Can you answer my question above first? Have you read the policy on sockpuppetry (including the section about meatpuppetry) and the terms and conditions relating to paid editing? If so, can you verify that you are in compliance with them? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Psychonaut,
I am not a paid editor, just added my first article with my own interest to share the info about a company. I assure you that the content will be un-biased and neutral .
Please give me some time to improve the article.
Thanks, Sanjiv04 (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, and what about the other two accounts which suddenly showed up to contest the deletion of your article? Do you have any relationship to them? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Psychonaut,
yes other two accounts are of my friends. We are a bunch of Wikipedia users who would like to read and share information.
Request you to please remove the Speedy Deletion tag from the article Prowareness.
Thanks,Sanjiv04 (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks like the copyright and promotion issues have been solved, so I removed the deletion tags. However, there remains the notability issue, so I felt compelled to tag it again on different grounds. By the way, are you sure you and your friends also read WP:MEAT? The appearance of yet another account whose sole interest is editing this particular article does not bode well for its survival, nor for your continued ability to edit here. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Psychonaut,

Why was the page Prowarenss Deleted ? Can you please look into it ? I wish to retrieve the deleted material please enable the page .

Sanjiv04 (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it did not credibly assert the notability of the subject, as explained in the messages I left you above and at User talk:Sanjiv04#Speedy deletion nomination of Prowareness 3. If you want a copy of the deleted material, you will need to file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Psychonaut
Can i create the page again ? I will make sure all the terms and conditions are met and non of the wikipedia polices are violated ?
Thanks Sanjiv04 (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Technically you can do this. Though it's very important that if you do so, the article contains references to reliable sources which establish the company's notability. (The references used in the previous version of the article were not reliable, and the article did not even attempt to establish the company's notability.) If you do not follow this advice, I am certain that someone else will delete the article again. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok thanks for the information.
Regards Sanjiv04 (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Blind faith vs WP:V

Did you forget about WP:BURDEN [6]? Please provide a source or self-revert. The Dissident Aggressor 16:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I was saying that there was no grounds on which to remove that particular entry from the list which does not equally apply to every other entry on the list. If you have concerns about the verifiability of the list, why did you not either source or remove all the entries, rather than singling out just one for special attention? It's not as though its inclusion was unduly promotional or self-serving. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know that it's true. The "grounds on which to remove that particular entry" are WP:V. If you want to put it back, you MUST supply a source. The WP:BURDEN is on anyone who restores content. Read it. The Dissident Aggressor 18:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Congratulation

Congrats.. You won the battle between you and Kartiktiwary. You did good job but for your kind information i want tell you something. . User:Kritaksh is not my account. 2 people can have same interests. You did wrong to him. But for your job its not important. Congratulation..  :-) User:Kartiktiwary

See [7]. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverting Big Brother India

Thanks man, i did not know that material was from a hoax, once again, thanks. Vitor RSilva — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitor RSilva (talk • contribs) 17:00, 29 November 2015‎

Reliable Sources for Understand (software) article

I noticed that you nominated the Understand (software) article for deletion due to a lack of notability. Apparently I don't understand what qualifies as a reliable source. I read the official article about "reliable sources" but it still seems rather arbitrary. Can you give me any further insight into what I should look for when searching for reliable sources or if the following sources would be considered reliable? Flurry.com, Emenda, Meteonic, Migtec. --Mennbaji (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Ideally, you should be looking for articles in established trade journals which review the software (and are not merely reprinted or retooled press releases), and scholarly articles which appear in peer-reviewed publications (i.e., reputable journals and conference proceedings). In any case, the articles must discuss Understand in some depth, and the authors must be unaffiliated with the product's developers or marketers. If you can find two or three sources unambiguously meeting these criteria, then there's a good chance your article will be kept.
Incidentally, if you yourself are connected with the developers of Understand, make sure you read and comply with our conflict of interest guideline and our terms and conditions relating to paid editing. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Socialist Studies (1981)

The article Socialist Studies (1981) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Socialist Studies (1981) – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. Please see the plain-language summary of our notability guidelines.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 20:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Socialist Studies № 82-14.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Socialist Studies № 82-14.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Word Ways has been nominated for discussion

Category:Word Ways, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Word Ways people has been nominated for discussion

Category:Word Ways people, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Guy (Help!) 04:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michif language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batoche. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vrghs jacob/Archive

Back, see the edit summary here. This looks like duck to me, so Moonriddengirl or you may want to check for the tell tale copyvios. —SpacemanSpiff 09:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure I have time to check for copyvios now, but I have reopened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vrghs jacob. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Subject preference for comma?

Re this edit, can you let me know what sources you're referring to that indicate subject's preference for a comma? Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm referring to the numerous Borgmann and Guinness references. All of these use the comma, and make a point of claiming to faithfully reproduce the name (in the long and short versions) as the subject preferred to render it. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Shrimpton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philip Dunne. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Dinardi
added a link pointing to Spring flowers
The Best of Magic
added a link pointing to John Calvert

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

List of metaphor-based metaheuristics

Thanks for taking the effort to look into List of metaphor-based metaheuristics and related articles. I can't say I completely with agree with all the changes you made (specifically: this is a highly polarized field of science; I think List of metaphor-based metaheuristics makes this clear, but in the "stand-alone" articles I no longer feel this gets expressed sufficiently). I'm probably going to refrain from editing in this area for a while, that generally helps to see thing in perspective. —Ruud 17:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Re D4Science page editing

The content you dropped is exactly same yet I'm the owner of such writing and I'm willing to donate it to Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D4Science&oldid=737425242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo.candela (talk • contribs) 18:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

According to http://data.d4science.org/c1NFYUthUStlT0JmL29xMEpIQ1Uzc2VtOTBYdGo0MzdHbWJQNStIS0N6Yz0 the copyright holder to at least some of the text is the SoBigData Consortium. The remaining text seems to be taken from the website of BlueBRIDGE, which I assume holds exclusive copyright. If you're a legal representative of the Consortium and/or BlueBRIDGE, please follow the instructions for donating copyrighted material that I placed on your user talk page. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Psychonaut

Sorry But you did not read carefully Iskandar School artical did not have any copyrighted metiral i was reverting the edits done by an anoymous user on 21 september Bgwhite +imaduddin school did not have any copyrighted matiral cause the information was taken by a public imaduddin school website

https://m.facebook.com/imaduddinschool/about/?mt_nav=1&__xt__=33.%7B"logging_data"%3A%7B"event_type"%3A"tapped_open_page_info"%2C"impression_info"%3A"eyJmIjp7InN0eWxlIjoiMjkiLCJwYWdlX2lkIjoiMzE4NDY0ODQ4MjE1MzI0IiwiaXRlbV9jb3VudCI6IjEifX0"%2C"surface"%3A"mobile_page_home"%2C"interacted_story_type"%3A"1609824172609938"%2C"session_id"%3A"9fe74e211a478fcf95037bbc9a6ff097"%7D%7D

http://ims.edu.mv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyber Warrior (talk • contribs) 13:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken about Iskandhar School. As far as I can tell, most of the material you added wasn't previously in the article. With regard to Imaduddin School, the fact that the material was taken from the school's page doesn't mean that it is out of copyright. Wikipedia accepts only text which is in the public domain or which is freely licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons BY-SA licence (or a compatible one). Do not reinsert this material without providing proof of its copyright status. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
all the information in imadduddin is from public domains
iskandhar school website is a pubic domain (not wasting your time) at all $$$ 13:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyber Warrior (talk • contribs)
Then please provide a link to the page on the website that states that the material is in the public domain. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
read the very bottom : copyright for the website disign only not a single word is copyrighted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyber Warrior (talk • contribs) 13:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The first of those links says "© All rights reserved." That is a positive statement that the contents of the website are not free content. (Note, however, that even the absence of such a positive statement cannot be taken as evidence that the material is in the public domain!) The second link doesn't appear to be the one from which you copied any text, so it's irrelevant what it says. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Cyber Warrior: Depending on a country's intellectual property rights laws, especially Singapore in my case, a missing "©", copyright symbol or copyright status does not mean the content is not copyrighted, because technically, it doesn't matter. Sorry Psychonaut :P Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 06:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the Michael Shrimpton controversy

I respect your decision not to accept barnstars, so I have reverted my previous message. Nevertheless, I would like to express to you my respect and admiration for demonstrating civility, maturity and responsibility during the discussion, and also for your clean up on the subject's article. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 09:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! —Psychonaut (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as you may know, Shrimpton was not pleased. --Weazie (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that article refers to last week's version of his Wikipedia biography. The biography got a major update the same day the Veterans Today article appeared. I hope he's at least a bit happier with the current version—it still doesn't present all his theories in great detail (since that level of detail is not reflected in reliable sources) but it does devote more attention to his career achievements. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Palindrome

Notifying all named accounts who have edited this article this year. There is a discussion of whether this article should contain foreign language palindromes. If you would like to comment the thread is Talk:Palindrome#Non-English_palindromes_2 Meters (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

I really appreciate your compliment and I'll try to remember to file a report. I can't stand seeing all Canadian related articles being vandalized. I faced a similar problem like that over at Adventures of the Little Koala and it hasn't been resolved since. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Buffalo buffalo ... oh you know

Thanks Psychonaut, I get it (vandalism). —vicsar (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Psychonaut. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Psychonaut. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Justification for Properly sourced content of Rajesh Shah

@Psychonaut:,

Earlier the content which I had added was from trusted resources like 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27181128 About NCBI: As a national resource for molecular biology information, NCBI's mission is to develop new information technologies to aid in the understanding of fundamental molecular and genetic processes that control health and disease.

2. http://www.homeopathyjournal.net/article/S1475-4916(13)00007-6/abstract About Homeopathy Journal: Homeopathy Journal is an international journal aimed at improving the understanding and clinical practice of homeopathy by publishing high quality articles on clinical and basic research, clinical audit and evidence-based practice of homeopathy. It also promotes debate and reviews homeopathic literature.

3. http://www.ijrh.org/article.asp?issn=0974-7168;year=2014;volume=8;issue=3;spage=166;epage=174;aulast=Shah About IJRH: Indian Journal of Research in Homoeopathy (IJRH) [ISSN: 0974-7168] is an internationally acclaimed official publication of Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, New Delhi, publishing quarterly in print as well as online. Since, first issue in 2007 we have published 10 volumes comprising over 36 issues and around 200 research articles on Homoeopathy. The Journal was made open access online in July 2013 and is following rigorous peer-review process to provide constructive feedback to authors to improve submission quality.

The above mentioned websites allow to add the articles after a proper checking of uniqueness of the article. Only the verified and trusted researches are allowed to be published on the above mentioned websites. If you are considering these websites as bad resources, I suggest that you check their article submission process. The articles are reviewed by several other peer homeopaths before they are published live on the website. Please allow the content on the Wiki page which is cited to the above mentioned websites.

For the books, as per your suggestion of providing you with some published evidence, I can share snapshots of the published books. Does that work? Rohanpednekar38 (talk)

File:Urticaria and its homeopathic treatment.jpg
This is a published book for your refercence.
File:Vitiligo written by Dr. Rajesh Shah.jpg
This is the photo of published book of vitiligo of Dr. Rajesh Shah

@Psychonaut: Awaiting your reply here. Please respond to this as soon as possible.

Nomination of Independent Liberal Party (UK, 1918) for deletion

Thanks for letting me know. This is far from straightforward, and I've made a few comments. Moonraker (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)