User talk:Psychonaut/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

File Mover

My honest apologies that message was deleted by mistake and I am certainly aware of the policy which you mentioned thanks for your concern appreciated. keep in touch and happy editing. :) -- Faizan Munawar Varya ^chat _{contributions} 13:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, Psychonaut. User:Visionat has now pasted her complaint about the deletion of her article "GNU C-Graph" to ANI, where I guess it's not really well placed either. I linked to your good advice to her there. Here's the ANI thread. Bishonen | talk 17:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zscout370/All Party Parliamentary Flags & Heraldry Committee

Don't see this as me coming after you or anything, but in the future, if there is something in the userspace that needs to be considered for deletion, you are welcome to bring it to my talk page so we don't have to wait two weeks or something. I would have done the deletion myself. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Carolmooredc has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks for the format fix on the abuse page. Searched around and just couldn't figure out how to do it right. Have put that fix on my cheat sheet for future reference. Yeah!!†

Reverting anon edits

Hi, I found that edits by an anon ip [1] have been reverted by you on the ground that it was an attempt to evade block. I went through some of the edits made by the ip, most seem legit (though I did not check for copy vio). What do you think?LegalEagle (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vrghs jacob/Archive. If you check contributions from the other sockpuppets you'll see he's been attempting to insert the same material into these four articles from various accounts and IPs for years. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

yep, the evidence is irrefutable, the ip is indeed a sock; but do you reckon I can put the logos and images (which have not been disputed for copy vio) promoted by the anon, into the articles.LegalEagle (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you're satisfied any edits of his are both useful and unproblematic, then go ahead and re-institute them. However, if you're thinking of restoring any text contributions of his, please do a web search first to make sure it isn't copied and pasted from somewhere. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I did go over the edits, he seemed to have copied from the websites of the agencies, paraphrased some and created a new fork article. BTW, there is an article on a recent ponzi scandal Saradha Group financial scandal which I have substantially updated, it has been tagged for copyedit, if you have time can you browse through the article and give it a copyedit. LegalEagle (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Armalite AR-50

Sorry to bring this up again, but I've just realized that the copyvio template is STILL there. Is there ever going to be anything done about this article? xD Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl was the copyright clerk who handled all the other cases on that page. I left her a message on her talk page asking whether she might have accidentally overlooked this one. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• A bit belated, but as I already thanked MRG, I should probably thank you as well :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

New message sockpuppetry, paid editing, CoI

... here Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Indian_Hindi_television_serial_paid_editing.2C_COI_investigation_request! --Tito Dutta (contact) 00:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Data loss prevention software

You removed my entry on new research stating "method is probably also not notable". Let me get this clear: you removed my addition because the method is probabely not notable? Did you take the time to actually read the link? The method is new, it was presented at a conference, it's notable because it actually is a DLP method and it works. What more does it take to bring new reasearch into this article? --Vfeditor (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look at our policies on Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. New methods are usually not notable as they lack in-depth coverage in multiple published sources which are intellectually independent of the subject. I couldn't find any such coverage myself, though as you are closely connected with the subject perhaps you're aware of sources which I didn't find. Feel free to reinsert your material if you can support it with citations to third-party coverage. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Virtual Forge CodeProfiler page

I have edited several new refernce, pls check if this level of referencing suffices --Vfeditor (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC).

None of the references you've added can be used to support a claim of notability as none of them are independent of the subject of the article. All the documents are published either by Virtual Forge or its business partners. Please read through the policy on reliable sources for an explanation of what sort of references is required. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have addedd a reference to an analyist report, pls check whether this qualifies as a reliable source.--Vfeditor (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If the analyst is independent of Virtual Forge (that is, there's no business relationship between KuppingerCole and Virtual Forge), and the report covers the product in detail, then I'd say it probably counts as a reliable source. I'm not really in a position to judge the content as I can't afford the €295 price tag. The fact that the report is self-published might be an issue; see WP:SELFPUBLISH—though if the analysts at KuppingerCole are widely recognized as experts in the field then there's probably no problem. A better place to discuss all this would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Forge CodeProfiler as that's where policy and subject matter experts are likely to congregate. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Admin

Hey. I've seen you around quite a bit, and I was wondering if you were considering running for adminship at all. I'd gladly nominate you at WP:RFA if you want, we always need more admins who are experienced in copyright issues. Wizardman 21:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. No, I am not considering running for adminship, though I am pleased to hear that you find my work here valuable. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Content About Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai

Hey, I recommend u that the section Awards in the page Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai is completely fake due to the following reasons:

• There are no references in the section.
• There are no award shows like Zee Musical Honours, International Awards In Pakistan, Small Screen Honours, GR8! Indian TV & Film Honours, Indian TV and Film Screen Honours Awards, Indian TV & Film Dictionary Awards etc. and many others which makes the information fake.
• Also the awards mentioned and the winners beside it is wrong as there are no such categories and also such awards are not won by the show.
• I strongly recommend you to take this into consideration.

Thanks.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.219.135.72 (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. You can remove the text, but please use an edit summary to explain what you are doing. Otherwise it looks like you are vandalizing the page. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The page has since been protected against IP edits, so I will copy your message to the article's talk page. Hopefully a registered editor with more knowledge of the awards will be able to examine your claims and remove any false information. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Indian Hindi television hoax information

Namaste, Psychonaut. You have got at least one new message at the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Please continue the discussion there!
Message added by Tito☸Dutta 10:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

Black list

Hi, I recall that few days ago you checked a link that by mistakes fallen into the BL (see [[2]]). At that time I was pretty sure about the "legality" of that site.

Now I've got the same issues with the site listed here. Could you verify them as well?

Thanks, --Andyrom75 (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

They all seem like legitimate hotels/hostels to me, though it's possible they were added to the blacklist because they (or whatever SEO company they hired) were spamming links on Wikipedia. Whoever manages the Meta blacklist should be able to check the log to find out why they were originally added, so I'd just wait until someone there replies to your post. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Animal transportation at AfD

Hello! I just thought I'd let you know that Animal transportation is up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal transportation. As you remarked "there's now sufficient material for him or anyone else to build a reliably sourced article on transportation of pinnipeds", I thought you might want to be aware of this. Thank you Seal Boxer (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I was already aware of the discussion and was in the process of formulating a contribution (which I have now posted). Please consider notifying the other editors who contributed to the previous deletion discussions, regardless of whether they wrote in your favour. It appears that you've singled me out for special attention, which may constitute canvassing. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for letting me know. I was not aware of the canvas policy. Thank you. Seal Boxer (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Consiliu search for your help!

Hello Psychonaut

Yes, I have a question, I WANT TO UPLOAD A PHOTO WITH DELIA MATACHE, to show me how it works, and explain me why this photo will never be deleted. Also, I want, if you can, to review my article with Delia. This actions can be for money, of course, if you thing are too much.

Thanks a lot, and please help me. --Consiliul (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's work on the photo first. Do you have a particular photo you want to upload? If so, you need to answer two questions: First, who is the copyright holder of the photograph? Normally this would be the photographer, or possibly the company which employed the photographer. If you don't know who the copyright holder is, then you probably can't upload the photo. Second, has the copyright holder released the photograph under a free content licence? If so, you can go ahead and upload it, and when you do so, you should indicate which free content licence applies to the photograph, and be prepared to provide proof of this. If it's not a free content licence, or if you don't know what licence it is, you need to write to the copyright holder and ask whether they would be willing to release the photograph under a free content licence. There are sample letters I can point you to if necessary.

Let me know the answers to these questions and we can proceed with the next steps. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that you had already posted this question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, and you had already received a very good response. Is there something about it which you do not understand? If so, please respond there so that I and others can help you. It is usually not a good idea to post the same question in multiple places; you will lose track of the responses and people answering your question will be annoyed to discover that it was already answered somewhere else. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Apology

I think my comments to you on my own talk page yesterday were less than respectful. I apologise for that. End of a long day and grumpy, that's all. You've been very helpful to me in these copyright matters and I certainly don't think you deserve me to be rude in return. I hope you accept my apology. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you wouldn't mind taking a look at File:Soldiers of 1 UDR on parade at Steeple Camp, Antrim.jpg. This is normally what happens when I upload a file and need to deal with copyright. As you can see it's all done correctly. My only issues at the moment are with fair use images, particularly those with Crown Copyright. I'm now in touch with the correct Crown office however and they're talking me through the correct requirements. With your help and help from others like you I will get all of this resolved. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Big 8 (Usenet)

Psychonaut gets the barnstar award for competency — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsp3105 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Mail notification

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SonofSetanta (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

• File:FrockCoat.jpg
• File:VGA palette.png
• File:Parrot appleii.png
• File:Parrot cga1h.png
• File:Parrot cga1l.png
• File:Parrot cga2l.png
• File:Parrot cga2h.png
• File:Parrot rgb12.png
• File:Parrot rgb15.png
• File:Parrot rgb18.png
• File:Parrot rgb3.png
• File:Parrot rgb4.png
• File:Parrot rgb6.png
• File:Parrot ted.png
• File:Parrot mono.png
• File:Socialist Studies pamphlet.svg

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Edits reverted

Your edits on Palak Johal were reverted by an IP which I suspect is User:Imtitanium. Should I revert it back? --Neelkamala (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this. I'd appreciate a second opinion. Could you look at the reference and see if it supports the claims being made? If it doesn't, please remove the text again as it's probably a hoax. Psychonaut (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Neelkamala (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Isomers of hexene

edit added a lot of isomers that are not generically "hexene" molecules...the cyclics are all alkanes not alkenes, and some are not 6 carbons long. C6H12 might be a better place to enumerate and organize a list of isomers of hexene that are not hexene themselves. DMacks (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I don't have a particularly deep knowledge of the subject matter so I would be much obliged if you would move or delete the entries as appropriate. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Wolfe Tone Societies

Why on earth don't you just tell me what you've found wrong and I will correct it? Why go through all this palaver? SonofSetanta (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I did tell you what I'd found wrong, and gave you all the relevant instructions on how to correct it. Please write a non-infringing version on the temporary page and it will get copied over onto the main article. An administrator will then expunge the copyright infringement from the page history so that it can no longer be accessed. This is the standard procedure for dealing with complex cases of textual copyright infringements here; you are not being singled out for special treatment. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I'm not going to beat about the bush here: you've got my back up. You know full well that I'm on here every day and that I'm friendly and obliging. There was no need for you to drag me through official process to get the text of an article changed - I am not a problematic editor but you are portraying me as one. All you had to do was draw my attention to the issues and they would have been fixed immediately. I believe you knew that already and I can't for the life of me understand why you, who have had such intercourse with me over recent weeks, would think you needed to try and drag my name through the mud again by blanking the article and forcing me to perform like Pavlov's Dogs for you. In all sincerity: you have a choice before you take these actions: you could easily just have sent me a note or tagged the copyvios on the article page. I would have thanked you for that. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

May I ask you to restore this page now that the issues surrounding it have been fixed? SonofSetanta (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	I ROFLmao-ed myself at the exact point when I saw your comment here. Ekta Kapoor is one insecure lady I must admit. BTW you have a nice sense of humour. Sorry for the barnstar, had to give it since it was the most apt in this. $oHƎM❊আড্ডা 12:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Old manat

Replying here because it's been two days since your WP:RDH request — I wondered if you might have forgotten it.

Unfortunately, I can't suggest any websites. However, I know that some major US newspapers have large sections giving the previous day's currency exchange rates. For example, if you have access to a library with Wall Street Journal microfilms from 1998, I'm sure you'd be able to look it up easily. My university library probably has it, so let me know if you need help. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll head to my local university library to see if they have any newspaper archives. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm just back from my university's economics department's library. Two reference desk librarians and I couldn't find this information after about 90 minutes of searching—we tried archives of some national newspapers, including the Frankfurter Allgemeine, and also several more historical currency converter websites that I hadn't known about, but none of them have TMM data for 1998. We don't have access to the Wall Street Journal so if you think the information is there then I will very gratefully take you up on your offer to check. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you in Germany? Don't answer if you don't feel like revealing information about yourself; I'm simply surprised that you'd have the Frankfurter Allgemeine but not the Journal unless that were the case. I was assuming that you were in the USA because you wanted dollars, not marks or euros; I can't remember seeing exchange rates between two different foreign currencies in US papers, so I would have been surprised if the Allgemeine had anything except mark-to-manat or euro-to-manat. I've never used our newspaper archives, but I'll be happy to go there after I get off work; I'm on a quick lunchtime break at the moment. Nyttend (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Allgemeine currently has rates between the euro and a very small selection of other currencies (American dollar, Swiss franc, and maybe five or six more). In 1998 it had the same table, or so the librarians tell me, but with deutschmarks instead of euros. Had the table also listed manats, then I could always have converted from dollars to deutschmarks, then deutschmarks to manats. Thanks for agreeing to check the WSJ for me. Any date in 1998 would be fine; I just want to know about how many manats a dollar would get me back then. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

For 1998, the yearly average was 4890.167 manats per dollar; it rose to 5200.000 manats per dollar for the 1999 average. It was also 5200.000 on 1 May 1998, which was the first day I picked. Unfortunately, this wasn't in the Journal; our reference librarian pointed me to an IMF database to which we subscribe, which with enough playing around was able to give me these stats. The librarian recommended the IMF website, saying that it might have useful data for you, although not as much as the subscription-only service. This database has tons of world currencies; if you need any more of them, let me know and I'll try to help. Nyttend (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for looking into this for me! It's a pity the service is subscription-only. As I mentioned in the Reference Desk posting, one occasionally sees articles here which mention that such-and-such a monument cost ¤50,000,000 to build in 1976, or that the average salary of a labourer in 1932 was ¤200. Particularly when the ¤ is some long-obsolete currency these statements convey little information to the reader; it would be nice to put it into context. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lum You, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walla Walla (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Demak Sultanate copyvio

Your recent copyvio tag on Demak Sultanate possible copyvio is a mistake. The so called possible "source": url=http://mannaismayaadventure.com/2010/09/07/the-spread-of-islam-in-indonesia-1200-1600/ or https://driwancybermuseum.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/the-indonesia-historic-collections-pre-colonial-erabefore-1586/ are actually the copiers. You can see they did not just copy the articles but also wikimedia commons images. You see Indonesian bloggers usually just copy wikipedia articles into theirs. I manually moved the content from Sultanate of Demak to Demak Sultanate because the correct MOS of naming is "Demak" first then "Sultanate". Check the [edit history Sultanate of Demak], then you will learn that the article is actually natively developed by wikipedians.Gunkarta (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but did you see the comments I left at the associated Wikipedia:Copyright problems thread? You'll see that I'm already aware of these concerns. I think a better place to continue this discussion is at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, where the copyright clerks and administrators will see it. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: The Golden Girls

Hi Psychonaut. The discussion can be found at: Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Golden Girls title card.jpg. Cheers. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep that for further reference. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Godrej series votes

I can see few mentions in notable newspapers (see comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godrej Horizon. This is applicable for other articles. Consider searching here too. --Tito☸Dutta 20:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Apology

I would like to extend my sincerest apologies towards you for getting caught up in the paranoia surrounding the whole SonofSetanta issue. There was a curious set of coincidental events with a new user on a very newly created minor vaguely known article that you tagged for copyvio, and with the events of the AN/I and AE I let the paranoia bite and made a tool out of myself. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, others have definitely made bigger fools of themselves than you did, Mabuska. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

And that is civil because? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Trust me SoS, let it be. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't name you SoS, because it wasn't solely referring to you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The cap fitted, so I took exception. Perhaps that's the problem here. Too many remarks which can't be withdrawn. I apologise for involving you. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Paula Seling

Hi, Psychonaut. FYI, I've protected this article as another target of Beleiutz (talk · contribs). You may consider adding it to your watchlist. Regards Tiderolls 17:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I will. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lum You

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you may have misinterpreted my evidence...

Although it is more likely that I conveyed it in the wrong way. I didn't mean to cast Morwen's actions in a negative light, and I mentioned that she is an administrator for purely contextual reasons (ie. it has no bearing on her actions in this case). Thanks for pointing out the talk page discussion; I've made corrections to my evidence. Hopefully they are now a more accurate representation of the dispute. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections. I didn't mean to imply that you were accusing Morwen of abusing her admin tools; I just wanted to mention that others had done so, and didn't want your singling out of her administrative status to be interpreted this way. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect

I think your statement is incorrect; while an editor may move a page to new name, it requires administrator privilege to move a page over a redirect, so Morwen's second move required admin privileges. NE Ent 13:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Moving a page A over a redirect B→A with no other page history requires no administrative privileges. Please refer to Wikipedia:Moving a page#Moving over a redirect. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right -- guess it depends on the state of the redirect at the time of the move. NE Ent 15:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pixar Theory

I have determined through some research that the concept of a "Pixar Universe" preceded the Negroni thesis by a decade, so I created THIS as means of dealing with it. Upon further reflection, perhaps best that I fold my little sourced article into the main topic Pixar so we'd have a suitable redirect target for The Pixar Theory? Think it worth doing? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that your draft article solves the problems raised in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pixar Theory discussion; in fact, I think that it introduces a few new ones. I'm sorry to see that you moved your draft to article space only a few hours after posting your message above, and before I had a chance to comment on it as a draft, as I don't believe it should stand alone as an article any more than I thought The Pixar Theory should. Why didn't you wait until the end of the deletion discussion before producing this content fork? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I like to address issues as they occur, with input that builds and supports the project, rather than wait. The talk page of my article states my thought that it might well be folded into Pixar... which would be fine if it is thought examination of the concept of a "Pixar Universe" is a content fork even though media perception of a "Pixar Universe" concept is not (yet) covered at Pixar. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that you had good intentions here (and I hope you appreciate mine). I just wish you had waited for more input in this case, because if you had been aware of the problems then perhaps they could have been addressed (by nonpublication of the article, by simply merging the correct and reliably sourced parts into an existing Pixar article, or by finding better sources (though that doesn't seem likely)) without the need to go through the rigmarole of another AfD. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough... but as the die is cast, I think the second article's AFD could/should result in either a better article per work based upon Talk:The Pixar Universe#Expand and improve or a merge into Pixar... either of which result improves the project as comments at the earlier AFD pointed the way. As for issues with the second article, and as I think we agree the concept of something called "The Pixar Universe" has been spoken of in media since at least 2003, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:WIP seem applicable. Lets fix over time and through regular editing, rather than toss. A second point is that I felt we had no section AT Pixar where I felt it could fit. Suggestions for how/where to merge it would be most appreciated'. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Could you assist in finding/creating a place in the Pixar article were the Negroni hypothesis could be mentioned and sourced? If his calling attention to the coincidences brings additional coverage, a separate article under some title might well be worth considering. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • If the article ends up getting deleted, sure, I can help migrate that content which is correct and reliably sourced to Pixar. I don't think there's any point on starting work on this until the end of the deletion discussions, though, since it's possible the consensus will be to keep a standalone article as-is or in a repurposed format. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

CCI update

--Wizardman 14:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Psychonaut. I added "comment" to your post here since we each only get one iVote (the nomination counts as one iVote) and it will help the closer figure out how much weight to give to each participating editor. The additional arguments you added should help get the discussion closed. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Psychonaut. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pixar Theory.
Message added 23:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Bigg Boss 7

I have rewritten the whole summary. If you still think it violates the copy-vio code please provide evidence. Copy-vio info shall not be added in future. I've removed the template since no investigation is required. The issue is settled. Cheers. -- I'm Titanium  ^chat 19:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for rewriting the summary. In the future, though, please don't remove the {{copyvio}} template; instead please write the summary on the temporary page as instructed by the template. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You have been reverting the names added to the nominations table,excuse my ignorance,(I am kinda new)but how would that be copyvio??Shall we wait until its up on the official website? --User:Shawnqual —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If the nominations themselves were removed, then that's either because they were added alongside copyright-infringing material, or because they were added by sockpuppets of two users trying to evade their blocks. In at least one case you also restored these summaries (perhaps inadvertently). An administrator has removed this material from the page history so hopefully this won't happen again by accident. Feel free to add the nominations and/or your own original material now. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Big Boss

I have recheck twice, and it does not violates any copyright as all material is taken from This show's original website, the site TELLY CHAKKAR has also taken the whole material from Colors website, the original website of the show, do not post any tag. I replaced the source again. Go to original website and compare the both material, both are same and i didn't copy or paste anything, Colors is the original website for the respective material of the respective page... DO NOT POST ANY TAGS, it does not violates any rule. Yo have already postsimilar tag 0n 17 September, But nothing happened because it does not violates any rule, so please do not add further tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.163.59 (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. However, the material in question is indeed a violation of copyright, since (as you admit yourself) it reproduces text from a third-party website without any evidence of permission. (The 17 September incident was also a copyright violation; the person who posted it helpfully rewrote it in his own words, but also should not have removed the copyvio tag himself.) I have restored the {{copyvio}} tag you removed. As the tag itself indicates, please do not remove it again until the matter has been resolved by an administrator or a copyright clerk. Repeated posting of copyright-infringing material, and/or circumventing the investigation process through removal of copyvio tags, is considered vandalism, and will lead to your editing privileges being revoked. Instead, please make sure that any material you contribute is written entirely in your own words. If you want to fix this particular case, then please provide a draft in your own words on a temporary page as instructed by the copyvio template. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

If it is a copyright violation, just write it in your own words and add citations. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendrick 99 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 30 September 2013

Y Window System

Thanks for patrolling Y Window System. It clearly does not meet modern notability thresholds for a stand-alone article. But in fact it seems to describe two different projects with names that are both take-offs on X Window System. So how about it we merge it into the "X" article, condensed down to two sentences or so? The sources do help put X into context (it outlasted several of its successors). Looking in the Y history it was already proposed for deletion once and contested, followed by a proposed merge to W Window System which was removed without much discussion. Keeping the redirect might prevent it from being created again when another project of that name appears, or allow it to be expanded if indeed that project is notable, without losing the history. Disclosing a very indirect conflict of interest: I did the "V Window System" of the V (operating system), but did not chose the very unfortunate naming convention. :-) W Nowicki (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds OK to me. You might also want to consult David Gerard who is active on that article. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure it's even worth mention there. Basically, there's little evidence anyone ever cared, and I wouldn't contest that PROD - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

WDixon

Dear Psychonaut -- With regard to this:

Gwendolyn Audrey Foster: (2 edits, 2 major, +3801) (+1201)(+3801)

Note that an IP user signing as “Wdixon“ has stated on Moonriddengirl’s Talk page that the source of this content is PD.—Odysseus1479 00:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This page is currently blanked, but that's because of possible copyvios by 129.176.109.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), not Wdixon. Nonetheless if it's Wdixon or Wheeler Winston Dixon who holds the copyright to the suspect text, an OTRS statement from him would be sufficient to resolve the matter. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Please consider this an OTRS statement that this work was composed by me specifically for Wikipedia, and I release it completely from any copyright as being in the Public Domain. It was never copyrighted in any form. If you could revert this edit, or perhaps find someone to do proper inline citations for it, that would be great.

With regard to your other edits of my material on Wikipedia, please just go ahead and delete whatever you think doesn't meet Wiki standards. As I'm sure you realize, I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor.

Sincerely, Wheeler Winston Dixon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdixon (talk • contribs) 15:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Wdixon. Thanks for getting in touch. The problem we have with this material in particular is that it appears to be taken from a pre-existing web page authored by the scholar Wheeler Winston Dixon. If you are indeed Wheeler Winston Dixon, then it's great that you've released the rights to it so that it can be used on Wikipedia and elsewhere. The only problem is that we have no evidence, other than your claim, that you are Wheeler Winston Dixon, and so we cannot be sure that Dixon has actually released this text. The best way of resolving this would be for you to send an e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org from your university e-mail address. You can use the wording similar to that found on Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Psychonaut. I did as you asked, copying the template and filling in the appropriate blanks, and sending it from my university address, and so perhaps this will work. With regard to your other edits of my material on Wikipedia, please just go ahead and delete whatever you think doesn't meet Wiki standards. WWD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdixon (talk • contribs) 17:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Bigg Boss 7

Hello, i have undo some changes, and remove copyrighted material, you can review it, as i starts the Weekly Summary section through week 4, i am taking full precautions and checking twice that it will not violates any copyright rule in future, you can review it but i have already review it and i am regular editor of bigg boss 7, and writing happenings completely in my own words. I don't think so now it violates any copyright. I want to ask one question, i want to add previous material which you remove as by declaring as a copyrighted material, because it is necessary to provide information before week 4.Tabraiz.18

Hello Tabraiz.18. Could you please tell me your previous username on Wikipedia? —Psychonaut (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Bigg BOSS 7

Why have you reverted my edits? I just fixed the grammar and all. what is so wrong with that? please stop bullying me. I'm new here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcFondal (talk • contribs) 19:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)