User talk:PopSci

Welcome to my talk page.PopSci (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Sword and sorcery, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Just a note about POV here, but the King Arthur tales arguably feature the most famous sword and the most famous sorcerer in the whole English canon, maybe even the whole Western canon, unsure where you're coming from that the King Arthur legendarium is then not sword and sorcery... JesseRafe (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are lots of swords and sorcery in the King Arthur stories. Please see the talk page of the article where this is being discussed. Thanks.PopSci (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Removals from "See also" sections of Bogdanov affair, Cargo cult, Sokal affair, Superficiality
You have removed links from the "See also" sections of Bogdanov affair, Cargo cult, Sokal affair, and Superficiality. Those links, though, were relevant and useful. I restored the links for Bogdanov affair, Cargo cult, and Superficiality. Someone else, JesseRafe, restored the links for Sokal affair.

In the future, kindly consider getting a consensus of editors to agree, via the Talk pages. Also consider MOS:SEEALSO, which states this: “The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics”. 86.152.238.86 (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right. I did get a bit carried away. Thanks for the link to the policy. PopSci (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Kind thanks for your note--I'm glad we agree! 86.152.238.86 (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lewis Okun


The article Lewis Okun has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "I am unable to find significant discussion of the individual in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. Also does not appear to meet criteria of WP:NACADEMIC."

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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. ... disco spinster   talk  20:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added some more material, however you might be correct that he is not notable. He has one published book. PopSci (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Lewis Okun for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lewis Okun is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Lewis Okun until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ... disco spinster   talk  01:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I will remain neutral in the debate.  He seemed to be notable when I started the article, but perhaps not. PopSci (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ivanhoe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King John ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ivanhoe check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ivanhoe?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Your confusion regarding sci-fi
If you had an email option, I could email you somethings that could further help you distinguish between what is and what is not science fiction.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to take non-SF out of the article that is fine with me.PopSci (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I already have, but I think it's important that you and others better understand what you're editing about so that way you don't make the same mistakes again. And besides, from your editing history it seems you enjoy this sort of material. Do you know how to enable email? You have to go to preferences and add an email address. I won't be able to see it even if I sent you something. The only way of me seeing it is if you reply to my email, which is not required. You'll be able to see my email because I'm the one sending it.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please post a link to the material on the Science fiction talk page.PopSci (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be copyright violation. We don't post links to copyright material on Wikipedia, even on talk pages. From your editing history I thought you might enjoy watching and understanding them and it would help improving your editing in this area.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Science fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Space travel ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Science_fiction check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Science_fiction?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You comment on Robynthehode page about SF
Thank you for making me laugh Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Science fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solaris ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Science_fiction check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Science_fiction?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Science fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horror ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Science_fiction check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Science_fiction?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Divine Principle Discussion
Hi! I noticed you were working on restoring to article status Divine Principle. You referenced a talk page discussion. Given that your proposal had only been around for 1 day (a week would be normal) it seems premature. Further that talk page was not the proper place to have this discussion since it's a third party (neither the current article or the article being restored). To try and help this find a larger audience I have place a notification at both talk pages about your discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. I would certainly not object to reverting my changes if that turns out to be the consensus.PopSci (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

26 alphabet listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 26 alphabet. Since you had some involvement with the 26 alphabet redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of science fiction video games


The article List of science fiction video games has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "WP:LISTCRUFT, and on top of that, this will get unwieldy very quickly given a large portion of games are set in a fictional setting. Unnecessary list."

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  08:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I've removed the proposed deletion tag, assumingly spinning it into AFD.PopSci (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of science fiction video games for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of science fiction video games is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of science fiction video games until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TarkusAB talk 16:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Washington Times, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Archibald ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/The_Washington_Times check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/The_Washington_Times?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Washington Times, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/The_Washington_Times check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/The_Washington_Times?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

COI editing
Based on your User Page where you mention "supporting the Washington Times, Women's Federation, ACLC, and other Unificationist projects," you may be violating WP:COI on the Washington Times page. Marquis de Faux (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will back off from editing it. PopSci (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 17:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Frank Gaffney, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 17:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Frank Gaffney has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. You said it was unsourced, but it was sourced. Doug Weller  talk 17:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of &#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Borock. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Epically BTFO'd. Thank you! TrampStampVamp (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)