User talk:Psychonaut/Archive 13

West-Berlin part of West-Germany
Why did you change that 2 days ago ? Regards Migrant (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which exact edit of mine you are talking about. I can tell you that in general I have been fixing some articles which incorrectly referred to West Berlin as part of the Federal Republic of Germany (commonly known as West Germany) some time between 1949 and 1990. If you don't understand why this is an error, please refer to the article West Berlin. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for pointing that out! I can't say that I ever knew that (kinda surprising because even though I was born after the Cold War, I'm pretty knowledgeable about that part of history). So West Berlin wasn't part of any country at all? It was just an American/British/French-occupied zone? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was not part of any country. It was just Allied-occupied territory. Psychonaut (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW: the same did apply to East Berlin (East Berlin was not part of the GDR) as the allied rules have been made for Groß-Berlin in total. As a result, the government of the GDR was not located inside own territory. Schily (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not that simple. The status of (East) Berlin was a contentious issue with differing views. De facto and according to the GDR government East Berlin was part of and capital of the GDR. The Western allies saw Berlin differently. There is further information in (and linked from) the German WP article on the Berlin question, mfG   Guffydrawers (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

U.S.A. v. Hudson, Whitfield & Dunlap
Hiya, I worked on your complaint - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mosfetfaser&diff=602761816&oldid=600751194 - see here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:U.S.A._v._Hudson,_Whitfield_%26_Dunlap&diff=prev&oldid=602762203 - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! As I mentioned in the now-deleted message on your talk page, I already added the attribution via an edit summary, so your talk page message wasn't strictly necessary (though it's certainly helpful).  —Psychonaut (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Logology (sociology)


The article Logology (sociology) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable specialist meaning of word

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 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 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. TheLongTone (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Nines (film) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nines (film) 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/Nines (film) 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. D P  16:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

CCI update
MER-C 11:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

MER-C 10:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

MER-C 11:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

MER-C 11:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Letters to a Stranger
I just rewrote the plot of the article. Check if it still has copyright concerns. If not, Unblank the page, thanks.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks—I'm sure an administrator or copyright clerk will get around to it soon. However, please note for future references that rewrites should go on the temporary page linked to from the copyright violation template.  (Follow the "Show" link next to the text "Otherwise, you may write a new article without copyright-infringing material. Click 'Show' to read where and how.") —Psychonaut (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Blondnativeguy
I've been going through some of his edits, he keeps removing citation needed tamplates from articles, see my edit summaries in my contributions. Might be ANI time, what do you think? Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The behaviour is clear-cut enough to go straight to WP:AIV if it continues. Blanking articles and removing templates without explanation, after being warned, is the textbook definition of vandalism. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Awesome Work
Just wanted to say thank you for doing some "dirty work" on Wikipedia that most people couldn't be bothered to do. I hope enough people appreciate your efforts, because they are truly awesome. Take care! 84.75.8.21 (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC) (lKj)
 * Thank you! If you don't already have an account, please consider creating one and helping out. :) —Psychonaut (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I'll probably be more of a lurker, but it is indeed time that I set up an account on Wikipedia. Ljacqu (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

mongoloid /Down syndrome/
Do you know people with Down syndrome? Do you know how people with Down syndrome feels when people call them mongoloid? Wikipedia is encyclopedia about everything. Everyone needs to know it's hundred percent offensive and pejorative term.

Bayaraa99 — Preceding undated comment added 07:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you know that using a sockpuppet account to evade your block is not permitted? —Psychonaut (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm different person from Batka83. If you don't believe I can send you my private e-mail or FB address.

Bayaraa99 — Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Please make an effort not to be a jerk
BMK (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding List of Teen Titans Go! episodes
Another editor has recreated the list of episodes for Teen Titans Go!, this time splitting the seasons into their own pages with the same problematic summaries (only the season 1 list has these summaries present). Could you possibly review these edits? I'm not quite clear with the protocol. Thanks. 23W (t &middot; c) 01:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've blanked the two articles as copyright violations (though possibly the third one is also a copyvio) and brought this to the attention of two of the administrators already involved in this case. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'm working an a fresh new list in my sandbox (although it's slowly chugging along). 23W (t &middot; c) 03:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

On this issue, what exactly is the copyvio on List of Teen Titans Go! episodes? As of this edit, right before you blanked the page with the copyvio template, I see none of the problematic summaries that prompted the last copyvio template and subsequent deletion. I've been following this page for a bit and agreed with your/others' past copyvoi templates, but see no reason for it now. If you reply, please do tag me with U or replyto. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello EvergreenFir. It's explained at Copyright problems/2014 May 17. Basically, the article reuses CC-BY-SA-licensed text from the previous deleted page, but the legally required attribution is missing.  To fix this an administrator needs to do a history merge (while keeping the revisions containing non-free copyright-infringing text revision-deleted). —Psychonaut (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Revdel request at Crimean status referendum, 2014
Hello Psychonaut, I don't think that we may delete a revision range spanning hundreds of edits unrelated to the copyvio - this would break the attribution of these edits. See WP:CRD. Petr Matas 17:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary; such revdels are not unheard of. There is, however, room for disagreement over exactly how great a range is "too great".  I see you've already gone ahead and removed the revdel template; if you intend for it to stay that way I'd ask you start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems as instructed by the template's own removal instructions.  It would be a good idea to attract some further opinions on this particular case. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course we can start that discussion, but before that I would like to clarify this with you. Quoting WP:CRD:
 * Aren't there many edits whose attribution would be removed in this case? Petr Matas 06:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder if your question might not arise from a misunderstanding of the nature of revision deletion. Are you aware that revision deletion doesn't normally remove the attribution for edits, but rather just prevents the content of those edits from being viewed?  The list of contributors, edit times, and edit summaries, including those for the rev-del'd edits, remains fully accessible in the page history. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not sure about this, so thanks for clarification. However, if user A inserts sentence 1 and user B inserts sentence 2 and you make the corresponding edits inaccessible by revdel, then you may be able to determine that users A and B together inserted sentences 1 and 2, but you will not be able to tell who of them inserted sentence 1. In this sense, I would say that their attributions have been removed. Petr Matas 19:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the precision of the attributions is lost. But as I mentioned earlier, in my experience this is an entirely normal occurrence when applying revdel to copyright violations.  The revdel documentation you linked to even specifically provides that the usual procedures for copyright violation removal take precedence.  If you still feel that using revdel in this case would negatively affect an unusually high number of revisions, then a better place to debate that would be at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, not here. Psychonaut (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have posted it at WT:CP. Petr Matas 10:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

CCI question
How did you determine which edits were likely to contain copyvio content? Do we have a new tool to help evaluate this? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I just used some simple bash commands to download the diffs, apply regular expression searches for cases where the editor had added text sourced to a website they are known to typically copy from, and then mark up the corresponding wiki text in the CCI. I wouldn't call this a "new tool" so much as three or four commands I typed off the top of my head and whose results I manually pasted back into Wikipedia.  I'm happy to dig through my shell history and post the commands here if you're interested. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure! I currently would not be able to make use of your work given my skill level, but in the future I would like to learn some basic programming that I could use to help on tasks like this. Would be happy to squirrel away what you've got until it could be useful to me. :) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, here's how I did it with the CCI of Norden1990, who is known to copy from http://www.politics.hu/. First, I went to Contributor copyright investigations/Norden1990 and edited the page.  I copied all the wikitext from the edit box and pasted it into a text editor, saving the file as Norden1990.wikitext in an otherwise empty directory.  Then I issued the following bash commands from that directory:


 * This puts the revised wikitext into the file Norden1990.wikitext.highlighted, which I again opened in a text editor and the copied and pasted into the edit box mentioned above. Before saving the page I made sure to leave an informative edit summary, and I followed up with a more detailed explanation of what I'd done at Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/Norden1990.
 * Here's an explanation of what each command does:
 * Downloads the HTML source to the CCI page.
 * Does a regular expression search on the HTML source for diff numbers, and puts these in the file diffs.
 * Builds a URL from each diff number, and downloads the HTML source for the diffs into separate files.
 * Does a regular expression search on each diff file to find cases where the string politics.hu was added to the article wikitext (for example, as part of a element). The diff numbers of matching files are collected in another file named diffs-politics.
 * Creates highlight-diffs.sed, a sed program which will do a regular expression search and replace on the CCI wikitext. The program will search for matching  templates, and then wrap them in   tags which apply highlighting with CSS.
 * Runs highlight-diffs.sed on the Norden1990.wikitext file and saves the output to <tt>Norden1990.wikitext.highlighted</tt>.
 * Everything I've written above assumes you have bash, GNU wget, GNU sed, and GNU coreutils installed on your system. All of these are free software packages which are widely available for various operating systems.
 * Hope this helps! —Psychonaut (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll experiment with this in the not-too-distant future. :) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Great! If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Psychonaut (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply to your comment
If you understand the subject of that page, you must also understand that Deltahedron's comment is not legitimate one. By his terminology he is just going to f-ck the article. I will report this to an admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAu2000 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Although you are not very active in Wikipedia math pages, but your comments on the reliability of that reference make some sense. By the way one of your questions there, generally is remarkable and intellectual (to any scientific research): ... "Is it particularly easy to understand, and therefore a good example for an introductory-level explanation?".JohnAu2000 (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_formerly_proprietary_software
Hello Psychonaut, I made another compromise proposal for solving the problem on this list. Please comment that we can find an mutual agreement, thank you. Shaddim (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the two of us alone are going to find a mutually acceptable solution, as I see no need at all to change the focus of the article. Feel free to bring your proposals to the wider community via a requested move or an RFC.  Or alternatively just start a separate article for source-available proprietary software. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You know as good as I that I will not not bite into this diplomatic maneuver to disfocus. ;) I think this topic is well place in this article, therefore I invite you to join a mutual solution or I will start edit on my own. ;) Shaddim (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not make any edits against consensus. (You have been around here long enough to be familiar with our policy on Consensus and the widely cited essay on the BRD cycle.)  Your proposals to change the topic of the article have already been rejected by the only two other editors active on the article, so your only recourse now is to overturn this consensus, slim though it may be, by seeking support from others.  You can do so by following the tips at Canvassing. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What consensus? there was neither a appropriate time nor a appropriate audience. Also, to cite Consensus Consensus[]; nor is it the result of a vote. so, a vote you + another editor creates no consensus. And according to the BRD cycle How to proceed: Discover the Very Interested Persons (VIP), and reach a compromise/consensus with each, one by one. this is what I'm currently doing ... so please follow this guides and aim for a compromise (like renaming of page or several separated tables.) Shaddim (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For the last time, you have already tried and failed to make a compromise with me. Wanting to maintain a status quo is a perfectly valid position for someone to take, and there is no policy which obliges one to accept a counterproposal just because it is made n times.  Find someone else to support your proposed changes, and please do it somewhere other than on my user talk page. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But you didn't tried to achieve an consensus with me (neither with someone else), as you was not offering a compromise for the valid concerns I raised (which were partly raised before). And consensus can't be created by a voting argumentation like you did. Shaddim (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding spamming
Hello Psychonaut,

I was just Experimenting is this post and didn't know about your sandbox. Thats why i removed that post from your "WikiProject_Spam". So please remove this post from "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam". Next time i'll be careful about your terms and condition — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhubart (talk • contribs) 13:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have authority to remove someone else's report any more than you do, though I'll post a message there linking to your explanation here. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @psychonaut
 * Thank for your reply, please let me know the concern person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhubart (talk • contribs) 16:05, 11 June 2014
 * If you're asking who posted the report, it was User:SFK2. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Psychonaut,
 * I sent a message to User:SFK2, regarding the removal of spam message from "WikiProject_Spam section", but got no reply from him. So can you please suggest me what should i do further in this matter.
 * Thanks
 * Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhubart (talk • contribs) 04:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The message will be removed from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam (and then archived) once the Wikipedia community discusses the matter and a consensus forms on a course of action. Since you're a contributor here, you're also part of this community, and are very much welcome to contribute to the discussion there. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply
Okay, I understand regarding the copyright issue, and I apologize. Can I at least just re-add the titles of the episodes to said page? User:Jjsthekid (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, the titles and other information you were adding were fine. You just shouldn't copy the prose episode descriptions. Psychonaut (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand, all I was doing was help keep things up with the time on the List of Sofia the First episodes page and I had no idea what I was doing was a copyright violation. I apologize for the trouble I've caused and you have my word it will never happen again. Alex2424121 (talk) - Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Gatch gereftani for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gatch gereftani 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/Gatch gereftani (2nd nomination) 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. TerriersFan (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding reference to tools for static analysis tool
Hello Psychonaut,

In List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis, you removed a reference to a tools used to analysed static code. This tool is CAST Application Intelligence Platform and it works on main languages used in develpment. This tool is often referenced by the community as a multi-language static analysis tool, for example in stackoverflow.com website : http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1900238/what-are-the-static-tool-analysis-options-apart-from-cast-via-plug-ins-for-jav or or linkedin community : https://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1973349&trk=anet_ug_hm What is needed to put back this tool in the page ?

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamienPo (talk • contribs) 10:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't recall making such an edit, though if I did it was probably because someone added an entry without linking to the tool's article. As Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate directory of software, this page should list only those those tools which have corresponding Wikipedia articles, and those articles in turn should exist only if the tool is notable as evidenced by coverage in reliable sources.
 * I see now that there is an article at CAST Application Intelligence Platform. Ordinarily I'd say you can go ahead and re-add this tool to the list, though I note that the article itself isn't sourced to anything I would consider reliable.  (It references a single trade journal article which looks like a CAST press release.)  Are you aware of any press or scholarly coverage of CAST Application Intelligence Platform whose authors and publishers are entirely unconnected to CAST?  If so, please add this information to CAST Application Intelligence Platform. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your answer Psychonaut. Once it will be done, I will come back to you to undo the edit on List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamienPo (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Turkish Language
Good morning, actually on Talk:Turkish language there is a discussion related to your discussion about Turkish in Languages of Europe. I would be glad if you could bring there your opinion. Alex2006 (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars
You should be aware of this rule by now: Don't template the regulars.

Furthermore, you are abusing the original research template as there's already another template that asks for citations. Your actions constitute a form of sneaky vandalism. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, Kutsuit. I don't recall having left you a user talk template.  If you can point me to it then I will gladly remove it and replace it with a personalized message. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=618995288 your edit] to Freckle may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * [Wiktionary:ephelis|ephelis]]. Freckles do not have an increased number of melanin producing cells melanocytes. This is in contrast to lentigines and moles.<ref name="

Disambiguation link notification for September 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laurie Weidberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour Party. 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) 09:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer Beleiutz
Could this one be one more of them? -- Victor Blacus (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely. All that account is doing is adding lots of links to YouTube videos and trying (incorrectly) to link to images on Facebook.  Beleiutz usually uploads his images to Commons, and then correctly links them.  Also, I don't think there's any overlap in the celebrities targetted. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring
Thank you for reporting me, I would've appreciated a warning on my talk page before you reported me. Better yet, I would've appreciated if you had engaged in the discussion with Pincrete and me on the film article talk page, as I simply lost my patience explaining to the editor that if the film's production company is Canadian, the film credits actually say "This is a Canadian film" and there are multiple reliable sources that describe the film as Canadian, the film is Canadian and this can and should be in the article. I apologize for losing my patience and edit warring, but I don't think my position on the matter was wrong, considering the overwhelming evidence. On the other hand, Pincrete was deliberately trolling the article talk page and pushing his own anti-Malagurski and anti-Yugoslav point of view, so what was I supposed to do? Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can only echo EdJohnston's suggestions to seek a third opinion or take the matter to the dispute resolution noticeboard. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Milking the Stars: A Re-Imagining Of Last Patrol) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Milking the Stars: A Re-Imagining Of Last Patrol, Psychonaut!

Wikipedia editor ThoseAreMyShoes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Well made article, maybe track times for the song listings?"

To reply, leave a comment on ThoseAreMyShoes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.
 * Sorry, but the track running times haven't been announced yet. In any case, I don't think it's usual to indicate running times here.  I suspect it's because running times can vary across releases of an album. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

CCI Update
Wizardman 00:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Re contact
As per our other conversation ... "some opinions are not worth spit." So again thanks for that contact, just ignore them, that is what we mostly do. — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Languages of Europe
I would like to protest against the removal of the link that I posted to a map which had details that none of the other maps covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.208.209 (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about
Just saw this....perhaps someone else in my bungalows/guesthouse is on the same IP....but that seems unlikely given where I am (an off-the-beaten-track beach resort in Cambodia). This is regular and now-boycotting-wikipedia editor Skookum1; quite a few times in the last year there have been "disappeared" edits and misattributed ones of various kinds; something's going on in the code ; and no, I won't take the time to provide you links. The edit in question as definitely NOT me, and while I'll ask other guests here if they've done any wiki-edits they should all have their own IPs anyway.110.74.197.171 (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oregon Poet Laureate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Sears. 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) 09:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Mass removal of language articles by Ryulong
Thank you for joining the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages. Without enough eyeballs, something unthinkable does happen in this encyclopedia. Please keep an eye on this problem. --Nanshu (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. However, I am stretched pretty thin at the moment; while I will probably continue to monitor that particular conversation, I can't promise I will keep an eye on the disputed material in general.  My advice to you is to be careful that, when adding material that is controversial or has not achieved widespread acceptance among linguists, you are careful to conspicuously mark it as such, preferably with references to reliable sources which cover the dispute.  This will make blanket removal of such material less justifiable on the grounds that you are trying to promote or otherwise misrepresent a narrow point of view. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Palindromes and Anagrams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charade. 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) 11:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Howard Bergerson
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!
I was going to give you a brownie, but then I saw you don't care for that kind of thing. (I'll eat it myself, thankyouverymuch.) But I wanted to thank you for the article Howard Bergerson - the most interesting article I have ever found at DYK! MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words of appreciation! I am glad you enjoyed the article.  —Psychonaut (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

New disambiguation page
Greetings! When you create a new disambiguation page like Clarkson N. Potter, please take care to fix all of the incoming links. New disambiguation links are currently being made too quickly for disambiguators to address them. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Cat years
Are you certain that this deletion would be uncontroversial? Perhaps this would be better if it were listed at WP:AfD? Bearian (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing is certain, but since you've gone to the trouble of expressing your own doubts about the matter I've removed the PROD. Psychonaut (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24
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.


 * Dmitri Borgmann
 * added a link pointing to OMNI


 * Jane White Cooke
 * added a link pointing to The Telegraph


 * Joseph Madachy
 * added a link pointing to OMNI


 * Language on Vacation: An Olio of Orthographical Oddities
 * added a link pointing to OMNI

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Puzzle Lovers Club
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beyond Language: Adventures in Word and Thought, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tautology. 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) 12:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Dmitri Borgmann
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, MelanieN, there's another one for you. I hope you find this one just as interesting! —Psychonaut (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

John Lydon
The photographer keeps spamming his pictures on all language versions of Wikipedia...not a humble guy, eh? Le Lapin Vert (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yarmouth stone
The Hungarian greenland article does not appear to have been about the rune stone. However, you have piqued my interest. I don't see anything at Yarmouth, Nova Scotia - do we have a mention anywhere else? Is there a hu.wikipedia article? Can you point me to any sources? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there's anything on Wikipedia about this—stories about the stone and its putative Hungarian origins tend to be passed around in irredentist chain e-mails and social media memes. (I'd offer to send you some, but I tend to just delete these things as soon as they hit my inbox.)  If anyone's formally printed anything about it it's probably through some nationalist publisher with no scholarly reputation to speak of—Corvinus comes to mind.  I'll have a look at my bookshelf when I get home and let you know if I turn anything up.
 * The actual stone is in the Yarmouth County Museum, and they've created a small web page about it. For the Hungarian angle, just Google for "yarmouth hungarian stone" or similar, and you'll turn up a few blog posts supporting or debunking the theory. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Let me know if you turn up anything citeable, please. I've now found it at Yarmouth Runic Stone. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I just turned up this site, which, while not reliable or citeable itself, does post scans of some print publications discussing one version of the Hungarian theory (namely, that a Hungarian travelled with Leif Ericson and was responsible for carving the stone). The longest scan is taken from Atlantis: The Seven Seals, a 1984 pseudoscientific book written and seemingly self-published by Zoltán Simon. The site claims that the Hungarian decipherment is covered in the Encyclopaedia Hungarica—this isn't a well-known encyclopedia and I rather suspect that it's of similar quality to the material issued by Corvinus.  —Psychonaut (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yngvadottir: I'm home and had a glance through my books, but unfortunately didn't turn up anything about the Yarmouth stone. But see my previous post above for some other findings. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have bookmarked the above site. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yngvadottir: If you read Hungarian, there's also "A rejtélyes yarmouti nyelvemlék", an article on the pop-science portal Nyelv és Tudomány. This article does a decent job of skeptically examining the Hungarian connection.  Whether Nyelv és Tudomány counts as a reliable source is unclear, though given its history, popularity, and editorial oversight, I think a decent case could be made.  —Psychonaut (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Mass deletions on Weight of Chains 1 + 2
Hello, Psychonaut, just a technical question regarding these copyvio deletions. If/when deleted, does the history of coppyvio warnings and the history of who inserted the offending material ALSO disappear? Please mention or ping me if you reply as I don't watch user pages. Thankyou. Pincrete (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Pincrete. When material is revision deleted, the record of who contributed the infringing edits (as well as all intervening ones) is normally preserved in the page history.  Warnings for copyright violations are normally made on the talk page of the user who inserted them, and it's up to them whether to let them stay there or to blank them, but in any case they'll remain accessible through the page history.
 * Also note that the copyright violations on the two articles you are referring to are part of a large-scale cleanup of copyright violations by Boris Malagurski and his confirmed and suspected sockpuppets. A full listing of these can be found at Contributor copyright investigations/20140915. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reply, if I understand you correctly, history remains, but perhaps becomes slightly less tracable. Pincrete (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose so, depending on what it is you want to "trace". One of the revision deletions has already been processed; you can now see the result for yourself.  If there's any deleted information there that you feel you need access to, you could always ask an administrator to disclose it. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lum You
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lum You you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Just in case you didn't notice, i'm waiting on a response from you at Talk:Lum You/GA1 at point 3. This is the only outstanding concern; once I am satisfied you have adequately addressed this issue I can pass the article. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Your GA nomination of Lum You
The article Lum You you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lum You for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

World Socialist Party (Ireland)
Given your work of the Socialist Studies article, I thought you might be the person to review, or better yet expand, the article I wrote on the Irish branch of the World Socialist Movement. Please take a look. EricthePinko (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I'm actually probably not the best person to review the article (at least, not in isolation).  I did have a look, though, and the text seems to be well-written and factually correct.  The only major problem is that you've relied entirely on primary sources.  It would be great if you could support the article with some additional sources unconnected to the WSPI and SPGB.  Such third-party sources are particularly important to demonstrate the subject's notability.  As the Party operated for nearly half a century and participated in elections, there should be at least some coverage in national and local media.  A quick search of Google Books and Google's newspaper archive turned up some brief mentions in The Glasgow Herald and The Encyclopedia of Associations; I am sure there must be more (though not necessary online). —Psychonaut (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. As somebody who studied medieval history, I should have known look past the primary sources. I'll look a bit deeper so.EricthePinko (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8
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.


 * Beyond Language: Adventures in Word and Thought
 * added a link pointing to Digraph


 * Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
 * added a link pointing to American buffalo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Closure of FergusM1970 ban discussion
Closure reversed and editor unblocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think this was the right thing to do. Probably the outcome of the discussion will be the same, though I think it's best to let it run for the full period prescribed by policy, just in case this turns out to be one of those cases where new evidence or arguments come to light. Psychonaut (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited GamesMaster International, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oliver Frey. 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) 09:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of M.U.L.E. Returns
Hello! Your submission of M.U.L.E. Returns at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! czar ⨹   03:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio on Bali Mauladad
I'm looking at the article, and it's been about 4 days since you've tagged it. Do you think it could be deleted by now? Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 19:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At Template:Did you know nominations/Bali Mauladad one of the article's authors says that only a small part of the article is problematic, so there's no need to delete the entire article. Someone just needs to follow the copyvio template's instructions and produce a new draft, omitting the infringing material. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3
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.


 * Commodore 64 software
 * added a link pointing to Computer Shopper


 * Jim Butterfield
 * added a link pointing to Whitehorse

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Toronto PET Users Group
Hello! Your submission of Toronto PET Users Group at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a big issue, but it's a concern. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If some of the usual suspects at DYK talk come screaming, at least I brought the issue up. (Wasn't trying to be a pain to you, just didn't want a nasty drama thread if we can avoid it) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks for the review! —Psychonaut (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Mottos
Why are the Latin mottoes in a larger font than the English mottoes? Some cities don't even have Latin mottoes only English... Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk • contribs) 19:16, 3 January 2015‎
 * I haven't noticed any cases where the Latin mottoes are in a larger font. If they are, it's probably because the Latin version is the official one, and the English one is simply an unofficial translation provided as a courtesy to our readers.  Regarding the choice of language for the mottoes, that's something you'd need to ask the people who came up with the mottoes in the first place. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

List of commercial software with available source code
If you tell me what your question is, I could answer it. Unfortunately, your statements just mention that I edited something on the talk page without explaining your specific concern. BTW: It may be that the discussion is of general interest, so please let us continue it on the related talk page. Schily (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Schily. Thanks for getting back to me.  In a nutshell, my question is as follows:  According to your reading of List of commercial software with available source code, what are the criteria for determining which software should be included in or excluded from that list?  I agree that this is a matter of general interest, so please go ahead and answer this on the article's talk page, Talk:List of commercial software with available source code.  The question is already being discussed there so it's fine for you to jump in. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I believe that this article should be distinct and non-overlapping to the List of formerly proprietary software. From my understanding, the article List of commercial software with available source code should only list software that is still commercial but the source code is available under a non OSS compliant license while List of formerly proprietary software should only list software that was closed source but now is under a true OSS license. If my previous example does not help to understand this, let me make other examples: the Korn Shell. It has previously been closed source and commercial software from AT&T but now it is under a license that is accepted by opensource.org. Ksh93 is no longer maintained by AT&T but like a typical OSS project by David Korn and Glenn Fowler. So what do you think about making these two lists non-overlapping? Schily (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that ideally overlap between any pair of articles should be minimized, and that if we find significant overlap between two articles, we should reorganize things to reduce or eliminate it. But I think that's getting a bit ahead of ourselves.  Could you first help me understand the current state of affairs?  You say that List of commercial software with available source code should only list software that is still commercial but where the source code is available under a non–OSS-compliant license, but do you think that's what it currently claims to list?  (If so, there are an awful lot of entries which need to be removed.)  I've read the title and introduction several times, and consulted with the author, and I still have no idea what that list actually is.  Do you? —Psychonaut (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a statement on the articles talk page that this could be seen as something that includes both: real OSS and commercial with visible source. Let us continue on the talk page of the article. Schily (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Tuscgenlibrarian
The warning template I placed on this account's talk page is entirely appropriate. It is the standard template used in such cases. Please see the wording on the template, and note that it says "Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people" and also see Usernames implying shared use. If we view the account name as a term "Tuscgenlibrarian", it does not refer to a particular person at the library. A library has many librarians, and all the moreso this library system as it has several branches. As the policy notes, "Usernames that are names of posts within organizations" are not permitted. The account should be renamed to something like "JohnDoeAtTuscGenLibrary" or some such, which would indicate a particular person. Further, with regards to your response at WP:UAA, it does not matter if the account is being used perfectly within our editing guidelines. There is no qualifier at WP:ISU that allows otherwise unacceptable names if the account is being used properly. This account name is not appropriate, and your removal of the warning template was inappropriate. I have restored the warning. The editor themselves can remove the warning if they so choose. Please do not remove it again. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I still believe you are mistaken. We don't force people to reveal their names, even if they are editing on behalf of an organization.  As long as the username makes it clear that it's a single individual and not a group account, the username is within policy.  Restore your warning if you want, and I'll add my own explanation below it. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody is forcing them to reveal their names. It's a suggestion embedded in the template. If you wish to change the wording of the template, propose it at Template talk:Uw-coi-username. As to the username making it clear it's a single individual; it doesn't. A "librarian" is a position within the library, which is expressly not permitted per the username policy at WP:ISU. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that the discussion at WP:UAA has been closed with a consensus that the username was not inappropriate, or at least not blatantly so. I appreciate your having taken the initiative to discuss and understand the reasons for this with the closing administrator. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Transactor
<b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 00:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for M.U.L.E. Returns
The DYK project (nominate) 09:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Toronto PET Users Group
<b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 16:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN
There is a thread just opened there where a user is claiming you and DGG are harassing them. Thought you should know. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems the thread is closed with Beeblebrox taken care of it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of World of Commodore
Hello! Your submission of World of Commodore at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! GregorB (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for World of Commodore
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steve Punter, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CBC and CTV. 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, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

CCI on Srahmadi
Erm... it's the 6th not the 8th today. (See Srahmadi's entry in WP:CCI.) &mdash;George8211 / T 21:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching the typo. I've fixed it. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)