User talk:Psychonaut/Archive 6

ArbCom elections' answer
Hi Psychonaut. Could you please have a look at the answer and my opinion i have just provided here? Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  17:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Warning: no personal attacks; assume good faith
I have on my talk page. --Pixelface (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 19:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

London Meetup
Hi I posted the suggestion that we should have a London Wikipedia meetup next week here. Would be cool if we could get some people together. I was thinking either a social meet or maybe a collaboration meetup where we bring a selected London article up to GA or even FA status. Poeloq (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up about the meetup; sadly, I doubt it's going to be practical for me to come what with the baby and all. :-/ Arkady Rose (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

''Re-scheduled again. See below''

Penultima
Thanks for changing it to the correct name - I didn't remember the spelling. Poeloq (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Amiga Workbench 1 3 large.png
Thank you for uploading Image:Amiga Workbench 1 3 large.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Logo-vancity.gif
Thank you for uploading Image:Logo-vancity.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wailing Wall (LP).jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Wailing Wall (LP).jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 20:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PracTeX.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:PracTeX.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

London Meetup - April 13th
Hey Psychonaut. There's been a fair bit of toing and froing with the organisation of this London meetup. We've settled on a central London (Holborn) pub location in the end, rather than your usual Pembury Tavern haunt, and also a lunchtime meet-up. This seems to be attracting more interest, but I hope you and your ferret can make it! and maybe you can help me persuade the other usual suspects to come along!

So Meetup/London 8 next Sunday lunchtime (April 13th 1pm)

-- Harry Wood (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

London Meetups - Sunday May 11th
It was pretty successful, but the ferret wasn't there! We're hoping to have regular meetups in London. The next one is on May 11th Meetup/London 9. Another Sunday lunch in Holborn. Come along! -- Harry Wood (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I tempt you along to Meetup/London 10? This Sunday 1p.m.! -- Harry Wood (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Big Bird in China.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Big Bird in China.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bpinballm2.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Bpinballm2.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm upset at the way the NPA Personality Theory situation was handled. Am I understanding correctly that the justifications were that he was self promoting himself and that his theory was unpopular? Was there even an effort made to understand the theory? I would like to hear a justification based on logic... not on the number of results a google search returned... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aneeley (talk • contribs) 20:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

wiki-meetup
Hey, I saw from past records that you attended london wiki-meetup no. 10; if you're interested in attending again we're planning meetup 12 at the moment. Ironholds 16:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD
An article you have an interest in, Jonathan Bishop, has been nominated for deletion. You might wish to express your opinion on the proposed deletion at Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Bishop_(3rd_nomination). Pontyboy (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gnits Standards
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Gnits Standards, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Günther von Kluge
Hi, you removed the portrait of Günther von Kluge from the article. Indeed the picture is of poor quality, sorry about that. I can't deny that. However, you should note that these portraits of famous German soldiers during World War II were often a gift by Adolf Hitler. Some of these portraits have an interesting story. For instance Adolf Galland received two portraits. His first portrait displayed him smoking a cigar. Hitler, a nonsmoker, disproved of this version and had another one made. I will therefore revert your edit because I feel that the portrait has historical value.MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not dispute that the painting has historical value and is relevant to the article. However, that is a truly awful photo of the painting, marred as it is by three enormous and intense reflections and two slightly less luminous reflections.  The photo is tilted several degrees to the left, and the direction of the photo is nowhere near perpendicular to the plane of the portrait.  If this were the only depiction of von Kluge in the article, perhaps some case could be made to keep it as a placeholder until a better one could be found, but as it is there is already a photograph of him in the info box.  Leaving that photo in would be akin to leaving in a mostly redundant section on his personal life replete with spelling and grammatical errors.  Such substandard works on Wikipedia are always replaced, or removed until they can be replaced.  I'm doing the latter in hopes that someone can provide a better photo of the portrait.  —Psychonaut (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Socialist Studies (1983)
I have nominated Socialist Studies (1983), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Socialist Studies (1983). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Wizardman 19:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Basset hound
FYI, IP address 71.182.133.24 reverted your removal of the dog names from this article. This IP address has previously reverted my removal of the names as well. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:The Open Mind promo.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The Open Mind promo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of disbarred lawyers
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of disbarred lawyers, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Lara 05:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 07:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of FidoNews
I have nominated FidoNews, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/FidoNews. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Crusio (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be more careful in tagging images for copyright/fair use violations. This one was already tagged as being in the public domain. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Psychonaut! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Brent Galloway -

Hello, This is Very Important
{Issue Resolved.}


 * I'm not sure it's permitted to simply delete information from a WP:ANI archive. You should probably explain what you are trying to do on WP:ANI to see if this is kosher, or possibly ask for help at WP:RFO if you need personally identifying information expunged. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't have any power to remove or alter information (apart from that which any other user has). Again, if you want to remove personally identifying information from Wikipedia, you need to do so through the WP:RFO process.  Go to that page and read through it.  You will see that you can contact someone to help you via e-mail or a web form.  I can't help you any further as I am not an administrator or bureaucrat.  —Psychonaut (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume so. I've never contacted them myself. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, I guess you've made a good faith effort to go through the proper channels. I'd just go ahead and remove the personally identifying information in question.  But note that you should remove only those parts of the incident archive which serve to identify you, not the entirety of them. —Psychonaut (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Bosniak had some not-so-nice things to say about you on his blog, referring to you, among other things, as a "Serbian thug" and a "Serbian extremist". He's indef-blocked and, for all intents and purposes, banned from this project so his references to you on his blog make no difference with regards to anything on Wikipedia anymore but I just thought you'd want to know. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * More names to add to my hall of fame, I guess. He doesn't seem to let the truth get in the way of his stories… I'm not and have never been an administrator (as has been pointed out to him several times already), and also didn't nominate his article for speedy deletion, though I did PROD it as there don't seem to be any third-party references to an incident by its name.  Anyway, since his blog is listed in the "External links" section of many articles, this raises a rather interesting conflict of interest which I've reported at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Phoinix" AFD
Thank you for the notification. However, I did not create the article; I merely created the page, as a redirect to Phoenix, as unambiguously announced in my edit summary. Perhaps you should adopt a more sophisticated method for deciding whom to notify when you list an article for deletion. Cheers &mdash; Dan | talk 23:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry; I am using the Twinkle gadget for notifications. I guess it's not as smart as it seems. —Psychonaut (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You created the initial redirect. Even though somebody else transformed it into a full article later, TW always goes for the page creator. User:Erwin85Bot notifies the editors with most contributions to the article, assuming it gets to it in time. Pcap ping  21:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of E page for deletion
Are you sure you looked at a current version of the article? As far as I can tell it has 12 sources (out of 19) that have nothing to do with me. 8 of these 12 are peer-reviewed scholarly publications (i.e. the best class of sources per WP:RS), as are several of my papers cited. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following you!
If you think specific users are promotional only, you're better off reporting them to WP:UAA. Otherwise, I recommend blanking any advertising from their userpage, welcoming them (using the template that warns against promotion and COI) then monitoring them. Cheers. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some cases are hard to judge. Typically if the username is a company, the company is described in detail on the user's page (usually with contact info or a description of specific products or services for sale), and there are no mainspace edits, then I nominate it for CSD G11.  Otherwise I send it to MfD.  Regardless whether the accounts are promotional only, WP:NOTWEBHOST doesn't look kindly upon editors whose only action on Wikipedia is to edit their own user page.  —Psychonaut (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Just wanted to let ya know what I was doing behind ya ... one of them had not edited since 2006, so I removed the advert on their userpage. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Particular reasons for considering for deletion EP128Emu?
Hello, you wrote: "I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion". What criteria for inclusion do you think of, exactly? I mean, why e.g. C64 or ZX Spectrum emulation software articles are better? Do you think Enterprise is not really a computer or EP128Emu is not really an emulator? greetings, --Szipucsu (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The criteria in question can be found at Notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway you should check this to establish third party notability of this software. --Szipucsu (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Self-published periodicals such as blogs and zines are not generally valid as sources establishing notability for the purposes of Wikipedia. Please see Notability and Reliable sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a self published material. Do check it, have somebody translated it from Hungarian before saying things like this. Why do you think it is self published? How do you prove it? You are not thorough enough. greetings, --Szipucsu (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you think other emulation softwares (eg. C64S) have the criteria EP128Emu doesn't? Or these? --Szipucsu (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Another thing: an emulator both for Windows and Linux that can emulate 3 machines... you cannot think seriously what you say or you are not familiar at old computers and their emulators at all. It does prove its notability. I hope you used the emulator for hours (under Linux) before proclaiming your opinion of criteria for inclusion, I hope you tested its debugger for all the 3 machines and you are familiar in how to convert Spectrum or CPC programs into Enterprise platform using the emulator's debugger. --Szipucsu (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

May I know who consented to delete the article? And could you please tell me what kind of references have the emulation articles that don't need deletion? I am really interested. (Having deleted the article I cannot look at your answer now.) Anyway, deleting the article wasn't based on an objective opinion. Is any computer less received (certified, maybe I can say) in the base that it is less known than other computers? And therefore its emulator, because nobody writes reference about it just because the exprets don't deal with it for some reason? I think, Wiki's concepts about deletion would be revised. A computer is a computer (except for eg. if I made a computer that were used only by my family) and its emulator is its emulator if works fine. Wikipedia's concept is not objective, I think. Who do you think would publish eg. printed material about a software that has new versions every half a year and the printed material would expire very soon? greetings, --Szipucsu (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

How did you decide this fanzine is not notable? Can you read what you wrote above? SELF-PUBLISHED ... zines are not GENERALLY valid as sources establishing notability. You don't care either it's not self-published. Moreover, "they are not GENERALLY valid sources" doesn't mean "they are NEVER valid sources". Now, I can't see any further research about if the zine mentioned is really not a valid source. Is it common on Wikipedia to delete such articles? If it is only 90% that the source is not reliable the remaining 10% is not important? Is it a profound work? Another possibility is that you maliciously mislead me writing what is not really true and zines are always (not "generally") unreliable resources. You also might have mislead me writing you speak Hungarian fairly well because I can't see any information about your knowledge of languages on your user page. I don't understand how people can decide that a source is not reliable if they don't understand the language it is written in. You surely don't do profound work or mislead me. If self-published zines are not generally valid (but according to your sentence they sometimes are!) then not self published zines must be more often valid than not self-published ones. It is not the way to work in Wikipedia to mislead others or not to do profound work enough on examining source materials. I don't want to offend you but you have to see it was not an honest way you proceeded. --Szipucsu (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion
Rather than stuffing the MFD box for ancient pages that aren't really causing much trouble, why not consider just boldly blanking them and/or redirecting them to the users' talk page? –xeno<sup style="color:black;">talk 16:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, that is an option I had not considered. Yes, if I come across any further ones from inactive accounts, I will just blank them. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers - if anyone gives you any grief, just point them my way. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 16:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Delete as nominator" !votes
It's a bit unusual to !vote again in an AfD you have initiated. On the other hand, if you want to withdraw some nomination, it's probably better to strike it out, rather than !vote "keep as nominator" , which still leaves the nomination standing, and may give the impression it's a 1-1 !vote on a first look. Pcap ping  23:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno; I've seen it quite often in the past. Perhaps it's no longer a common practice…? At any rate I'm always providing either new information/arguments or a comment on the other arguments/evidence presented so far when !voting, so I figure it's a helpful novel contribution. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But something like Articles for deletion/Teeworlds can be a problem; your nomination, then one !vote each for delete, redirect, keep - then it looks like your additional !vote swayed the final decision. Marasmusine (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Note
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (This refers to Wikiquette_alerts.) Best, ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  stannary parliament  ─╢ 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambig page
The "new" disambiguation page SIGINT that you created yesterday is essentially a duplicate of the existing disambiguation page Sigint (disambiguation). You might want to consider redirecting. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I should note that by removing the existing redirect from SIGINT, you broke links in over 200 other articles. You might not be aware that it is recommended, when usurping an existing title, "that you modify all pages that link to the old title so they will link to the new title." --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)