User talk:Psychonaut/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

proposed edit to Section 2.4 of the Srebrenica Massacre article

Psychonaut,

I just posted the following on the Srebrenica Massacre discussion page and am now, as a courtesy, posting this on the talk pages of frequent editors of the article. Best Regards, Fairview360 02:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors,

Please visit this version of the Srebrenica Massacre article to see the proposed changes to section 2.4: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=117151359

Please visit this site to see the proposed sub-article which the proposed section 2.4 text will be linked to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_executions_in_the_Srebrenica_massacre

If there is no major objection, we would like to introduce this major edit to the article this Sunday March 25. This ought to give each editor the time they need to review the proposed changes before they are fully introduced.

The objective here is to make the article more concise while continuing to clearly state what happened and in no way obscure actual events.

A full review of the proposed changes to section 2.4 and the sub-article will show that all information regarding the executions has been preserved and presented in a clear manner.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Fairview360 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Mechanical watch

Hi Psychonaut, I've removed your uncat tag on this article, because I've placed it in about five or so categories. I also moved the page to the above title to fit the house style. It's a decent article; I'm proud of Steven for creating it, I knew he could do well here. Thanks for your input, --Tractorkingsfan 19:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is sourcing. I've told him as much, and I believe he'll be able to add adequate references. Thanks, --Tractorkingsfan 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Srebrenica

I have several reports from UN and other news organizations about the Srebrenica massacre. I noticed that there is quite a bit of argument over the content of that article, so I would like to know if it is reasonable to add the quotes to this article (with appropriate links) knowing that they will not be erased the very next second? Thank you,

--Westtruth 02:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Westtruth

There's no guarantee that even the most apparently innocuous change to that article will not result in an uproar from various editors accusing you of trying to force a biased point of view onto the article. —Psychonaut 02:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious?

In regards to this, you might want to read about this: WP:LAME. WP:OWN, as it states: "This article is about the control of content, not the ownership of copyright for content, which is addressed elsewhere." is about content, not the format. Aboutmovies 07:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't own the format of your articles either. The community, not you, gets to decide what colour the template box is. —Psychonaut 16:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not an article, its a template. These are treated differently if you read say WP:BB, and we as a community did decide on the color. It matches three other templates on different sections of history for the same state. We as the editors of those templates and the articles decided on this, which I believe makes it concensus. Aboutmovies 06:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good; then there is no need for any comment in the source code asking other editors to comply with your colour scheme. —Psychonaut 12:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, actually the comments are useful to keep people from just changing w/o discussing first. Kind of like the other hidden comments on the template instructing other editors to put keep the items in alphabetical or chronological order. Or do those constitute WP:OWN to you? If so we might want to talk to the wiki higher ups and have them remove the hidden comments entirely as that is the only thing I have seen them used for: instructions for other editors. Oh, wait isn't that what the WP:MOS calls for:

Invisible comments Invisible comments are used to communicate with other editors in the article body. These comments are only visible when editing the page. They are invisible to ordinary readers.

Normally if an editor wants to discuss issues with other potential editors, they will do it on the talk page. However, it sometimes makes more sense to put comments in the article body, because an editor would like to leave instructions to guide other editors when they edit this section, or leave reminders on specific issues (for example, do not change the section title since others have linked here).

To do so, enclose the text which you intend to be read only by editors within .

For example, the following:

Hello world.

is displayed as:

Hello world. So the comment can be seen when viewing the wiki source (although not, incidentally, the HTML source).

Note: Comments may introduce unwanted whitespace when put on certain places, such as the top of an article. Avoid placing comment fields in places where they might change the rendered result of the article.

We better get right on this! Aboutmovies 18:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Such messages imply ownership over the page if they are phrased in such a way as to suggest that a single editor controls or is trying to control the format or contents. Your message clearly falls into that category; it instructed editors not to change a particular aspect of the format because "I am trying to make it match the road signs for historical cultural places" (emphasis added). If your intention was to simply warn newcomers against breaching an existing consensus, the message should have said so. —Psychonaut 18:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't phrase it perfectly as I started the template soon after starting to edit on wikipedia, but my point with replying was to show how pointless removing the comment was and adding a reference to a policy without one knowing the background in an area WikiProject Oregon, that you are not an active participant in that I know of. If you had simply removed it with the other edit, I could understand. But you specifically went back after another edit and only edited that comment. That is a waste of everyone's time. Aboutmovies 05:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Srebrenica

I finally found some time to read Srebrenica articles, I was was shocked at the obvious bias in the article. I tried to be neutral but the references are in majority from Bosnian blogs and websites. Other sides of the conflict are not represented at all. I also noticed several reoccuring users that are dominating the article. I believe this article is quite important to be controlled by only 2-3 users.

What is the best course of action to limit their dominance, and to have information from other sides of the conflict noticed in the article? Thank you --Westtruth 10:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I no longer have time to follow the Srebrenica massacre article, so I can't comment on its current state. However, if what you say is true, then I can tell you that this is a long-term problem which has thus far been kept in check (with varying degrees of success) through constant vigilance by relatively impartial parties. If a particular user is flagrantly and repeatedly violating Wikipedia policies (such as vandalizing the article, making excessive reversions, or making personal attacks against other editors), as has often happened in the past, then this can be reported to WP:ANI or WP:AN3 as appropriate. If it's more a systemic problem, all I can suggest is to try recruiting neutral editors at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Let me know what you do in any case and I'll try to keep an eye on things occasionally. —Psychonaut 10:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Psychonaut,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Cheese limburger edit.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 28, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-05-28. howcheng {chat} 00:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dial-promo-pic-july-2003.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dial-promo-pic-july-2003.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on Image:Number–duration ratios.jpg

So how do you produce one of these SGV files? Tony 13:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bosniaks at Jasenovac

I think my comments are relevant. I don't understand why you would choose to target this quite reasonable article other than some sort of axe to grind. I'll delete the paragraph as I think the arguments in favour of retaining it are string enough without needing to question your motives in rasing the issue as well, but I do have the feeling there's an agenda here. --Opbeith 18:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Wthatcher.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Wthatcher.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 18:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Gallium Arsenide (record label)

A tag has been placed on Gallium Arsenide (record label), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Alex valavanis 16:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability of The Modern Art

A tag has been placed on The Modern Art, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Alex valavanis 20:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Emergence phenomenon

Hi, I notice you have been involved in editing this article, so I thought you may like to know that I nominated it for deletion. If you want to offer your opinion, please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emergence phenomenon. Thanks, --John24601 17:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Goebbels children

FYI, the "Irving" I referred to in an edit summary as a "writer of fiction" was not "an editor" but disgraced historian David Irving. From my vague recollection of you I find it hard to imagine that you would support the use of his work as a WP:RS yourself. --Zeraeph 16:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, posted to WRONG USER page in error!--Zeraeph 17:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether I would support using Irving as a reference is irrelevant. What I would not do is violate WP:3RR by repeatedly removing a citation inserted by another user in good faith. I would file a WP:RFC (as you eventually did, for which I commend you). —Psychonaut 18:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Heavens I AM sorry, turns out is wasn't you who made that remark at all [1] I just thought it was so curious and out of character I had better set you straight. --Zeraeph 18:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Margita Bangová

Hi, I noticed on the talkpage of Margita Bangová, you showed interest in the article. This is just to let you know User:Desiphral has listed the article for deletion. I invite you to have your say at Margita Bangová. Thanks, --125.237.100.214 10:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR on List of Roma, Sinti and Mixed People

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. -- Merope 14:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Understood. I took the matter to WP:ANI before either one of us had violated WP:3RR. —Psychonaut 14:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Desiphral

I have blocked the user for 24 hours for making this edit. Block message is here. I don't think this matter is closed, though. I've added both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novoselsky Valery and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margita Bangová to my watchlist and will try to monitor the situation as best I can. (The former article was actually speedily deleted by me several weeks ago, so I probably shouldn't close the discussion.)

Also, I believe I've interacted with you in a previous dispute -- about Slavs, maybe? I used to keep a list of all the groups I've been accused of hating because of my admin actions, but when it includes "Jews" and "everyone who is not a Jew", there's really not much point. -- Merope 14:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably Bosniaks, but possibly Jews. See my user page; I keep a "trophy" list of racist allegations. I think they speak volumes more about the accusers than about me. —Psychonaut 14:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That's right, we were pro-Serb, anti-Bosniaks. Ah, good times. -- Merope 14:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Test...

That was actually me testing my monobook.css thingie that changes the new messages bar. But thanks! -- Merope 20:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

MfD

Sorry about that, but I'm going on vacation starting Friday, and I wanted to get my !vote in. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Margita Bangová article

Thank you. I have incorporated your requests into my edits on the article and on the talk page. --Chicaneo 20:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Email

Hi, I've sent you an email. Majorly (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you receive it? Majorly (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I did! Thanks for the offer, but I don't really need the tools. —Psychonaut 15:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Root of the Problem

I have just been looking at WP:CIVIL#Preventing_incivility_within_Wikipedia specifically "Solve the root of the conflict", on consideration of recent comments I honestly think it is time we did that Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist. I hope that you will agree to the mediation process to resolve our differences once and for all --Zeraeph 16:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is now the seventh venue you have raised the issue of my user watchlist. Please stop forum-shopping. —Psychonaut 21:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a question of "forum-shopping". I want to resolve the differences between us in accord with policy. In accord with WP:AGF I assume that you do too. Mediation seems the only proper way to go. Incidentally, my feeling that your "watchlist" should be deleted is a quite seperate issue. --Zeraeph 21:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask you once again to agree to mediation Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist‎ in the hope that doing so will resolve any problems and make a permanent end to any ill feeling between us. --Zeraeph 14:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

Just curious—what makes you think that I'd be interested in joining this project? I don't recall extensively editing any articles on R&B and soul music. I know almost nothing about the genre and don't listen to it. —Psychonaut 20:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's just an invitation, many people contribute to many projects without irl actively doing or enjoying about the matter of subject in the project they are. Thanks for the reply. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 13:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Second warning on Margita Bangová article

Psychonaut, the article you reverted to contained 8 references to the Toronto Sun (#s 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 14, 15, & 17) , which a tabloid, 3 references to opinion/editorial works (#s 5, 8, & 16), 2 references (#s 10 & 11) to foreign, untranslated text, presumably Czech and 1 reference to a blog (#13). This is the second time you have reverted this article to this particular version which is in violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Tony Sidaway had reverted this article back to the more neutral version, but his reversion was short-lived and at 20:03, July 2, 2007, an administrator deleted the article. THIS IS YOUR SECOND WARNING. Any attempt to re-write this article in violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons will lead to a referral to an administrator per Wikipedia:Blocking policy. --Chicaneo 20:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• See also WP:BLP (policy on living individuals) and especially WP:NOT (see Wikipedia is not tabloid journalism). Guy (Help!) 20:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm familiar with those policies; they were discussed at length in that article's AfD. A great number of editors believed the article to be within the WP:BLP guidelines. The article did not merely salaciously repeat the tabloid's accusations, but objectively reported on them (which had themselves become notable due to reporting in the mainstream media) and the ensuing criticism. The article may have been about an event in which bigotry played a role, but it was not itself bigotry. Or at least, it was not intended to come across that way—if it did, then there are better ways of fixing the problem than deleting the article against consensus. —Psychonaut 21:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You might consider challenging the article's suspicious disappearance at deletion review. 134.117.148.184 22:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:METAFONT logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:METAFONT logo.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 '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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Psychonaut - please help

Psychonaut, I need your help. This individual screwed up my profile page, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bosniak . Now, they also destroyed my userbox. Brother, what should I do? I want my Userbox back. Please help. Bosniak 04:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:METAFONT logo.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:METAFONT logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. +mt 05:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Escape Pod (podcast)

Hi! I hope you don't mind; I removed the speedy-deletion tag from this article. I'm actually familiar with this podcast, and it's a major science fiction podcast, with thousands of listeners, broadcasting works by very notable science fiction authors and (this is rare in podcasting, and they're the first to do it) paying them for publication. I figure you checked on this article from the discussion over the deletion of Pseudopod (podcast), which is a spin-off of Escape Pod and less well known. It's so hard to prove notability for a podcast, just because almost all of the press they get is in blogs, but I did my best to add sources and will keep trying. Anyway, if you still think it should be deleted, you're welcome to take it to AfD, 'cause I'm aware that my love for it isn't, in itself, an assertion of notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for explaining your reasoning. FWIW, I'm also familiar with the podcast, and while the use of established science fiction authors is commendable, it doesn't necessarily make the podcast notable. I also have some concerns because Eley announced the Wikipedia article on the podcast itself and directed listeners to it. —Psychonaut 13:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC).

saying hello

I was just looking through the galleries and thinking about how much fun your ferret was, in restaurants and otherwise. hope you're well too, -- phoebe/(talk) 04:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a fun ferret. Here it is again -- Harry Wood 16:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Randy Constan

An article that you have been involved in editing, Randy Constan, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Constan. Thank you. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:AMS-TeX logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:AMS-TeX logo.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 '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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Aruman to Saruman

This redirect has been put up for discussion; just thought you should know. $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 03:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Vigilance on Dook Article

Just wanted to thank you for watching out for the edits on that article. Since UNC Chapel-Hill started classes yesterday, I have a feeling there might be a few editors who are going to take to that page and other Duke related pages (just as I am sure, with Duke classes starting Monday, the same is true for Carolina sites)... DukeEGR93 00:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

M.U.L.E.

Regarding your Revert on M.U.L.E. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), please elaborate on why a unique article about the ability to play the game online is not "notable" in the articles talk page. Blackbeard2k7 18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

M.U.L.E. External Spaming Link Violating Copyright

This is complain for Wikipage on M.U.L.E. [[2]]

BLACKBEARD27K is linking to his personal Website. M.U.L.E. Software Download When that was deleted by the Admins, he is now (indirectly) linking to it via another personal Website.

(1) BLACKBEARD27K is offering, on the above Website, for download a pirated / modified / hacked version of the game M.U.L.E. without the permission of the original authors or publishers ATARI. This is a serious violation of copyright material.

(2) It is in violation of WP:EL as it is SPAM and he is trying to propagate his own web-site Forum here.

(3) Wikipedia is NOT a collection of links.

(4) Also, using common sense, no one should download any executable software from a very unreliable source (as above). Such software may contain trojans and keyloggers which steal your personal information (including Credit Card Nos & passwords)

This individual persists in reverting the deletions. I have deleted the offending link. Please give your opinion regarding this on the M.U.L.E. discussion page.

Thanks. Hungrywolf 09:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Refer to the talk page of M.U.L.E. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for further discussion. Blackbeard2k7 12:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

The problem is that Red Deathy isn't abiding by the 3RR on the Wikipedia article and several of us have made arguments that they can't refute. The neutral SCHOLARLY resources are outdated and The BNP has since reformed itself, those changes that have taken hold are all sourced in the text and contradict the assertion that the BNP is Fascist. The problem is though while each of us who want it out write legitimate reasons when we edit it, those who want Fascist in often have nothing when they revert our edits, they are just playing a game of numbers. The Anome actually stepped in before and proposed a concession of having Fascism but having a template next to it saying "Alleged by critics, denied by the BNP". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sviatoslav86 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Nude Bomb

I love that you included that as a see also on Gay bomb. LOL. --David Shankbone 15:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No fair use rational on Image:Juice Newton - Queen of Hearts (single).jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Juice Newton - Queen of Hearts (single).jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Juice Newton - Queen of Hearts (single).jpg is an unfree image with no fair use rationale uploaded after May 4, 2006 which has been tagged as not having a rationale for more than 7 days (CSD I6).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Juice Newton - Queen of Hearts (single).jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 16:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Margita Bangova

I'd noticed the article (you had started) got deleted by some admin (who left WP in the meantime) even after recent passing through a thorough AfD. It feels to be contrary to the rules and customs of Wikipedia as well as against common sense and I am quite suprised it wasn't restored or checked through deletion review.

(I was going to add info that the visa duty forced by Canada to Czechs has been finally lifted - and suprise, article nowhere to be seen.) Pavel Vozenilek 16:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll put the article up for deletion review soon. —Psychonaut 17:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please let me know in advance (I'm not here all the time). For what I known deletion review result much depends a lot on presentation skills of the submitter - the lack of actual article makes the whole process unpredictable.

Such an unilateral admin action just after AfD should be handled somewhere else but, I guess, overload made the proper process broken beyond repair. Pavel Vozenilek 21:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

EGA Color Palette

I just wanted to thank you for creating the SVG file for the EGA color palette. Are you going to also create one for VGA? I have the raw data for the VGA palette colors, if you need it. Cheers. --DevinCook 01:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have the palette colours as well; and there's another copy at commons:Image:VGA256-Standard_Subset.png. If I get time I might make an SVG version. In the meantime, you're free to do so yourself; this should be quite easy by modifying commons:User:Psychonaut/palette.sh such that it takes its colour data from an array rather than calculating the colours uniformly. —Psychonaut 03:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, done: Image:VGA palette.svg and Image:VGA palette with black borders.svg. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Greetings + Question

Hello. I am new to Wikipedia, but seem to be already caught in an edit war over at Bosniaks article. I saw your name in the history so I thought to ask you this question. Is it appropriate for someone to keep inserting that Bosniaks are not Slav because they have some Illyrian blood in them? I thought that ethnicity had to do with language, culture and customs, and since Bosniaks have Slavic customs, culture and language, isn't it safe to assume they do indeed belong to the Slavic ethnic group? Greetings. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. We worked out our dispute. Hoorah!!! Frvernchanezzz (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Cree?

Hello, Psychonaut. Let me point you to this discussion. You were the closest thing to an active user of Cree I have found that might be able to help this person. Thanks. Cary Bass ^demandez 16:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't speak Cree. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Social Science Association - The Intellectual and the People.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Social Science Association - The Intellectual and the People.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia: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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. I'd like to nominate you for adminship, as you're clearly qualified. Let me know if you're interested. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote of confidence, but I don't see how giving me administrator privileges would benefit either me or Wikipedia. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Assistance

Hi. There are some users over at Talk:Bosniaks and related articles trying to promote the ridiculous fringe theory that "Bosniaks are not Slav, but are Illyrian/Aryan/Scandinavian who just speak a Slavic language". Some input would be of great use. Thanks.

P.S - about that above message, I too would strongly support you being an administrator. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)