User talk:Psychonaut/Archive 3

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

Follow this link to leave me a new message.
Remember to sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Removing Stuff from my Talk page!

Why did you make this edit - [1]????--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 09:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

See the edit summary. —Psychonaut 13:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but why did you remove it?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 16:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Because he is a dick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murflorious (talk • contribs)

Hey, Murflorious, Don't be a fucking douchebag. Mr Spunky Toffee 04:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to give me an explination or not. I put it there, I like it there. Why did you go and remove it?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 02:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude you suck. I'm reverting my page to what it was. you're a vandal. Fegor 15:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User page

I've protected your user page due to a sudden pate of vandalism. Let me or another admin know when you want it removed. -Will Beback 05:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you know the vandal is really bald? ;) —Psychonaut 22:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, that should have been "spate".-Will Beback 00:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

sprotected

Seriously... :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: JarlaxleArtemis

I've responded to your comment about my speedy deletion of one of your user subpages at my talk page. Apologies for any inconvenience you may have experienced, and I would appreciate some clarification. Thanks. theProject 00:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis - Thanks for compiling that. Hopefully, it won'tneed much further work. -Will Beback 22:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:BibTeX logo.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BibTeX logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. -- grendel|khan 05:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

the proposed deletion of Benis' NPA personality theory

I have been howling with laughter as Hoary referred us to the "smiling gorilla" vital research and Hoary's pointing out the hiliarity of her overblown prose on the NPA talk page -- Isn't it kinda expensive to hire advertising agencies that good at snow jobs?? And a DEGREED PSYCHOLOGIST fell for that promo. And when you consider that psychology is a science. And a scientist should be able to recognize the presence or absence of science. ah dearie me. Yes, I'll certainly keep an eye on it. Thanks for the note on my talk page. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 06:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you but not for now

No, after a long walk I have come to realise that all of these might have been better considered on a case by case basis, and I am sure you will agree that you have no further cause to feel in any way "singled out" so I won't be adding any more now. --Zeraeph 18:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

URGENT Vandalism on "Counter Vandalism"

Really weird page move, redirecting thing going on...I understand you may know something about this kind of vandalism?

Best you look at your user contribs and see what you make of it...I can't figure it out or how to restore it..

--Zeraeph 23:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not an administrator and therefore don't have any ability to revert page moves. You should report this to the appropriate subpage of WP:AN. —Psychonaut 00:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's ok, somebody has caught and reverted it now, but as you seemed to have made the last edit before the vandalism I thought you might have still had that last unvandalised page open in your browser and be able to revert with "edit this page" or something.--Zeraeph 00:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Benis and NPA

Hoary presents the Zola Award of Generous Indignation to Psychonaut for erudition and energy in an AfD.

Well done on creating an excellently researched and reasoned AfD. --Steve 04:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm getting a lot of flak from a couple other users, though... :( —Psychonaut 04:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

I'm inviting you and the other editors I've been talking with recently to visit this Talkpage which I've just created. While I'm hoping it will help, I'm also open to the possibility that I'm just an obnoxious busybody :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, but I don't think that's necessary. I have nothing to hide or keep private, so mediation (if any party desires it) can be carried out through the regular channels (i.e., WP:RfM). —Psychonaut 00:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand Psychonaut, but I'm sorry to hear that. I was also hoping to consolidate things so that this doesn't keep spilling across other pages, but the choice is certainly yours. There will probably be some discussion there anyway, so please feel free to check it out and jump in if you change your mind. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against consolidation and mediation, but if it's going to happen I'd rather have it done in an official public forum. You or the other parties can file an request for mediation if you feel strongly about it. —Psychonaut 00:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Psychonaut on this, for what I feel to be very similar reasons. --Zeraeph 01:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Good luck to both of you then. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

MFD

I just want to say to you that whatever you feel, the MFD is not even slightly personal, nor even a criticism of you per se.

I delved a little and saw that you have been put through hell by one of the editors you mention. You do realise that you can request that, at least ,any comment revealing your real name, and, I suspect, most of the abuse, be removed permanently from the histories?

I see why you feel so strongly about that, to put it mildly. I just don't think pages specifically intended for editors to criticise other editors is in accord with existing policy, and I think policy should be applied equally and uniformally.

Obviously you see things in a different way, but I don't see that as a reason for animosity between us. You will win the MFD now no doubt, so why not just let it run it's course in accord with policy? --Zeraeph 01:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop implying that I have been obstructing the debate. You have been warned about this before. The first time you pled ignorance that you were making such an implication, but now you are continuing to make them. This is the final warning I am giving you. —Psychonaut 02:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That is absolutely not what I am implying. I just feel that you would prefer me to withdraw the MFD than to let it run it's course, if I am mistaken in feeling that, then just tell me so, and I will stop feeling that way. --Zeraeph 02:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yamanote Halloween Train

Thanks for the nice things you said about me on Calton's talk page. In this case, I objected to an admin deleting when there's 10 keeps to 5 deletes. I know this 20 year old event is real even if I don't approve of it. But I'll let other people fight it out. (BTW I still think the Darwin/Lincoln factoid should have been left in. But I just stay off the Darwin page :-) ) Vincent 03:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but keep in mind that Calton is not an admin and didn't delete the page. And what he said to you was correct—you really should have read the notices and thought about things before making your comment. However, I strongly object to the tone with which he wrote this to you. —Psychonaut 04:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Psychonauts

Hello there. I'm interested in what you present as the Japanese katakana spelling of your name, サイコナーツ. I'm not sure that I have an IPA-capable font, so shan't attempt to represent the sound of this in the most sensible way, but I'll point out that each of the six symbols represents a mora, for a total of five syllables (the fourth and fifth morae/moras are a single syllable). The first three morae/syllables represent the sound "psycho" as closely as they can, but the three morae that follow are odd. There's the sound of "nar" as in non-rhotic "narcotic", followed by "tsu" as in "tsunami". Both are surprising: I'd expect ノート, for "no" of "yes/no" and "to" of "tomato". (The katakana you now use looks much more like that for "psychonauts", plural, than for "psychonaut".) However, I suppose that somebody could argue that ナーツ is better. These cross-phonology affairs can be contentious.

What was I going to say? Oh yes: Japanese orthography is not phonetic (and neither is any other orthography). Instead, it's phonemic. Crack open that linguistics text and read up this stuff! -- Hoary 12:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wizardry Dragon Attempts to Misuse Mediation Request Page

Wizardry Dragon's gave lengthy "testimony", then immediately declared himself "recused" (rather than stating that he was refusing to mediate). I deleted both and have asked Zeraeph how to go about having his testimony deleted from page history. I have posted to his Talk page explaining that the stated rules on that page do not provide for anything but acceptance or refusal and that comments, in any case, are not allowed.

• The entire point of mediation, of course, it to MEDIATE, not to have the same opportunities one has already enjoyed on public Wiki spaces and pages - of making unfounded accusations and then repeatedly refusing to be held accountable for those unfounded accusations. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 05:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Psychonaut. Since you were the first editor to suggest formal mediation, I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you haven't signed on yet. Everyone else is on board at this point and you seem to be the lone holdout. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar Award

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I hereby award to you this Barnstar of diligence for having unearthed a walled garden carefully planted in wikiland by the good doctor Anthony Benis. Keep up the good work Ohconfucius 02:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed notability guideline for scientific contributions

Hello, seeing your interest in pseudoscience I am wondering if you're interested in helping to draft a notability guideline for scientific concepts, currently in vitro at User:Trialsanderrors/SCIENCE. Best, trialsanderrors 06:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

MfD Result Notice

Hi,

I have closed the MfD on your user-watchlist as improperly filed, given the mass addition, and then withdrawl, of so many other pages. Technically, this close is without prejudice against refiling, but I have advised the nominator to wait for mediation and a "cooling-down" before relisting. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Resubmitted MfD for the User Watchlist page

I resubmitted a (hopefully valid) MfD for this page, not because I myself feel it should be deleted but because I feel that consensus should be reached about this issue so it can be laid to rest. I hope you don't mind this, and please do not misinterpret it as any sort of personal attack or misunderstanding of the validity of the page. Thank you. -- Wizardry Dragon _{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 19:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC) (I posted this message on it's talk page and here as I wanted to ensure you got it.)

I appreciate your wanting to be fair, but I don't think your reopening the debate was necessary. It's the responsibility of those who object to the article in question to propose that it be deleted. —Psychonaut 19:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, the only responsibilities of any Wikipedia editors are outlined in the Guideines and Policies. In any event I feel there was sufficient argument on both sides of the previous MfD to have it resolved with a more binding resolutions than "closed as inappropriate." -- Wizardry Dragon _{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean "responsibility" as in "obligation". I meant that if someone feels strongly about an issue, he himself should be the one to take action. I'm not saying that what you did was improper; just that it was unnecessary. —Psychonaut 19:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In either event Xoloz has reverted back to the original closed versions of the page, which I will abide by. As an aside, have you been made aware of the mediation case opened naming you as a party, regarding this whole MfD dispute? If so, I would like to ask that if you do not wish to participate, that you state so, so the mediators can close it without waiting further, otherwise please staste your acceptance so we can get into the mediation process. Thank you. -- Wizardry Dragon _{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The rules state that I have seven days to consider acceptance. I am in the process of considering whether my participation in the mediation of the issue as stated is appropriate. Please don't rush me. —Psychonaut 20:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just uncertain whether you saw it or not. In any event, I don't believe Zeraeph was that clear in the issue. I certainly don't see how Doc Tropics was involved, though he is named as a party. -- Wizardry Dragon _{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Exposure of deep, long-term self-promotion

Heya. I'm pretty sure we've never met at Wikipedia, but I saw your submission to the Signpost tip line about the NPA Personality Theory deletion discussion and thought it was -- well, interesting. First off, massive kudos for catching that article out. You absolutely deserve the barnstar you were awarded above, for catching what the rest of us missed.

That said, I thought it was a very interesting story, so blogged it. Now, I mention this because the blog entry is actually becoming very popular (70+ hits/hour), so I'd like to make damn sure I have the facts straight before too many more people see it. Would you be able to run through what I've posted there, to make sure it's more-or-less accurate? I'd be very grateful if you could.

A couple of questions:

1. Was NPA personality theory GA-class or FA-class? And when was it created?
2. When was the above article promoted? I can find the peer review, but not the entry at WP:GAC.

Thanks for your help. Again, congratulations for catching this. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 00:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

NPA personality theory was until recently listed as a good article [2] but was never a featured article. You'll have to go through the history of Wikipedia:Good article to determine when it was added. I'm afraid I don't know when NPA personality theory was created; you'll have to ask an administrator, as they probably have access to the histories for deleted articles. You can find some links to related documents at User:Psychonaut/User watchlist#Anthony M. Benis.

With respect to your blog post, the only major factual issue I have issues with is your claim of sockpuppetry. Namely, I consider it unlikely that User:D-Katana is a sockpuppet of Anthony M. Benis. —Psychonaut 04:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

DaveyDweeb. Unfortunate that you didn't investigate further before publishing. There is absolutely ZERO vandalism involved in the publishing of the NPA Personality Theory article. What was posted was the synopsis of a published volume from the early 80's of a philosophical treatment of a psychological theory from earlier in the century by Karen Horney M.D. who believed that a major part of the human personality was present due to three inherited behavioral traits. While the theory never gathered much interest, it it not at all possible to declare it invalid either. It is simply, like so much science research, not particular notable all on its own.

There was also zero astro-turfing. Dr. Benis was encouraged to create an article based on his book. He did that. Then someone suggested he create a profile page. He did. Then someone eventually inserted a brief paragraph into an article of the popular aspects of cultural narcissism. That does not qualify as astro-turfing.

What has brought down all this upon this retired doctor's head is that a particular editor, Zeraeph, who spent the vast majority of this year establishing herself as an expert in psychology, and in personality, the narcissistic personality disorder, narcissism, psychopathy and pathological bullying, took it upon herself to do an end run for the "Good Article" status and then began a campaign to have it declared a high-importance psychology article. In other words, what happened, the Wiki-fiasco, this embarrassment, happened not because of Dr. Benis, but because of an over-zealous editor without the requisite background to make any of these judgements.

--A green Kiwi in learning mode 05:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

For reference, the above text was emailed to me as well. It was an interesting read.

Anyway, thanks for your reply, Psychonaut. I'll update the post now, since you're right, the other user in question doesn't really appear to be a sockpuppet based on the comments at the AfD debate. Thanks for your help, and again, congratulations on the find! Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 07:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI: the blog post has been slashdotted. All the more reason to talk to you, I think. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 07:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Podcast Invitation

Oh! Another question for you. I don't know if you're aware of the Wikipedia Weekly podcast, but I've been a panelist on it for the last two (of four) episodes. This is pretty big news, so would you like to come on the podcast to talk to use about it for Episode 5? We'd be recording the main episode around Friday, but any time between Wednesday and Saturday would be fine to record an interview with you. You'd need a (free) copy of Skype and a microphone and headphones. We'd be happy to have you come on. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 00:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, they're different

Hi,

I closed the MfD because items were added and removed from the nomination; it appears no items have been removed from this AfD. Items are sometimes added to XfDs without difficulty; such additions do not require closing on precedural grounds, though any closer may take such circumstances into account. The MfD I closed early, by contrast, is the first time I've ever seen items added and subsequently removed from an XfD, making it procedurally flawed beyond repair in my estimation. Best wishes, Xoloz 05:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)