User talk:Psych0-007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi psych,

In regards to your MDMA edit being deleted, I may have been one of the editors to have done so in the past, so instead of doing this now I'll offer some suggestions:

  • The sentence "but goverment funding has seized in recent years" does not make sense. Did you mean "ceased"?
  • In general, the edit is a little verbose. "GC/MS and HPLC/MS analysis" isn't very meaningful to most people, if you can link it to another Wiki page about those analysis methods that would be helpful, otherwise that sort of thing is best left out.
  • There doesn't need to be a complete list of substances tested for, especially if we're not talking Ex tablets. This article is on MDMA and while blotter information and the like might certainly be relevant to someone, it belongs on another page. The cocaine-atropine combo I haven't heard of (fucking yikes!), but it isn't really relevant to this article.
  • The idea that dangerous substances may crop up is also basically already stated and is basically a given so doesn't need to be restated, and PMA has its own little section right below Purity and doesn't need to be explained any here.
  • Citations about the Dutch program would definitely be helpful in giving your info credibility.

Lazy days,

Kst447 (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. One thing I would also suggest is that you use the MDMA talk page to discuss your changes. Some people think editing Wikipedia makes them God and whenever they see something they don't agree with they will write/delete very authoritatively, but don't let that throw you. Explaining your changes and citing sources will always help things along if your contributions are being deleted, and although I'm not sure how active the talk page is, there are a couple regulars who frequent this article and are very knowledgeable in this area who can help in reaching a consensus as to the main article's new content.
That being said, it isn't always or even often necessary to discuss changes, as I seldom do. Basically, if your contribution is written well, is appropriately placed in the right section, appropriate for the article, and you've cited reliable sources, you should be in the clear.
Edit boldly,
Kst447 (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello, Psych0-007. I wanted to let you know that after fact checking, I decided to undo your two recent edits to this article. Your first edit was not supported by the reference already contained in that sentence. As such, your edit appears to be original research, which is not allowed. (Note: If you have a reliable source for this information, you can restore your edit by citing that source.) Your second edit was inconsistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). Thank you for your understanding. Accurizer (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Former NATO Secretary General Josep Luns.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Former NATO Secretary General Josep Luns.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


Hi. Not sure if you have your centuries mixed up here: note that 1400s=15th century, 1500s=16th century, 1600s=17th century. The Spanish conquistadors arrived in Mexico in the 1520s (16th C) and Peru in the 1530s. By the end of the the 1400s (15th C) Portugal had not even set foot in Brazil and had only just reached India, yet to "discover" SE Asia and Japan, all of which happened in the first half of the 16th C. The Dutch did not arrive on the scene until the early 1600s (17th C). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Navies, of the Royal variety[edit]

Hello. Can you explain why you think the navy in question is unclear, given the context? We're talking about a Swedish officer leaking information to the British. Which other Royal Navy is possible under those circumstances, apart from the Royal Swedish Navy, but that's handily linked as the Swedish Navy, so that rules that out. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"Royal Navy" is well established in literature as being the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom. It does not need a qualifier or a 'prefix', especially at the SAMPSON article where there can be absolutely no confusion as to which Royal Navy we are talking about. Thanks. Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)