User talk:Psychonaut

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

Notalkback.svg I watchlist the discussions I participate in, as should you. There is no need to leave "talkback" templates here.
Barnstar free.svg I don't edit Wikipedia to collect baubles. Please don't leave me "awards" or "barnstars".

Marxists.org[edit]

This site does not appear to meet WP:RS. There are some documents that are out of copyright and should be linked to Gutenberg or Wikisource, not to this site; there are also essays that qualify as primary self-published sources. In every case we should be using reliable independent secondary sources instead. Just exactly as we should not be using mirrors of libertarian economic texts on the "Library of Econmics and Liberty", a libertarian think-tank. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that MIA is unreliable—it is, as its name suggests, an archive, and a fairly large (in terms not just of its collection but its staff) and well-established one. But even if it is unreliable, since it is the only source for the claims in the article, it should be replaced, not removed. (This is in line with the recommendations made by the content guideline you linked to.) If you still feel that MIA is so unreliable as to be unsuitable for use as a source for the basic publication data of the Deutsch–Französische Jahrbücher, even on an interim basis, then I invite you to start a discussion at WP:RSN. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@JzG: I see you're now engaging in mass removal of MIA references from other articles. I've reverted these edits for now. Before making such drastic and wide-ranging edits across the encyclopedia, please first seek consensus on WP:RSN. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
"Mass" as in seven. Every time anyone says "mass removal" - at least to date -it has been someone supporting a website that we should not be using, such as a quackery site or a predatory journal. Feel free to show that's not the case this time. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Were you really planning on stopping at seven? (Given the response to your previous RSN post on the matter, I'm a bit taken aback that you thought it was a good idea to remove even these.) —Psychonaut (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Langguth Logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Langguth 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on[edit]

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on[edit]

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of JoAnn Wilson for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article JoAnn Wilson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JoAnn Wilson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Psychonaut. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Parrot cga1h.png[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The file File:Parrot cga1h.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, unclear use/purpose

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zinclithium (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Chuck Bueche for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chuck Bueche is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Bueche until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Acme Records for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Acme Records is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acme Records until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)