User talk:Psychonaut/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate&diff=513704483&oldid=513703347

I changed some data from 2009 to 2010 year, is it really vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.222.99.66 (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; looks like I didn't check closely enough. IIRC a lot of IP users had been changing the figures arbitrarily; I didn't notice that you had also updated the reference. I have undone my reversion. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey Psychonaut. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Official photo of Kim Jong-Un and Ri Sol-ju

Dear Psychonaut, Please would you help me remove the picture for the Commans? I do not know how. Also, once done, please feel free to delete this talk section. Thanks and I appriciate this. My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've already started a deletion discussion so if no one objects it will be deleted soon. It's possible someone might recognize the photos and be able to clarify the copyright status in favour of keeping the upload. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lunar Leepers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arcade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

hi

I removed the copyvio from the paragraph and then removed the template. Check it out yourself.-- I'm Titanium  ^chat 13:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yahan Main Ghar Ghar Kheli

Thanks for your message. You managed to edit-conflict me both at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 October 24 and at my talk page. I am still working on this: see my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season. Viriditas (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

+1 sockpuppet

Special:Contributions/Aarushi_Chauhan, latest sock of Vibhas Kashyap. Thanks, Darth Sitges (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention and for reverting the sock's edits. In the future feel free to report socks directly to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. That's all I can do myself. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Details?

How about this? [1] and especially this which was once nominated for good articles something [2] -- I'm Titanium  ^chat 05:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the plot information in both articles is too long according to our policies. But then again, that's just my opinion, just like what I wrote on Talk:Bigg Boss 6 was my opinion. If Big Brother 10 (UK) managed to become a "good article" in its current form, then evidently my opinion differs from what eventually emerged as the consensus. This is pretty much how things work around here—someone asserts that something is or isn't contrary to policy, and if there's a disagreement about it, people discuss it until the community arrives at a decision on the matter. (And of course, the policies themselves are developed in much the same way.) —Psychonaut (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's just your opinion then why don't you remove that too long tag from it. Gather support and then take actions would you please? -- I'm Titanium  ^chat 18:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD in adding it. My opinion appears to be explicitly supported by at least two other editors, and implicitly by the fact that no one else has removed it. I therefore assume that the prevailing consensus is that the plot summary is too long. Feel free to propose its removal on the talk page. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you try that? Discuss the detail's issue on the talk page and then add it okay. :) I'm removing it. -- I'm Titanium  ^chat 10:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to propose its removal, because I think it belongs there. I don't think you should remove it because there exists a presumptive consensus that the plot details are too long. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Frame a discussion on the talk page. Gather support and then add it. Alright? I know many other articles which need a similar discussion so why don't you start cleaning up all of them along with this one. But for that you need facts and you need supporters. Good luck.-- I'm Titanium  ^chat 10:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. If you check my contributions, though, you will see that I am involved in tagging and cleaning up articles with this and similar problems. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Copivio Template

As I remove the templates from Balaji and Yeh Rishta, I was not aware about that I just thought that when copyrighted text is removed then Problem is solved But it's not like that So I am really sorry about these all, But Slowly Slowly I will be aware about the rules and regulations of Wikipedia, Sorry and Thank You Greatuser (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It's no problem. Making mistakes is part of the learning process; nobody should mind as long as you don't repeat them too often. :) Thanks for all your contributions so far! —Psychonaut (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:CUGS.svg)

Thanks for uploading File:CUGS.svg. 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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Lokmanya Tilak Terminus edits

You have removed some images that i put up but i could not fully understand the reason. Could you explain a bit more in detail pls? Superfast1111 (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I just made an explanation on the talk page. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

an overdue thanks to you for your comments. i completely understand your point of view. once again thanks. Superfast1111 (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have homework for you.hoo

[3]
Invite and Join in BUD. -- I'm Titanium  ^chat 13:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thanks for this. I had believed that userpages (not talk pages, though) could be protected at a simple request from the user regardless of the reason. Thanks for pointing that error out, and good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Noor sock again?

I suppose Noor's sock is back in the form of User talk:Sagufa.angel. He has created Template:Gold Award for Best Actress, Template:TheGlobalIndianHonourBestActor and Template:Gold Award for Best Actor which were previoulsy deleted twice. Did you happen to notice any more commons points? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been keeping track of this account from its first edit. By now I agree the account probably a sock; it's recreating the same templates (Template:TheGlobalIndianHonourBestActor, as you noted) and adding them to the same articles (e.g., Noor119848's [4] and Sagufa.angel's [5]). If you don't have the time or inclination to file a new WP:SPI report, let me know and I'll see if I have time later today or this weekend. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Bangladeshi district articles

I have been checking the Bangladeshi district articles in Wikipedia that I had started. Seems like I started most of the 64 district articles, but in most (if not all) cases, I had started them with only blank sections. However, later on, seems like some users have copied various statistics verbatim from Banglapedia. So, you might want to check those articles and/or remove the sections containing verbatim statistics. Regards. --Ragib (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

If they are only statistics (for instance, numbers in tabular form) then there may not be any copyright violation. However, if they're written in prose, or contain prose annotations, then we'll need to look at tagging and removing and/or rewriting them. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:A Kiwi/draft-Borderline Personality Disorder

User talk:A Kiwi/draft-Borderline Personality Disorder, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:A Kiwi/draft-Borderline Personality Disorder and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:A Kiwi/draft-Borderline Personality Disorder during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Boris Malagurski, Talk:The Weight of Chains". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 19:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Hello, I have filed a Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Boris_Malagurski.2C_Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains Dispute resolution case for Talk:Boris Malagurski and Talk:The Weight of Chains. Feel free to comment. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:The Weight of Chains#Sponsors

Hi Psychonaut,

I thought I'd ask you for your opinion on something, to see whether you think that I'm right or wrong. PRODUCER and Pincrete (who exclusively edits The Weight of Chains) want the addition of a sentence in The Weight of Chains article that would specifically list some organizations that donated towards the production of the film, using as a reference - The Weight of Chains official website, noting that under the Wikipedia film MOS, the article should list "the securing of financing and producers".

Now, from what I understand about films, film production companies fund films, while they can obtain money from film funds, sponsors and individual donations. In the end, the producer is the financier of the film - in this case, it's Malagurski Cinema, per IMDb. I checked how it works on Wikipedia and I couldn't find a single film article that listed sponsors that donated towards the production of the film, except for POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, which listed its sponsors simply because the film's topic is - film sponsors. For example, if Coca-Cola gave $1,000 towards the production of the film, and asked for product placement in return, I don't see how they'd earn a spot on an encyclopedia as a sponsor of the film, anybody could appear on Wikipedia that way - for the right price.

I may be wrong, but from what I found on Wikipedia, this just doesn't seem right to me. The organizations that donated for The Weight of Chains are largely insignificant and mostly gave around $1,000 towards the production of the film (only one gave about $3,000), and I see no evidence of a co-production (which would mean that they have to be listed. For example, Eurimages is a film fund that signs a co-production agreement before it gives out money, and then it's another official financier of the film), or any secondary sources attesting to the significance of these organizations in funding the film. Well, what do you think?

Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I think your question would be best addressed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film, where you will reach people who have more experience editing film articles and who are less likely to have strongly held points of view on the subject matter of this particular film that might affect their judgment. I can say that in general, it is highly unusual for an article to mention or list individual financiers of a film, apart from the filmmakers or production houses themselves. An exception would be if the source of funding attracted significant media attention. Examples include 5 Days of War, where there was some controversy as to whether and to what extent the film was funded by the Georgian government or various politicians in it, and Coven, where an entire documentary was made chronicling the filmmaker's funding and production troubles. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! I offered a compromise on the talk page where the Global Research Centre would be listed as a supporter, since the film does feature an interview with its director and the Centre does get mentioned in the media as a supporter and sponsor, while the other organizations and individuals are just not significant enough. I hope that the other editors will agree to this. If not, it's really starting to get pointless to engage in a conversation with people who just aren't willing to cooperate, but prefer accusing and attacking me for opposing their unusual demands. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Vidya Balan edits

Hi. Thank you for your feedback regarding my recent edits. But I must point out that my so-called "berating" him for "ruining" the article was my third message on his talk page. Before that, both Dwaipayanc and I had posted messages telling him not to start an edit war, now that the article is running for FA. So, kindly look at the whole story before making me this vicious, uncivil editor. Thank you. --_{S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk)} 11:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for overlooking the earlier comments from Dwaipayanc and yourself on User talk:Greatuser. I've retracted my comments on User talk:Secret of success. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --_{S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk)} 11:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

LGBT rights in African countries

Hi, Psychonaut. I wanted to let you know I've opened a discussion on the dispute resolution noticeboard here. Feel free to chime in if you're so inclined.—Largo Plazo (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well-coordinated attacks

Hi Psychonaut,

I'm writing to you because I have a feeling like you're the only one who will listen, and I've had enough of how things work on Wikipedia. On one hand, there are more than reasonable rules and regulations on article building, user conduct and dispute resolution, and on the other hand not many people seem to care about any of those things unless if the topic in question is very popular. I've tried following the rules, I made a few mistakes (some because of lack on knowledge, some because I was lazy), apologized for them and did my best to correct them. I've followed advice on how to resolve issues that pop up, and yet, the issues have gotten even more complicated.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with Malagurski's films, I've seen some of them and, to be honest, mostly liked what I saw. There are some things I disagree with, but I think that person and his work are important. And it's not just me who thinks that - a lot of sources say that as well. Regarding the Boris Malagurski article and the articles about his films, I added stuff I found interesting from time to time (when I found reliable sources, of course) and I thought that was the point of Wikipedia - to see what interests you and edit that when you have free time. Of course, other stuff interests me too, I edited a few other articles as well, but I feel like there are a lot of people who already edit most of those other articles, so I did focus on the ones that I thought were neglected to an extent - Malagurski and his work. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that somebody would accuse me of being on Malagurski's payroll for doing that and for discussing the topic on the talk page of the Malagurski article and the articles of his films.

I hate arguing, and when I noticed that users like Opbeith were aggressively demanding the addition of blogs and fishy websites as sources, I assumed that unbiased, independent editors would show up and note that this can't be used on Wikipedia. You're the only one who reacted, and I thank you for your advice on my talk page. However, Opbeith wasn't alone, and several other users, who seem to really have issues (personal and ideological) with Malagurski and his films, quickly organized to subvert every single attempt I made at resolving issues in a civilized manned, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. I came close to giving up, because I respect Malagurski's work, but if I'm the only editor on Wikipedia that does, while the others just want to spread slander about him or even delete these articles, then why should I bother. Why should I defend Wikipedia regulations?

These editors, User:Opbeith, User:PRODUCER, User:Pincrete and User:Bobrayner, have as their only purpose, regarding the Boris Malagurski, The Weight of Chains and Kosovo: Can You Imagine? articles, to do any or all of the following:

1. Promoting the addition of slander to the article, using as references Internet forums, blogs and fishy websites that, among other things, photoshop a "BIA" badge, trying to prove that Malagurski works for Serbia's Security Information Agency, on an original photo where there is no badge; or call Malagurski an unemployed Vancouver-based amateur "film director", apologist for Serbian Nazi-collaborating Chetniks and a racist genocide denier (this article is the disputed one carried by E-novine); while, at the same time dismissing actual relevant reliable media sources as "tabloids", including Politika, the oldest daily newspaper in the Balkans.

1. Clogging the talk pages with discussions on just how much Malagurski's work is crap, how horrible the people he interviewed are [6], how Malagurski is just an outright extremist [7], and much more.

1. Not allowing any good-faith discussion to proceed without personal attacks.

1. Personally attacking anyone who disagrees that Malagurski is exactly who they say he is. Accusing me of not allowing the addition of any sources that don't have a positive outlook on Malagurski, which is not true. I agreed to the addition of a Croatian link that described Malagurski's film as "too pro-Serbian".[8] I've also stated several times that I have no personal interest in there not being any criticism of Malagurski and his work, as I believe (and I think Wikipedia does as well) that well-sourced criticism is very healthy for any article, but only if it's truly - well-sourced.

1. Removing sourced material ([9], etc.), promoting the idea that any source that has a neutral or positive attitude towards the topic is all part of Malagurski's "self-promoting machinery", and adding irrelevant poorly-sourced material ([10], [11], etc.) that constitutes original research and POV pushing.

1. Promoting the deletion of these articles. PRODUCER nominated "Kosovo: Can You Imagine?" for deletion, again claiming that the sources that support the notability of the article are tabloids. When I noted that, for example, Večernje novosti is a renowned Serbian newspaper and news source which exists for almost 60 years now, also the leading Serbian book publisher, with over 5 million books on diverse cultural topics sold, 159 titles including books by Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Proust, Bulgakov, Nabokov, Faulkner, Orwell, Kafka, Sabato, Andric, Crnjanski, Selimovic, etc.[12], PRODUCER went on to change the Večernje novosti article so that it says it's a "tabloid", without adding a source. Genius.

This is a very well-coordinated attack mechanism aimed at slowly destroying the Malagurski article and all articles related to it. I could provide more references to back up these claims, but I don't want to bother you to that extent. I'd just add that I checked with the sources noticeboard, one editor commented agreeing with me that the absurd E-novine was not the kind of source we should use on Wikipedia [13]. Naturally, Producer jumped to defend the source, even calling User:Joy to lend his support. It seems that Malagurski and his films really bug a lot of editors on Wikipedia, yet I'm surprised that no one is stopping the POV pushing by these editors - at this point it is chronic and I doubt it will stop. I've tried contacting the film MOS, Dispute resolution, Sources noticeboard regarding the issues in question, but nothing has changed. Should I just leave and let these articles that I really enjoyed editing from time to time slip to the dark side where reality will be distorted with blog entry references and details about how Malagurski is actually a supporter of genocide because some Wikipedia editors say so? This is not what I signed up for when I decided to edit for Wikipedia. All these editors don't have any good faith when it comes to the articles in question - almost every single edit they made was motivated by any one of the points that I listed. I hope that you'll read what I wrote here and help, at least with some advice on what I should do. It seems you have more experience with these kinds of things, and I've always listened to people who are wiser than me. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)