Psycano

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Psycano! I am RP459 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

RP459 (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Texas Tornado racing.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Texas Tornado racing.jpg. 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, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. 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: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 created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 09:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Arctic Silver

If you have a reliable, verifiable 3rd party source (WP:RS), please quote and cite it for the thermal test. The more reputable tests, the better. Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(Perhaps I should have said, please reply here, to preserve the conversation). Copied here from my talk page to preserve the sense of the conversation:)

Artic Silver Test

Hi, Lexin. The test on Artic Silver I did myself as computer technician, as part of my general interest in computers and cpu overheating. Because I am stating the test conditions, it is a test repeatable by anyone who cares to make it. Actually, another person making the test would not even have to use my conditions, just use the same conditions for all heat paste products being tested (by using the their same machine) with the same external air temperature. As my test is duplicable it is reliable scientific data until disproven. The ultimate test of science is always that an experiment/result is repeatable by others, not who did the experiment.

The problem with the article as it is, and many others on products, is that it basically constitutes advertising for the product, especially when it cites data (such as this one does) that can be proven wrong. The article as written will probably lead others into thinking the product is superior. Under the Wikipedia policy, opposing viewpoints have the right to be stated. As Artic Silver costs about 100 times what zinc oxide does, with no appreciable performance difference.

In science, when someone states data or a hypothesis, that is considered valid until someone disproves it. Before you change my statements, please make your own tests to determine the truth of the matter. Until them, my opposing data merits being there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psycano (talk • contribs) 20:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Your test has merit on its own as a single test performed by a single researcher, but because it is by definition "original research" (see WP:OR) it cannot be included in a Wikipedia article. If your results are published in an established reliable source WP:RS which can be verified WP:V, such as a magazine, newspaper, book, or even long-standing stable website (not blog or forum) which is cited as a reliable source by others, then it can become a source for consideration for use in WP. This is not personal, but Wikipedia policy.

Articles about companies and their products are acceptable as long as they include 3rd party reports about the company and evaluations of those products, and are presented in an aggregate neutral way WP:NPOV. The previously severe problem with the article was indeed no 3rd party anything. Now we can say that the article certainly needs more such reviews, but few 3rd party RS publications have conducted extensive multiproduct reviews and comparisons. Note that the reviews presented do not present the products glowingly in any sense. You may have noticed that many, many informal tests like yours have been described in blogs, forums, and personal websites all over the web, with a range of results, some confirming, some contradicting, your results. But you are very welcome to add (or discuss in the article's Talk page) new notable RS reviews and test results.

Of the many things Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOT, it is not a journal, a place for publishing individually-obtained results for peer review, and it is not a WP:FORUM or a WP:BATTLEGROUND, nor is it a buying guide. It's a place for assembling knowledge already reported in reliable sources, in a neutral way. I notice that you have done a relatively small number of edits over a couple of years, so I am unfamiliar with your familiarity with Wikipedia; please don't be offended if I suggest reading all of WP:Welcome to Wikipedia, and WP:NOT. Policy wise, I support WP:Please don't bite the newcomers.

--Lexein (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC) (please reply here)

Please read

WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:FORUM. Your WP:ATTACK prose in the article has been reverted because it is unsourced, and harshly WP:POV. Sounds like you work for a competitor - see WP:DUCK. You continue to claim that the article is advertising, when any adspeak has been rigorously cut. You refuse to cite reliable sources to balance the article, when a very long list of them has been provided for you right on the Talk page. Your "advice to consumers" is not according to Wikipedia policy, because such a statement would have to appear on every single article about any manufactured item. There's a guideline WP:No disclaimers in articles which, in spirit, applies here. All claims must have sources, primary or secondary. If there's a consumer advisory posted by, say Consumer Reports, or one of the product reviewers in a WP:RS, then by all means discuss its inclusion in Talk. --Lexein (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Texas Tornado (dinghy) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Texas Tornado (dinghy) 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/Texas Tornado (dinghy) 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 template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)