User talk:Psychonaut/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Awards

I wouldn't say "hard work" for putting a "remove" banner to the articles. Hard work would be writting as many articles as you deleted. I also think that Wikipedia project would be where it is today as well, if there were some unnecessary articles. Wikipedia project would really develop not by deleting articles but by writting new ones with competence. Anyone would be able to put the remove banner to certain articles that don't have any references, it doesn't need any competence and hard work, just some spare-time. --Szipucsu (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to cultivate your sense of humour. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you find humor in the deletion of other peoples work? Do you find enjoyment in helping to bring about the removal of information that groups of people find value in? Do you feel a sense of pride in taking something away from people? I'm trying to understand your reasoning for what appears to me to be a misplaced vigilante crusade. When the first page results of search engines bring people to topics that were deleted at Wikipedia, that should tell you something about issues of notability!? It is a shame to lose information simply for the fact that a few people find no value in it.AWhiteElk (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I assume from your contributions that you are referring to the deletion of TripleA. Please check out Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability, and particularly Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You should also check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to learn exactly what the process is, and how it's not possible for a single "vigilante" user to delete an article. Now, you may disagree with some or all of the policies and procedures, which is fine; you can always argue that they be changed. But until you show me some evidence that you actually understand them, it will not be of any benefit to either of us to continue this conversation. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I am just telling you that a page you nominated for deletion and finally has been deleted, had been previously translated into Italian on the Italian wiki. Now the strange situation is that there is an article on the Italian wiki that is based on the English article deleted. So, I affirm, as previously, or more definitely as previously, you don't do thorough work so it is only your self-importance to gift yourself with an award like this. Now Wikipedia got more confused, as you deleted an article that had been the base of an article on the Wiki of other language. I hope you speak not only Hungarian but Italian fairly well, too, to have also the Italian page deleted. (I would have the Italian article deleted if I were convinced about the need of deletion but actually I am not.)

Anyway, why don't you put anything about your Hungarian knowledge on your user page? Do you want to mislead others, too?

Your work is just a robotic work of putting the "delete" banner to the articles that don't have "third party sources". The point of view of history of computer science is different from the point of view of notability of Wikipedia that you love refer to. Wiki's notability preference should be revised, I think. But I don't think you are interested in it so I don't waste my time with telling you the details. Though, it might be really important but supposes not robotic work. That's Wiki, that's it, pity... A lot of different sciences shouldn't be threatened the same way, I think. Putting the MESS emulator among the Enterprise emulators which hardly emulates Enterprise computer and deleting the articles of real Enterprise emulators... it's just ridiculous.

Sorry for telling my opinion about all these... but it's the truth. Sorry... --Szipucsu (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

With respect to my not mentioning that I speak Hungarian on my user page—yes, of course I do this to mislead people. It is exactly through such deceptive practices that I am able to get large numbers of perfectly acceptable articles wrongly deleted. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think language knowledge can be signed in the user page? Just for fun? You did mislead me. But I don't think you are interesting in it. You are interested in the fact that you have as many articles deleted as possible, nothing else matters. So don't be surprised if some vandalism happens in your user page because some people can get angry because of this "nothing else matters" behaviour. I don't get angry about it, I just call your attention to it, though I don't think you are interested in it. --Szipucsu (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You got me dead to rights, mate. My only purpose here on the English Wikipedia is to delete as many articles as possible, which I do by concealing my knowledge of the Hungarian language. (For readers who have just joined this discussion, I should probably explain how this works. First, I nominate a random software article for deletion on the grounds that it has no reliable sources to establish its notability. Then, when the software's fanboys argue that only someone who speaks Hungarian is qualified to pronounce judgment on the reliability of the sources, I say, "Actually, I speak Hungarian, and am therefore qualified (by your criteria) to judge the reliability of the sources." Then an administrator deletes the article, perhaps because the consensus established by the discussion was that none of the sources—not even the Hungarian ones—were sufficient to establish notability, but more likely because he was a fellow member of the Cabal of Wikipedians Who Conceal Their Knowledge of Hungarian to Delete Useful Articles (TINC). Naturally, had I disclosed my knowledge of Hungarian upfront, the result of the deletion discussion would have been completely different, possibly with the article being awarded Featured Article status or some such.) —Psychonaut (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Another question: why didn't you put a great deal of references that it is written in Wikipedia that sense of humor has to be cultivated? Furthermore, I don't find it humorous at all. It is your subjective approach. I believe you prefer compliments but you should bear criticism, too. But you are free to put a lot of awards for yourself for your "thorough" work if you want... --Szipucsu (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh no—a Wikipedia user has given himself a barnstar he didn't deserve! Quick, call the awards police!  :) —Psychonaut (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You cannot be spoken seriously to... I am convinced you don't do profound work. You wasn't interested at all why I was saying that the article shouldn't be deleted. You just said you are familiar in Hungarian language and old computers, too, but you didn't really prove it. You'd better close both your discussion page and your user page; just delete the articles in the concepts of Wiki and don't interact anyone because you are not interested in what they think or what they would like to ask you about a certain deletion. I think third party sources aren't always the best provements of notability as Wiki declares. Why do I think so? May I be right? Could anything be done? I don't think you are interested in it but I would have liked to speak to you about it before deleting the articles. If you are familiar in emulation software, you should understand my disagreement and you should have told anything but you didn't. Pity... --Szipucsu (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Szóval ez vicces kicsit, az Enterprise ugyanolyan hivatalosan megjelent számítógép, mint a Spectrum vagy a C64, esetleg kevésbé ismert. Az EP128Emu ugyanolyan jól tudja emulálni ezt a gépet, mint a Spectrumot vagy a C64-et a megfelelő emulátoraik. Most azért, mert erről az emulátorról nem jelent meg hivatalos anyag, ezért nem jelentős? Magáról az Enterprise számítógépről sem sok dolog jelent meg, mégis attól még számítógép. Ha az emulátora is kiválóan használható, akkor mi a baj a cikkel? Sőt, ha valaki szeretné a Wikin megnézni, hogy milyen emulátorok vannak, mert pl. használni szeretné azokat, akkor neki is jobb, ha pl. az Enterprise emulátorról is talál információt. És a Wiki ilyen "hétköznapi" emberek számára létezik, nem pedig valami elvont tudományos enciklopédia. Nekem van itthon Enterprise 128-as számítógépem, az emulátort is használom és láttam már közelről pl. Commodore számítógépet is, egy ilyen emulátort is használok néha. Szóval végképp nem értem, miért jó az Enterprise emulátorokról szóló cikkeket innen likvidálni, az égvilágon semmi gyakorlati haszna nincs, azon túl, hogy a Wikipédia koncepcióinak megfelelünk azzal, ha nem írunk róluk cikkeket. Másrészt ott van a MESS emulátor, ami sok gépet emulál elméletileg, de gyakorlatilag nem igazán használható, erről az emulátorról meg van cikk. Komolytalan ez a Wikipédia, nem lehet a sablonjait ráerőltetni az összes szakterületre. Csak kár, hogy soha nem jutottunk el addig, hogy ezt megbeszéljük, miért nincs ebben igazam. Kijelölted törlésre az EP emulátorokról szóló oldalakat és fütyültél arra, miért nem értek egyet, és a többiek is, akik jóváhagyták a törlést, akik talán még az életben nem láttak 8 bites számítógépet és valószínűleg az emulátoraikat sem. Ember, azért ennél sokkal alaposabb munkát kéne végezni és a Wikipédiának sem kéne ezt engednie. Komolytalanok vagytok, ez az igazság. Persze mást nem is lehet várni egy olyan enciklopédiától, mely a világ összes szakterületét egyesíti magában és mindegyikre ráerőlteti a sablonjait anélkül, hogy figyelembe venné a szakterületek speciális sajátosságait. Nagyon hanyagnak tartalak, amiért soha nem érdekelt, miért nem értek egyet a törléssel és még csak nem is válaszolsz azokra, amiket írok. Legalább annyit írhattál volna, hogy "sajnálom, de a Wikipédia ilyen, akkor is, ha igazad van, nem tudunk mit tenni, meg kell felelnünk a koncepcióinak, amit minden szakterületre ráerőltetnek, akkor is, ha ennek nincs semmi gyakorlati haszna." Azt már említeni sem merem, hogy megfelelő indoklás esetén a Wikipédia koncepcióinak változtatását is kilátásba lehetne helyezni, de veled eddig nem lehet eljutni a vitában. Nagyon felszínes munkát végzel. Gondolom, erre sem fogsz válaszolni. --Szipucsu (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's concepts on deletion

I continue here because it's difficult to find one's way above.

To be short, I don't agree with the concepts of Wikipedia about deleting articles of emulation software just in the base of the lack of a third party source. I don't think that it is appropriate to consider an emulation software article notable in the base of this. I think emulation softwares is a special area: eg. MESS is notable, it has third party sources but in the reality it cannot emulate anything properly. EP32 and EP128Emu emulates a computer really properly but because they have no third party source, they are not notable. As a computer is notable, the emulator that emulates it properly should also be notable. Is Enterprise 64/128 computer notable? It is. Do EP32 and EP128Emu emulate it properly? They do. I strongly disagree Wikipedia's concept that "everything = a third party source". Pity that you didn't have time to talk about it before deleting the articles. You never answered this question of mine. In the other hand, it is very rare nowadays that somebody writes a third party source on an emulation software of a 80's computer that is not known all over the world. But, in fact, its notability doesn't depend on how much people deal with it. greetings, --Szipucsu (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Famous

You are now famous in Russia [1]. Pcap ping 14:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that one. I'll add it to my list of accolades once the deletion debates are over.  :) —Psychonaut (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

AFD B2CJewels

I had put the article there as I thought the company was notable. I added content trying not to keep it like and advertisement, and publish it neutrally only for informational purpose. I did my best not to put any details WRT the quality of the jewelry manufactured etc. Why do you think it is an advertisement? I had also added reference like "Mr. Shah believed that by getting rid of the middlemen and wholesalers, he could cut off on their profit margins and thus offer a better pricing to the customer." So, why does this article sounds advertisement to you? If you can explain the same, it will help me expand wiki with quality articles. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it sounded like an advertisement. I said that there was little or no evidence from reliable sources that the company is notable. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ganesh_J._Acharya#Regarding_AFD_deletion. Please respond. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to close deletion discussions

Hello, we propose you to close deletion discussion about dwm, wmii, evilwm and qvwm due to obvious evidence for keeping these articles and giant quantity of proof links that are acceptable, as others wikipedians mentioned; so you could replenish your list of accolades by one more, as far as possible. Mclaudt (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be improper of me to close the deletion discussions, since I am actively participating in them. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and its associated articles, which outline the deletion process, including who may close a deletion discussion, when they may do so, and how they should assess the consensus. And I'm sorry to have to say this, but it would be highly inappropriate for one of your meatpuppets to close the discussions in your favour. Please wait for a disinterested third party to close the discussions. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning

Thanks for the warning about "blink" used in my signature. All was been changed. You have a good day. V A R G U X write me a comment 18:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Meatpuppet detection

Meatpuppet.

Wikipedia doesn't really have an award for this, but thanks for your good work. :) Durova⁴¹² 20:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! —Psychonaut (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Famous on reddit too

From [2]:

“ It's a good thing we have Psychonaut around; God forbid the Wikipedia should ever become a useful resource for casual research. ”

and

“ Apparently Psychonaut has too much time on his hands again. ”

The best one is from our departed friend:

“ Please keep in mind that major activist for deletion: User:Psychonaut. This is a pervert that has a hobby to destroy other people's work using his status. You can see troll's bravadoes on his user page. ”

LoL. Pcap ping 02:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Psychonaught

Hi, I've just become aware of the existence of this user with an id that's a homophone of yours. Do you find that at all problematic? --Peter cohen (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Ps And why haven't I seen you or Fretchen down the pub recently?

Thanks for letting me know, but I don't think there's any significant risk of confusion. Anyway, sorry we haven't been to any meetups lately; I've been really busy lately—too busy even for contributing here! —Psychonaut (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello

You are a disgrace to humanity. --63.252.66.66 (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree 201.252.26.22 (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ocean LP cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ocean LP cover.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Darkshado.ca

Email from the Darkshado guy complaining about you adding him to the spamlist. I searched the site and couldn't find any of our articles replicated there; has he removed them, or what? Ironholds (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Spamlist"? I take it you mean the list of copyright licence violations. Anyway, I checked his site just now and yes, apparently he has removed the articles copied without attribution from Wikipedia. I see he's already unilaterally removed his listing (yet again) from Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Def so I suppose it can stay off for the time being. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:EmilRulez.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:EmilRulez.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Alanah Rae

Hi! Soory to bother, but i have problems to create this article, because i don't know how to fix some things. Could you take a look at it? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanromeroty (talk • contribs) 01:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Font cartier book.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Font cartier book.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Kaiser Wilhelm's card

Hi, which Kaiser Wilhelm did File:Visiting Card of Kaiser Wilhelm.jpg belong to? DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't recall. Try perhaps doing a TinEye search on the image. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Jean Val Jean.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Jean Val Jean.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Lily allen the fear

Hello Psychonaut. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lily allen the fear, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not recently created. Thank you. nancy 22:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Lily allen smile

Hello Psychonaut. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lily allen smile, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not recently created. Thank you. nancy 22:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Marshall Pet Products

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Marshall Pet Products requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 12:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This message appears to have been made in error. There is no speedy deletion tag on that page, and in any case it is a redirect, not an article. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

n:

You have been unblocked on English Wikinews. — μ 18:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. That was an impersonation account used for vandalism, though I later gained control of it. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Maledicta for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maledicta 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/Maledicta 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 good 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. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:51am • 23:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Selection process for marking articles for deletion

I will be interviewed about the deletion process on EN-WP and would like to provide information as factual and accurate as possible. If you can spare a few moments, can you please answer these two questions? Thanks, Dandv (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

1. How do you find articles to mark for deletion?
2. Given several such articles, how do you choose which ones to mark for deletion?

I don't come to Wikipedia with the express intention of finding articles to mark for deletion. Instead, as I'm browsing, I may find myself at an article which appears to meet Wikipedia's deletion, usually because it fails the notability requirements. If I have time, I will then mark it for deletion. Sometimes I will check if other articles in the same category have the same problem, and if so, I will mark them for deletion as well. So given several such articles, I will mark them all for deletion.

People interested in the topics covered by these articles often take it as an affront when the articles are marked for deletion. I've witnessed many off-Wiki campaigns to "save" articles from deletion; unfortunately the campaigners are usually ignorant of, or actively disregard, Wikipedia's purpose and its guidelines and policies surrounding notability and reliable sources. They believe that the articles have been proposed for deletion out of malice rather than by dispassionate application of policy. People who propose articles for deletion are often the subject of personal attacks which may dissuade them from participating further. As I recall you are one of the people involved in these off-wiki campaigns concerning deletions (albeit one who seems to understand that the issue is Wikipedia's policies rather than the application thereof), I hope you will not misrepresent my answers in your interview.

If you'd like further information on any of the above, please let me know. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies (and for catching that typo). Indeed, I'm trying to propose a set of notability guidelines for FOSS, modeled after the one for numbers. Unfortunately I didn't see your replies on time for the interview, but I forwarded your user page to the researcher, who said she'd be interested in interviewing you, but prefers not to approach editors directly. Should you wish to contact her, please see this mailing list post. -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 10:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Great that you're working on a new set of guidelines for Free Software. I understanding that sourcing is often a problem for Free Software projects so if we can come up with some system which is just as rigorous as the existing sourcing and notability guidelines while allowing for greater coverage on Wikipedia, that would be wonderful. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Protection request for WSM

I've replied to your request for protection here. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

About a page you deleted in the past: TripleA (computer game)

I know it's about something that happened a year ago, but I understand it's best to talk to you about it.

I believe the page was recreated and it no longer has the flaws that the original page might have had.

The page can currently be found on a user's sandbox.

I think this game should have a page on Wikipedia because it has been downloaded 600,000, and it is downloaded 10,000 times every month, according to sourceforge.net

Of course you can find less information on the web about a game that is released under GNU General Public Licence because they are not promoted by a marketing department. Still, Download.com and Fileplanet have the game on their site, and many other sources (you can see the links on this post are talking about the game.

This game is a PC version of the well known Axis & Allies Board Game, that was sold in 2 million copies

Versions of this game were also made by Hasbro in 2001 and MicroProse in 1998. Axis&Allies:Iron Blitz

The game is also given as the best way of playing Axis and Allies on eHow (www.ehow.com/how_4742216_play-axis-allies.html )

The game has players online everyday and at every hour. For example today at 5 PM GMT it has >40 players online (after they found an opponent, players can choose to remove their names and the game from the lobby, so there can be more players than the ones listed).

I think we should judge this game's relevance considering the type of game it is; and I believe it is very successful among PC versions of Multi-player elimination board games.

Thank you for your time, Dl.goe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

First, please note that I didn't delete this page. Rather, I may have initiated a discussion which led the community to decide to delete it. With respect to the new version of the article you posted, I think it suffers from the same problems that led to the first one being deleted: namely, there is a paucity of independent, reliable, third-party sources discussing the game in detail. Almost all the references given are from the developers or unedited software directories. If the game is as popular as you claim, then surely there must be some third-party reviews in established gaming or Free Software media? —Psychonaut (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. There are independent sources discussing the game. CNET has made a review of the game CNET review. The game is ranked 2 on a top of strategy games FreeWareGenius top of strategy games. I've also found reviews on review on CHIP (magazine),review on LisiSoft.com,review on DownloadPlex.com,http://download.tuxfamily.org/sdtraces/BottinHTML/bottin_files/TripleA-8757.html],UpToDown.com, Moddb review,review on Cannonade.net, review on LGDB.org, review by Softpedia.com PlayDeb.net Hoppypenguin.org, SoftwareSanta.com (it is forum like post, but it is placed by SoftwareSanta.com administrator), Rdtechie.com review, ZDNet.com, it's also listed on Ubuntuupdates.org,BrotherSoft.com review, review by Robert Daeley, review on G4G, game is also hosted on famouswhy.com,review on WHZPnet.com,review on StrategyInformer.com, review on AtomicGamer.com, review on Wesnotch.org,review on WikiNut.com,review on PlayingHistory.org,review on PadNova.com, recommended as how to play Axis and allies by jmannequin, review on soft82.com,review on WareSeeker.com, review on CyaComputerBlog.com, presented on FunMass.com, presented by MacGamesCout.org,presented by Swik.net,review in German by WinLoad.de,review by Haxington Post, available for download on FilePlanet.com,review on Soft-Files.com, is presented on eHow ehow.com/how_4742216_play-axis-allies.html, presented on AUSGamers.com, WebProHost.nl

The popularity of the game is verifiable from sourceforge.net. It is true that the official page is among the sources of the article, but similar situations can be seen on famous games like StarCraft, where most of the reference come from Blizzard Entertainment official page.

Finally, if you are concerned about the nature of an article based on the official page, and not about the relevance of the game, I can make a shorter version of the page based on CNET/CHIP/etc reviews. Thank you, Dl.goe (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If any of the reviews you mention can be considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards, then you should add them to the article, as they will establish the notability of the game. Note that reviews posted without editorial oversight, such as on personal blogs or as user-submitted content to software directories, might not qualify as reliable sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have made the new TripleA page. Hope it's ok. Thank you for your advices! Dl.goe (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

J'accuse!

I thought for the sake of balance, viz a viz your user page, I should point out that I have reason to believe you are in fact an ethnic albanian sleeper agent working for the Kosovan government. I base this on the sweet nothings my goldfish just spake to me as it lay beside me on my pillow, gasping for air. Keep up the good work. Egg Centric 03:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Aw, gee—there you go blowing my cover. Now I'll have to defect to some other underdog nation of limited international recognition to continue my nefarious crusade against seemingly randomly selected socio-ethno-political groups and Open Source tiling window managers. :P —Psychonaut (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Wikibooks block

Hi, I have read your unblock request on Wikibooks English and you have now been unblocked. --Xania ^talk 14:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Cliff Hangers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cliff Hangers 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/Cliff Hangers (3rd nomination) 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 good 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. --Gh87 (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Cliff Hangers

An article that you have been involved in editing, Cliff Hangers, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gh87 (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:New Latin Grammar.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:New Latin Grammar.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Your userpage...

...is delicious

BTW, are you the same psychonaut as found elsewhere on the web? In particular, this guy? If so, I voted for you cause of that thread (despite being frankly your arch rival politically, economically speaking anyway, although I can't see us disagreeing on much socially, although I may be even more permissive than you there... er, if that is you ) Egg Centric 19:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

(Oh, and if it is you, is this a fan letter?) Egg Centric 19:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for reference!

Several eons ago, you commented on a discussion page that Wikipedia is not required to be "politically correct." You don't happen to know/remember where that is documented in policy, do you? I can't seem to find it! Thanks. Student7 (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like something from, or in the spirit of, WP:CENSOR. Apart from that I couldn't really say; it's possible that a particular policy page years ago used the phrase "politically correct" but that the wording has since been changed. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right. The term "politically correct" itself got censored! Hmmm.  :) Student7 (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Socialist Studies

A long time ago you asked me to comment on a peer review of Socialist Studies. I am not sure if it is relevant to you now but I haven't been editing Wikipedia for a while, and am picking up some things from my talk page.

I have reviewed the article and your peer review and my thoughts are that your comments in the peer review were spot on - there is a POV problem as most of the information is sourced from the organisations involved themselves (though I was getting a bit confused as to which organisation). Additionally there is very little outside information sourced and it does not seem to deal with the meat of the issues.

Also a lot of the information is very unreliable in my opinion, depending on branch minutes for example.

The thing is I don't see a way to improve this. It strikes me that this organisation might not have much 3rd party information published about it? I don't remember the deletion policy and the exact notability policy but without seeing those I have to say in all honesty if this was nominated it for deletion I would be sorely tempted to vote "delete" (though I wouldn't nominate myself).

Sorry I am not sure if I have been very helpful. I looked at this yesterday and slept on it, and nearly didn't comment, but I thought I should tell you my opinion.

CaptainJ ^{(t | c | e)} 10:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Über

Thank you for correcting the disambiguation page Über (disambiguation). I have replaced a few entries, however. While I agree that entries with the prepositional use merited deletion, I believe formal titles of works that are closely alike and easily confused are appropriate within the scope defined in partial title matches. This is particularly true when it is used as a loanword in English and not as a common German function word. Regards. -- Ultracobalt (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)