User talk:Psychonaut/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

dgcei

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_General_of_Anti-Evasion despite reverts by ypu there is still ongoing vandalism.please lock the page.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for the notice. If the vandalism continues you can request that the page be protected at WP:RPP. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

India Forum links

Hi! I have been removing India Forum links from the article space as its blacklisted now. However, i have come across some articles where the links are presented as evidence to copyrights violation. Example article Shilpa Shinde and Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai. Hence i won't be removing those. In case you (or your page-stalkers and copyvio fighters) plan to clean copyvio articles after your vacation, do clean these first. Then we could be free of this site from article space.
Also... do we do anything about non-article space usage of this site? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

One disadvantage of getting India forums blacklisted is that we cannot post the link anymore in notices on talk pages as well as in the edit summary! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is expected behaviour which you just need to work around by deliberately breaking the URL (for example, by inserting a space somewhere in it). —Psychonaut (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! Got it. nowiki would also work. I was surprised on seeing that links arent allowed in summaries too. Thats nice! And glad you are back. See ya around. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! But I'm not back for long—I'll be leaving again in a few days but will be back in January. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

CCI update

--Wizardman 17:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Unified Code Count (UCC)

The above article has been undeleted as the prod was contested at WP:REFUND. I always inform people when I do so, so that they can decide whether to take to AfD.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

AN thread

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Not as scary as it sounds, I'm just asking some other admins for their help with a protential slew of deletions. Your name got mentioned, though, so you may want to add your two cents. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you - and an apology...

My profoundest apologies - I had you confused with User:Psychonavigation (who is an adoptee of mine, albeit a seemingly retired one). Ten seconds of clear thinking would have avoided the mistake, but with a small child trying to insinuate a biro into my nasal cavity, those ten seconds didn't happen. Sorry for the mix up, and for any offence unintentionally caused thereby. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No offence was taken; you just had me wondering if I'd had some sort of bizarre memory lapse. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. You'll notice that you now have a bit more red in your CSD log... Yunshui 雲‍水 14:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The Chainsmokers

Hello sir, happy new year. Well the problem of chainsmokers is quite unfortunate. The article was created when I was new on Wikipedia. I wasn't knowing all the rules then. I had edited out that copyright text and source on the temporary page. Regarding its style, I can't do much for now because I'm on a wikibreak as my exams are near. I'll work thoroughly on that when I'm back. Thank You.—PKS ^(TALK) 18:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you please advise on what I need to do to rectify this situation in a timely manner? Thank you. 4AMNYC (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page where you also posted this question. We can continue the conversation there. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your efforts to fight copyright infringements, vandalism and other problematic edits. Forgot to put name 12:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

copyvio

Hi! I can rewrite the text for those articles to remove the copyvio problem. Is that okay?Noodleki (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Just follow the instructions on the template in the section titled "Otherwise, you may write a new article without copyright-infringing material…". —Psychonaut (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

international romani union

Hey Psychonaut, I was deeply offended when I saw your post on my talk page suggesting that I (a long time wiki editor) had plagiarized... but then I looked it up, and you are 100% correct. My content was totally stolen. I can't really explain it - I guess it was early in my wiki editing days and I wasn't thinking? I'm not sure. Anyway, thanks for catching it. I'll work on a re-write asap. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You may not have been aware that you were copying and pasting infringing material. It seems that the material was originally pasted into a different article, World Romani Congress, with this edit by the IP account User:83.26.71.233. You then copied and pasted this text into International Romani Union. So assuming that User:83.26.71.233 wasn't actually you editing while logged out, you weren't really at fault, except perhaps for not noticing that the IP's edit was rather suspicious. (When I see a new user or IP account pasting in a large amount of unformatted text which reads very much like professionally produced website copy, I always run a web search on a sample of it, and almost all of the time it turns out the material was plagiarized.) In the future, if you ever copy and paste text from one article into another, please add a {{copied}} template to the talk pages of the articles in question. This preserves the contributor history in a conspicuous manner and makes it easier to trace copyright infringements which have propagated themselves across several articles. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Source of news

Dear Sir

There is a simple reference to and confirmation of DR Studios being partners on there web site http://drstudios.co.uk/train2game/

With regards to TIGA they are only one of two examination bodies:

Train2Game at Gadget Show Live with City and Guilds - YouTube www.youtube.com/watch?v=16a3dmaHnTo May 4, 2012 - Uploaded by Train2GameUK Train2Game at Gadget Show Live with City and Guilds. Train2Game students participate in a range of ...

Train2Game courses earn official City & Guilds accreditation | news ... www.pocketgamer.biz/r/PG.Biz/Train2Game+news/news.asp?c... Mar 8, 2012 – Train2Game's courses in art and animation, game design, and development have been approved by the UK's leading vocational education ...

Train2Game Videogames Courses Awarded Full City ... - Gamasutra www.gamedevelopment.com/.../Train2Game_Videogames_Courses_... Mar 8, 2012 – 8 March, 2012: The UK's leading vocational education organisation, City & Guilds, has today approved Train2Game courses, designed to ...

News > City and Guilds accreditation for videogames courses elearningage.meridian.titaninternet.co.uk/.../city_and_guilds_accredit... Mar 15, 2012 – Courses designed by Train2Game to develop videogames industry professionals have been awarded full City & Guilds qualification status.

A student may help you - we have spoken to her http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/teresa-mardel/3b/9ba/131

What I have not shared with some of the other admins is that we have worked with the BBC, the Voice of America, and many others which affords us the luxury of being able to reference claims with ease. By the way RTI is not a podcast service, it streams, podcasts and syndicates around the world.

The link between Skillstrain is nothing more than a bias comment, it is easy to understand why many in the media are calling for more online controls, even stronger than the ASA/CAB ones in place now. Train2Game has no connection with Watchdog nor should that be implied, that's bad factual reporting.

I trust you receive this is the spirit it was sent and review comments from other to protect the name of Wikipedia. I still think Wiki has a great roll to play if only it becomes more accurate.

Regards RTI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.42.254 (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Please take this discussion to Talk:Train2Game where it belongs. Stop copying and pasting your correspondence to multiple editors' talk pages. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Grossman

If I thought communication would work, I would do it. So you would pretty much have me attempt to get into a conversation with an infrequent user about the fact that a) his behavior shows he doesn't understand policy; or b) that I think his account's been compromised? If I thought that I was going to get a positive or truthful response to either of those items, I would, but given the nature of the attitude shown in the AfD (which was the last real major burst of activity), I think I would get a negative response to the former item, and a non-truthful response if the latter. Even assuming I get a response at all, this user logs in very infrequently, and has never used his talk page. So, in all seriousness, how does communication on my part help the matter, exactly? Anybody looking at the contribs is going to see that he hasn't responded to anything before in years, so why would he start now? One doesn't AGF someone just because. MSJapan (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Robertsch55

Hi! Thanks for all of your help on this one, and for finishing it off. :) I've archived it and courtesy blanked the investigation. - Bilby (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

List of Silent Witness episodes

I'm a bit baffled by the placing of a copyvio notice over several episode summaries for series 13 that I wrote myself as an improvement on the "blurbs" that were already there. If there was a copyvio relating to the previous content, I can't see any reason why the non-copyvio content should have been deleted. Please can you explain? Deb (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I was in the midst of tagging a number of copyvios by the same user, who is now the subject of a proposed WP:CCI case. Though it was clear that he or she had added infringing text to this section, the precise starting and ending points weren't immediately obvious to me. (This will require combing through the page history to determine which particular episode summaries this user has contaminated.) Please accept my apologies if some non-infring text that you had contributed was inadvertenly included within the tag. If you can isolate the infringing areas with finer granularity, by all means please reposition the {{copyvio}} tag accordingly. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, will try. Deb (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisting domain names in certain namespaces only

Hello Psychonaut. First, my congratulations on the long list of awards on your user page. (I wonder if any of them came from me?) The list on my own user page pales in comparison.

I'd like to see links to a lot more websites excluded from articles here. Unsurprisingly, this has brought some (considered, constructive) opposition. I'm not fanatically attached to the idea myself: I'm open to alternative suggestions. You may well have some. There's already an interesting suggestion: that a block might be for the article namespace only. And this comes with a question about whether such a block, its desirability aside, is technically possible.

I've no idea. I therefore took a look in a moderately relevant looking talk page within Meta, and noted down some usernames. Among these, you seem the person whose most active at en:WP. May I invite you to join the discussion here? (If you do, feel free to oppose me most vigorously!) -- Hoary (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I've actually been following the thread with interest since you first posted it last week, though I haven't yet found the time to respond. I'll try to find the time to make a brief contribution now. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. (Whew, did I really write "the person whose most active"? I need more coffee.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

CCI update

--Wizardman 17:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this edit [1], I should have done it like that myself.Jeppiz (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

FDD

Here we go again [2]. Looks like he learned nothing from his block. Qworty (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt they even realized they were blocked; the admin never left them a message informing them of it. Regardless, they were blocked for removal of the copyvio template, not for edit warring—maybe someone ought to have reported them to WP:AN3 back when they violated 3RR last month. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2013 (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 are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Foundation for Defense of Democracies".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Noodleki Your rather bizarre infatuation with me is either charming or rather disturbing. Why don't you just put up the attribution yourself - it would be much more productive and probably a lot less vindictive. Oh, and you're great copyright notice on Veterinary medicine is still there a month later. About 210,000 viewers have had the delight of seeing it - I don't think that is tremendously productive either. Anyway, I'm sure you have lots of other people to hound and annoy. Good luck with that.Noodleki (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Need advice Hello,the user here is a sockpuppet of this account and i am 100% sure about this because i have been facing him frequently.Apart from spamming and copyright violation,He have been doing poor editing countinously and make work tedious for others.But i do not report it now bcoz of lack of socking activity this time around,then what is the right step to stop him.Thanx---zeeyanketu discutez 20:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC) If you are sure that the two accounts are the same, then you should file another sockpuppet investigation. It doesn't matter how long ago it was; just present the evidence that you have and if applicable request a checkuser. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC) FYI, I've just posted CU results here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Armalite AR50 I notice this article has been tagged as a copyvio for over a month, with no progress whatsoever. What's going on? Lukeno94 (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC) A backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems—that is, too many users posting copyright-infringing text, and not enough administrators and copyright clerks to clean it up in a timely manner. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Ah, OK. It seems a shame that an article is stuck in limbo for so long, when it could be fixed very easily. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Disappointing to see it has still not been resolved, even now. Then again, if something's been there since October of last year... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC) You can help fix the problem yourself if you'd like. Follow the "Show" link next to the part of the template which says "Otherwise, you may write a new article without copyright-infringing material". Follow the instructions which appear to produce a temporary copy of the article which is free of infringing text. Then leave a note at the corresponding entry at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2013 January 14; probably an administrator or copyright clerk will see it soon and replace the article with your rewritten version. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC) I'm more thinking that we could restore to the version before the rubbish went in. [3] - it's still promotional, but at least it's workable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC) The Chainsmokers So what exactly is the problem with the article? Text? Pictures? Like what is this copy vio? And don't you think you should of said something on the talk page?? Caden cool 16:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC) The problem is described succinctly on the copyvio template and at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2013 January 11. If you follow the "View history" link at the top of the article you can compare the previous revision against the URL mentioned in the copyvio tag to see exactly what the infringing material was. (In this case, it appears to be only text.) Copyvios aren't normally discussed here before being tagged, though you're of course now free to do so on the article's talk page or at its WP:CP entry. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Ok I had a look and as far as I can tell only a few sentences seem to be a copyvio. The rest of the article appears fine. Why dont you just remove the few sentences that are copyvios and restore the article? Caden cool 16:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time to investigate; this is something I didn't have the time to do myself. (Lately copyright-infringing text is being posted faster than we have time to tag, investigate, and remove it in a timely manner; there is a huge backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.) If you've isolated the problem, then you can follow the instructions on the template to produce a temporary copy of the article which is free of infringing text. Then leave a note at the corresponding entry at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2013 January 11; probably an administrator or copyright clerk will see it soon and replace the article with your rewritten version. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC) File:BPL2012 chamions.jpg Beleive it or not, It was e-mailed me by a friend of mine and he given me the permission that I can upload it anywhere, like facebook, wikipedia, flickr etc. But what'll I do now? It's really a free work.--Pratyya (Hello!) 09:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC) I believe you. But we need evidence of the permission. Just follow the instructions on the template: have the photographer send an e-mail to [email protected] confirming that he is the copyright holder of the image and stating the terms under which it is licensed. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for March 9 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Seers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (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) 12:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC) A beer for you! Monstrosity!!! Nice word. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC) plot missing for iss pyaar ko kya naam doon? HI! I was planning on cleaning up the unneeded details and make the plot more "brief". However, the plot itself is missing from the page. I am not sure whether it is after your editing or not. I just thought I would mention my concern regarding thisRosh1294 (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC) The plot was removed as it was too long and detailed, and basically unsalvageable in its current state. Feel free to write a new one which concisely describes the series' scenario and maybe the major story arcs of the seasons, but please don't provide an intricate day-by-day synopsis. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Hello there! Hello! I saw on the old deleted 'Space Cat' page you'd said you had seen the comic in a few newspapers, I was wondering if you could give me some information or tell me where you saw it, I'm trying to rewrite the article, and Google hasn't been turning up anything. Thanks for your time! ThatSexyCat (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I'm afraid Space Cat has left my memory. Perhaps you could refresh it…? Is there an official website, or even unofficial reproductions of the comics online? If I saw some I might remember which newspapers I read it in. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Copyright issues Which parts of the page has copyright issues? Our article is older than the textbook in question thus we need to figure out who has copied from whom at PCOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Anyway I only found a small section that was an issue and removed it. There might be more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Please refer to this article's entry at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 March 27 for further details. All substantial contributions by User:KakCheshtha, to this article and others, appear to constitute copyright infringement. For example, he also appears to have copied (or closely paraphrased) material from http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/256806-workup#showall into PCOS#Diagnosis. It's best if all his edits to this article are checked (or simply removed if checking them all individually is too much work). Since he's made extensive changes to PCOS I'm restoring the copyvio template until all the infringing material is removed and confirmation of this is posted to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 March 27. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks removed all his edits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC) By the way if you find future copyright issues on medical / disease related article can you drop us a note at WT:MED. There is usually a core group willing to help fix these things there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC) GhiathArodaki SPI Hi. We seem to have seen the same thing at the same time. We edit conflicted when you removed mine at the same time as I was removing it. I think you should possibly have allowed me to be the one to remove mine. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Ah, sorry, I see that it was an artefact of the edit conflict. I've removed mine now, but will add a comment about the autoblock in a mo. --Stfg (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Blackdoom77 I think it's done. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Plagiarism Wondering if I could get your help with the plagiarism issue here [4] From source [5] Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC) OK, how would you like me to help? Do you just want me to tag the page as a copyvio and refer it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems, or is there something more specific you had in mind? —Psychonaut (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Is simply tagging it like this sufficient [6]? Also would love your opinion on this users edits here [7] which are more or less a paraphrasing of this article [8]. You will notice frequent word bits are very similar. User states "Contrary to popular belief, most mothers do not know about the ongoing abuse." paper states "Contrary to popular myth most mothers are not aware of ongoing sexual abuse." Outline is very very close. User attempted to add changes here a couple of times [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC) This edit [10] contains content from [11] specifically the "Behavior therapy also has a number of problems because it requires sophistication on the part of the therapist, firm environmental control, and a high degree of cooperation and commitment from those even remotely involved in the program. " [12] Thoughts Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Sorry for the delay in responding. Note again that I'm not an administrator or copyright clerk, so I can only tell you what I have observed to be best practices; if anything I say here conflicts with the instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, the latter should take precedence. With respect to Motivational interviewing, it looks like the text was copied verbatim into a single section of the article, and hasn't been modified since. In that case the easiest thing is probably the following: Remove the infringing text from the article, and the template you added at the top of the article. Add a {{cclean}} template to the article's talk page. Go through the article history to find out who added the infringing text, and warn the user with a {{uw-copyright}} template. This is important as the user might not be aware of the problems surrounding the contribution of non-free or free but unattributed material; we don't want them to repeat the mistake. If you receive a complaint from the copyright holder about their material still being accessible through the page history, then perform a revdel. I hope this helps. I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to look at the other issues you raised but will try to do so soon. (Alternatively you could post the query on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems and someone there will probably respond quickly.) —Psychonaut (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC) 666 Park Avenue reinstated text I think your edit summary could be interpreted to mean that one should mess with your edits. Which (of course) would be a misapprehension. The edit summaries are quite simply too long, Psychonaut. They should be substantially trimmed. Since you reinstated them, I must congratulate you on your volunteering to copyedit them down some, since we both know they are too long. Let me know if you need some help. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC) You have a new message! Hello, Psychonaut. You have new messages at Pratyya Ghosh's talk page. Message added 07:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Pratyya (Hello!) 07:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)