User talk:Psywave
...since the nominator hasn't notified you of this deletion attempt of the article you created. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
November 2023
[edit]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mother's Little Helper, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Tkbrett (✉) 15:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Say You Will
[edit]First of all, thank you very much for your help in improving "Murrow Turning Over in His Grave" a few months ago. That article has improved considerably in terms of content and sourcing.
Recently, I noticed that you added a sentence about Buckingham's song "Come" within the main body of the Say You Will album. While this sentence could be retained, I'm wondering if it would be better placed in a Critical reception section. Currently, the article lacks this section, but if you would be willing to aid in its creation and/or expansion, that would be greatly appreciated. I can also help out where I can. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, I have started a new section and moved the sentence. Hopefully I will come back to the section and expand it before long. Psywave (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Graham87 (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
You've been warned many times over the years (according to your talk page history) that adding unsourced text is unacceptable, but you've continued to do so, in your edit to Dave Evans (singer). Graham87 (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Help
[edit]
Psywave (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I do not understand the severity of my offence. I know unsourced material is undesirable, and yes I have been warned before but I would request a review, or a time-bound block rather than an indefinite one given the considerable effort I have made in improving Wikipedia with referenced material, new articles, and donations. I also consider my edits are in good faith to add material, but accept that I need to reference exclusively, not just the vast majority of times. Psywave (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC
Accept reason:
Per below. Graham87 (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC))
- Please read what the WP:GAB has to say about donations (that the members if the community never see and which have no bearing on unblocking you.) You've been warned many times, so there is no benefit in a time-limited block that will expire and then you will resume unsourced edits. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Verifiability is a policy. I see no assurance that you will stop making unsourced edits. I will leave this open for further review and discussion. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Have my sourced improvements been taken into account? Surely a time bound block leaves the door open to someone learning from their carelessness? I can give assurance I will not add unsourced material again, but have no way of proving it in practice. Is there no way of risk assessing blocked editors? Seems disproportionate to apply the same action what a new account that has only ever added unsourced material would get. Psywave (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Past experience, I'm afraid, is often a predictor of future performance. I'll leave this undeclined in hopes some kinder, gentler, less cynical soul will review. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I fully accept your arguments. Not sure who, if anyone, will pick this up now, but please may I state that after a couple of day reflection and a review of my edits, I fully accept and understand why I have been blocked. I understand that I have been warned occasionally over the years and have not taken this as seriously as I should have. I would ask I be given a second chance to resume verified contributions, under supervision perhaps if such a thing is possible. While I consider the vast majority of my edits are responsible, I accept I have fallen short of the required standard on several occasions over the years and this is capable of damaging Wikipedia in terms of its credibility and perhaps other ways. I also accept that being a donor is irrelevant and I should not have raised this in my appeal. Psywave (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Graham87: Meh. I feel pretty cynical about this, but I'll ask anyway. OK to unblock? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra: I ... don't know. Psywave, there is this edit, where you added a source (but not to everything). However, I tried to look ihn to where you could have possibly found the 1940 birth year for Dave Evans, and what I found doesn't reflect well on you. There's one reference that leads to this, an obvious parody of [[Chuck Norris facts, and there's another musician called Dave Evans bornn in that year, who's obviously a different person, but there's not much else. Before this edit, the article said 1953, which is more plausible (and found in unreliable/semi-reliable places on the net). Graham87 (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for continuing the discussion on this request. Based on that link, which I have not seen 1940 seems to be an urban myth that has perpetuated somewhat. I made a note after hearing it an 'on this day' mention on local radio last year. Ultimately it was wrong to add it on this basis, and without reference, particularly on a BLP. There are indeed a few references, probably not BLP-suitable, saying 1953 - so guess it is right to remain unstated on the article. In terms of Faithless, I can add some references onto the couple of bits I did not cite - if given a chance to prove both of your faiths in humanity. Psywave (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah it really, really was. Those sorts of radio features often get their information from Wikipedia, or in this case more unsavory sources. Wikipedia content pops up in the most surprising of places so it's vital that it be as accurate and well-sourced as possible. Due to your contrition and politeness, I've unblocked you. Happy editing! Graham87 (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks very much indeed for your open-mindedness! Psywave (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah it really, really was. Those sorts of radio features often get their information from Wikipedia, or in this case more unsavory sources. Wikipedia content pops up in the most surprising of places so it's vital that it be as accurate and well-sourced as possible. Due to your contrition and politeness, I've unblocked you. Happy editing! Graham87 (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for continuing the discussion on this request. Based on that link, which I have not seen 1940 seems to be an urban myth that has perpetuated somewhat. I made a note after hearing it an 'on this day' mention on local radio last year. Ultimately it was wrong to add it on this basis, and without reference, particularly on a BLP. There are indeed a few references, probably not BLP-suitable, saying 1953 - so guess it is right to remain unstated on the article. In terms of Faithless, I can add some references onto the couple of bits I did not cite - if given a chance to prove both of your faiths in humanity. Psywave (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra: I ... don't know. Psywave, there is this edit, where you added a source (but not to everything). However, I tried to look ihn to where you could have possibly found the 1940 birth year for Dave Evans, and what I found doesn't reflect well on you. There's one reference that leads to this, an obvious parody of [[Chuck Norris facts, and there's another musician called Dave Evans bornn in that year, who's obviously a different person, but there's not much else. Before this edit, the article said 1953, which is more plausible (and found in unreliable/semi-reliable places on the net). Graham87 (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Graham87: Meh. I feel pretty cynical about this, but I'll ask anyway. OK to unblock? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I fully accept your arguments. Not sure who, if anyone, will pick this up now, but please may I state that after a couple of day reflection and a review of my edits, I fully accept and understand why I have been blocked. I understand that I have been warned occasionally over the years and have not taken this as seriously as I should have. I would ask I be given a second chance to resume verified contributions, under supervision perhaps if such a thing is possible. While I consider the vast majority of my edits are responsible, I accept I have fallen short of the required standard on several occasions over the years and this is capable of damaging Wikipedia in terms of its credibility and perhaps other ways. I also accept that being a donor is irrelevant and I should not have raised this in my appeal. Psywave (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Past experience, I'm afraid, is often a predictor of future performance. I'll leave this undeclined in hopes some kinder, gentler, less cynical soul will review. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Have my sourced improvements been taken into account? Surely a time bound block leaves the door open to someone learning from their carelessness? I can give assurance I will not add unsourced material again, but have no way of proving it in practice. Is there no way of risk assessing blocked editors? Seems disproportionate to apply the same action what a new account that has only ever added unsourced material would get. Psywave (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MobiBLU DAH-1500i until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.AlexGallon (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
[edit]- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Docks Beers moved to draftspace
[edit]Thanks for your contributions to Docks Beers. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CoconutOctopus talk 17:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- OK, thanks very much. Psywave (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)