User talk:PopSci

Welcome to my talk page.PopSci (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PopSci, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi PopSci! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Doctree (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Sword and sorcery, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Just a note about POV here, but the King Arthur tales arguably feature the most famous sword and the most famous sorcerer in the whole English canon, maybe even the whole Western canon, unsure where you're coming from that the King Arthur legendarium is then not sword and sorcery... JesseRafe (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are lots of swords and sorcery in the King Arthur stories. Please see the talk page of the article where this is being discussed. Thanks.PopSci (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removals from "See also" sections of Bogdanov affair, Cargo cult, Sokal affair, Superficiality

You have removed links from the "See also" sections of Bogdanov affair, Cargo cult, Sokal affair, and Superficiality. Those links, though, were relevant and useful. I restored the links for Bogdanov affair, Cargo cult, and Superficiality. Someone else, JesseRafe, restored the links for Sokal affair.

In the future, kindly consider getting a consensus of editors to agree, via the Talk pages. Also consider MOS:SEEALSO, which states this: “The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics”.
86.152.238.86 (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I did get a bit carried away. Thanks for the link to the policy. PopSci (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kind thanks for your note--I'm glad we agree! 86.152.238.86 (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lewis Okun

The article Lewis Okun has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I am unable to find significant discussion of the individual in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. Also does not appear to meet criteria of WP:NACADEMIC.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ... discospinster _talk 20:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more material, however you might be correct that he is not notable. He has one published book. PopSci (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lewis Okun for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lewis Okun 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/Lewis Okun 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 notice from the top of the article. ... discospinster _talk 01:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I will remain neutral in the debate. He seemed to be notable when I started the article, but perhaps not. PopSci (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ivanhoe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King John (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your confusion regarding sci-fi

If you had an email option, I could email you somethings that could further help you distinguish between what is and what is not science fiction.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to take non-SF out of the article that is fine with me.PopSci (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already have, but I think it's important that you and others better understand what you're editing about so that way you don't make the same mistakes again. And besides, from your editing history it seems you enjoy this sort of material. Do you know how to enable email? You have to go to preferences and add an email address. I won't be able to see it even if I sent you something. The only way of me seeing it is if you reply to my email, which is not required. You'll be able to see my email because I'm the one sending it.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please post a link to the material on the Science fiction talk page.PopSci (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be copyright violation. We don't post links to copyright material on Wikipedia, even on talk pages. From your editing history I thought you might enjoy watching and understanding them and it would help improving your editing in this area.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Science fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Space travel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for just getting in with the job on SF Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You comment on Robynthehode page about SF

Thank you for making me laugh Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Science fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solaris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Science fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horror (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Principle Discussion

Hi! I noticed you were working on restoring to article status Divine Principle. You referenced a talk page discussion. Given that your proposal had only been around for 1 day (a week would be normal) it seems premature. Further that talk page was not the proper place to have this discussion since it's a third party (neither the current article or the article being restored). To try and help this find a larger audience I have place a notification at both talk pages about your discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. I would certainly not object to reverting my changes if that turns out to be the consensus.PopSci (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

26 alphabet listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 26 alphabet. Since you had some involvement with the 26 alphabet redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of science fiction video games

The article List of science fiction video games has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:LISTCRUFT, and on top of that, this will get unwieldy very quickly given a large portion of games are set in a fictional setting. Unnecessary list.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I've removed the proposed deletion tag, assumingly spinning it into AFD.PopSci (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of science fiction video games for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of science fiction video games 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/List of science fiction video games 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. TarkusAB^talk 16:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Washington Times, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Archibald (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, PopSci. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Washington Times, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing

Based on your User Page where you mention "supporting the Washington Times, Women's Federation, ACLC, and other Unificationist projects," you may be violating WP:COI on the Washington Times page. Marquis de Faux (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will back off from editing it. PopSci (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 17:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Frank Gaffney, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 17:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Frank Gaffney has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. You said it was unsourced, but it was sourced. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Borock per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Borock. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Epically BTFO'd. Thank you! TrampStampVamp (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]