User talk:Psychastes

Hi Carchasm! 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 GreenMeansGo (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thank you for your superb contributions to Sumerian subjects, such as your thoughtful rewrite of the Enheduanna article. Looking forward to more of your contributions!! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much @पाटलिपुत्र:! I'm glad you liked it! - car chasm (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	Season's Greetings
	Hi Psychastes! Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and a beautiful and productive New Year! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I present you with a barnstar for your great work recently in philosophy articles, for your diligence in putting to a halt rampant hagiography, and for your calm in the face of editorial ignorance. I'm impressed. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm particularly delighted to have another editor onboard who recognizes the fringe nature of scientism. This is especially important in a project where a majority of the regulars at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard themselves often take positions (mis)informed by scientism. The combination of ignorance and self-righteousness in editors who nevertheless are acting on good-faith motives can be extremely difficult to deal with, but don't let it drag you down! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it! I'm also quite happy to learn I'm not alone here on the anti-scientism front even if we're a minority viewpoint here. :) - car chasm (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for having responded to my request for help on Argument from authority. I'm not quite a newbie editor, but still very much in the early learning stage, and it hadn't occurred to me that there was a significantly better version of the page from years earlier that could be reverted to. Sockpuppet investigations are also new to me. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help :). And don't worry about missing the old version of the article, I missed it too until I found the old conversation on that noticeboard. I don't usually see things like that, I think that pretty much only happens when you have a long-term dedicated vandal like in this case. Really not sure what that sock's game is, linking to the same noticeboard they got nabbed for twice and making the same arguments seems like... a bad move to me. - car chasm (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you in the revision history of an article, noticed you hadn't edited in a while, and saw the note on your userpage. So it goes. It was nice to have you around. I wish you well on your travels. jp×g🗯️ 08:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've only recently joined, and never got the chance to interact with you, but it's been nice seeing your past edits as I come across them! TlonicChronic (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I decided to come back after all... I'll point my old user page to the new one once I reach autoconfirmed status(?) and can edit other users pages. Psychastes (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw a new user diligently adding categories to philosophy articles, and I thought to myself 'would this be ...'? And yes, it's you! So glad to see you back here! Don't let the massive amounts of wp:cheese on here bog you down this time!

Kind regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It's good to be back :) Psychastes (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Psychastes, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I feel much better now that you're putting in the much-needed work with the articles on classical philosophy on my watchlist, which were waiting for me to develop the requisite acuity and familiarity to properly clean them up. Welcome back. Remsense ‥ 论 05:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh gosh, thank you! I've been enjoying my time back so far, happy to help :D Psychastes (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to find a "word" article that fit the description - I am sorry, but this is the first that came to my mind: Bitch (slang), but that's the hint where to search for them. --Altenmann >talk 20:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yeah no worries, appreciate the help, and no offense taken, that's a good memorable example! :D Psychastes (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Psychastes,

On the AFDs you filed, could you make active links to other Wikipedia pages? You just used one bracket when you need to use two. That would make them accessible to other editors so they didn't have to cut and paste them. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh gosh, thank you for letting me know, I hadn't realized! They should all be linked properly now. Psychastes (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for identifying the text and putting in a new revdel request on one of the articles. I've had a long, hard look at it all and I'm going to decline again but for two different reasons and I think it only fair to give you a fuller reasoning than a one line edit summary.

1. The only ground for copyright revdel is RD1 Blatant violations of the copyright policy. Blatant isn't defined but very generally we take it as meaning "attempting to pass the material off as your own work". I can't, in all honesty, say that is the case here; the quotes are mostly sourced, not only to the Hongs but also to other Kiekegaard scholars. That said, if the edits had only been made yesterday, I probably would apply RD1 but that leads me onto ground 2:
2. Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Large-scale use, we're talking here up to 17 years worth of revisions to a number of articles. If these have been made by only one editor or predominantly one editor, not necessarily an issue but again I don't think that's the case here.

Putting the two together I don't feel revdel is justified. I entirely agree with your decision to remove the material as it seems to be vastly over-quoting to no real end, but, in my opinion, the removal of the material without revdel is a sufficient response. Nthep (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep Understood with point 1 with respect to the large scale of time, but to point 2: these edits *were* in fact made almost entirely by the same (now-inactive) user; however given the scale I can open up a WP:CCI first if you think that's best. Psychastes (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to start a CCI. Point 2 wasn't just about the offending edits but the number of edits to the articles in total. Revdel will require those edits to also be hidden which over 17 years starts to have an impact on attribution. Nthep (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please can you revert the status of inactive for this page. The editing community within Bhutan is young and growing and use this page as a reference. Its incorrect to say that it has not been updated for more than 15 years. While the Talk page may have had only bot posts, please see the edits to the project page, which were as recent as 2024. Doctor 17 (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doctor 17 - you can feel free to revert my changes yourself if you'd like, I'm marking wikiprojects as inactive based on talk page activity per the guidelines. If you do so, I'd recommend setting the date parameter on the template as well which will diminish the chance that anyone will mark it inactive in the near future. Psychastes (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Psychastes, you've marked WP:ELIT as inactive, and there are posts to the talk page this month, and to the main page this week. Please revert your edits, and be much more careful if you try this again. -- asilvering (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for any confusion, but that was fully intentional. As per the edit summary I've been leaving more recently, "Marking inactive per WP:INACTIVEWP: Projects are generally considered inactive if the talk page has received nothing other than routine/automated announcements or unanswered queries for a year or more." Psychastes (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read your edit summary. Your edit was incorrect. Please roll back your edits and proceed more carefully. -- asilvering (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this was discussed prior to my edits here. if you want to raise concerns please do so there. Psychastes (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed, I have removed the inactive banner. I dont think my Bhutan project query is related to the query regarding the ELIT project, but can see a similar problem. It might be helpful if you check for edits on the actual project page rather than relying just on edits to the talk page? Thanks for your enthusiasm to keep this shared resource clean :) Doctor 17 (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is related, yes. Have a look at their recent contributions and you'll see that they're just tagging down the alphabet. -- asilvering (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not every project mind you, just the ones that had nothing other than routine/automated announcements or unanswered queries on their talk page in more than a year (and I've stopped now) Psychastes (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm sure there are very, very many seriously inactive projects on the list, and I don't at all object to checking in on them (or, in the cases of seriously quite dormant ones, simply putting up the sign, as you were doing). But not all wikiproject activity is talk page chats, so using that alone as the criterion while going through the list is going to end up with many bad tags. -- asilvering (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the guideline Wikipedia:INACTIVEWP says To verify that a project is inactive, post on its talk page asking if anyone minds marking it as such.. I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria is one of a vast number of projects you have labelled as "inactive", presumably not consulting any of them.

I suggest that it is unhelpful to label as Wikiproject as inactive like this. People watch the talk page, and perhaps take action on the links from the "routine announcements" of move discussions etc, without necessarily adding a reply to say that they have done so. For a project like a geographical area, where the topic is not going to go away, a low-activity project is still useful. There are 38 pagewatchers for this one.

I see you've had another response already, above. PamD 10:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]