User talk:PsychoticInq

Hampton University

Thank you for your addition; however I feel it is too much weight for what is really a minor incident in the grand scheme of things. As I allude to in my edit summary, please view Virginia Tech and University of Texas - I think you would agree that the shootings at those schools were much more significant, yet they don't have a separate section, or infobox in the middle of an article that is a general overview of a University. Also, please see Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines for more guidance on University articles. Perhaps you can ask that project for guidance on how to best incorporate this content (if at all, I tend to think it doesn't even merit any mention in the Hampton article). --CutOffTies (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Serial killers sentenced in 2010

Category:Serial killers sentenced in 2010, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. LeSnail (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Serial killers sentenced in 2011

Here we go again, see Category:Serial killers sentenced in 2011 Hugo999 (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shadow Hare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Milford (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) 00:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Meat Cleaver Bank Robber

The article Meat Cleaver Bank Robber has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:PERPETRATOR.

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. JamesG5 (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nicolas Estemar

The article Nicolas Estemar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTNEWS

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. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Anthony Barnwell

Hello, PsychoticInq,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Anthony Barnwell should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Barnwell .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

TheLongTone (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Knife-wielding Bank Robbers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Knife-wielding Bank Robbers 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/Knife-wielding Bank Robbers 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. Mdann52 (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nicolas Estemar stabbing spree for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nicolas Estemar stabbing spree 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/Nicolas Estemar stabbing spree 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. Mdann52 (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2015 Växjö Arsons for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2015 Växjö Arsons 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/2015 Växjö Arsons 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. Mdann52 (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Murder of Susan Bezner and Jack Bezner for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of Susan Bezner and Jack Bezner 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/Murder of Susan Bezner and Jack Bezner 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. Mdann52 (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living persons and other pages in your userspace

Hello PsychoticInq. In accordance with Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, you must not create pages anywhere on Wikipedia, including your own userspace, that are unsourced and entirely negative in tone – such pages may be speedily deleted as attack pages. The importance of this policy cannot be understated, as unsourced or poorly sourced content about living persons can have an effect on their real lives. Persistent violators of the biographies of living persons policy may be blocked from editing to prevent disruption.

Additionally, please do not rehost pages that were eligible for deletion in the article space in your own userspace, such as blatant hoaxes and content deleted via a deletion discussion. Such userspace pages may also be speedily deleted under the same rationale that led them to be deleted in the mainspace. I have deleted a few pages in your userspace for these reasons. Please let me know if you have any questions. Mz7 (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PsychoticInq. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Katie^talk 13:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

PsychoticInq (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #18920 was submitted on Aug 05, 2017 07:13:52. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PsychoticInq (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was forced into a corner since all (6) my recent articles was put up for AfD and I felt like a moderator could just call their moderator friend to negate my articles if they didn't like them. I acknowledge that this is sockpuppetry and not allowed and I see that this is wrong. Please take into account that I've been on Wikipedia since late 2010 with over 200 edits when you review my request.

Decline reason:

Even if this was accurate (and it's not; see below), this still wouldn't excuse your use of sockpuppetry. That you continued after you were caught using sockpuppet accounts to attempt to mislead us with your votes, that you continued setting up additional accounts, shows you did so deliberately and maliciously, and we should not trust you. At this point, probably your best way forward would be WP:SO which requires no further sockpuppetry and no further edits at all for at least six months. Yamla (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(Non-administrator comment) I took a quick look through the AFDs of "your" articles. The vast majority of those who !voted to delete were not admins (we don't have "moderators"). The vast majority of those who !voted to keep, were you and your sockpuppets. Also, the vast majority of !voters gave clear, policy-based reasons: your articles didn't give any reasonable and sourced claims of notability (WP:GNG).

So your impression that "a moderator could just call their moderator friend to negate my articles if they didn't like them" seems to me to be unmitigated bullshit. —Wasell^(T) 12:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Standard Offer

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PsychoticInq (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's not just that it was 1,5 years since my block but also the fact that I am an amateur social scientist studying my practice (criminology) for years with great insight into the matters posted and a longtime editor with hundreds of edits - the practice of sockpuppetry was used once or twice all over the years I've posted on wikipedia. At first, quite frankly, I didn't know what sockpuppetry was and then when I saw that I was up for a sockpuppetry investigation I knew I had done wrong and have so not tried to multi-account (or otherwise manipulate wikipedia) while under this ban and have no intention to do so ever again - I would just be happy to get my account back and eager to start edit again :) PsychoticInq (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I would normally look favourably on an unblock request after 1.5 years (though as it's a checkuser block I couldn't unblock without checkuser approval). But in this case I'm just not buying the "I didn't know it was wrong to deceitfully pretend to be multiple different people in order to dishonestly sway AFD discussions". And the fact that you continued socking after you were first caught amply demonstrates that you knew perfectly well you were doing wrong. Don't your criminology studies give you any insight into basic honesty and ethics? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.