User talk:Demiurge1000/Archive 1

Images
I've left word responding to your excellent points here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blake_J._Robbins_v._Lower_Merion_School_District#Numbers_of_images. Also added a ref or two to the article, while deleting some ones not needed that led to confusion. Many tx, and great catch. Bottom line - while it would appear that the 66K number is accurate, perhaps it is less controversial (and not much different) to say "more than 58K"?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * f you could reflect your agreement on the DyK page, that would be helpful in alerting readers of that page that the issue has now been resolved for you. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. You do good work.  I look forward to working with you again in the future.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thoughts? I would have thought under wp:commonsense, wp:ignoreallrules, the fact that the key part of the hook is the new info (the 58K number), the purpose of the the rule is met.  Plus -- you, as the person raising the issue, were satisfied, and there does not seem to be a consensus to remove it.  Thoughts as to how best to proceed?  Tx for your help.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tx. Perhaps it might make sense for one of us to post at the article talk page as well, alerting editors to the discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Tx. I have great respect for those who reconsider and change their minds on matters (especially if it is towards my way of thinking .. ;) ).  As you have done here on this issue already.  I appreciate as well your last thoughtful, kind comments on my page.  My view is this -- I think that this is an area in which the common sense rule makes sense.  So I've stated it again, and why, below the decline.  My thought is to wait and see if others agree with me.  If they do, and if consensus means anything, then the matter is not dead in the water.  If they do not, then your suggested second course of action makes sense, though I'm deflated enough by the process that I'll likely wait a little bit.  The whole purpose of DYK is supposedly to create incentive in editors to create new content.  But some people perhaps can't see the principles of the matter, but just the rules.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahaha ... and hear is a paper playing it even safer ... 50,000 .... --Epeefleche (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ormulum
Thanks for the catch -- by the time I got back to the article, at least four more edits had ensued. 83d40m (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Tivoli Friheden
Perhaps it was not good idea with this nomination. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Standard of Perfection: Show Cats
You're right... my original nomination is boring. I have struck it and offered one with something directly supported by the sources and far more likely to catch a reader's eye. Thanks,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK Rules
Thanks - I was just adding my comments. Agree that the DYK page is not the place for a theoretical debate. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Encosta De Lago -Thank you
Thank for the edit, it was what was intended.Cgoodwin (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you ...
... for pointing out the bad link in my essay. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)



Malik Shabazz has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!



Apu1010 has eaten your cookie! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Re: Your comment
I noticed your thoughtful response to my comment on the noticeboard, and just a couple of quick thoughts before I go off to do the homework that I really need to be doing... Best wishes, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand your frustration as a new editor in a content dispute who found that when you were working hard to AGF, the editor who you were communicating with was violating policy.
 * I interpret many of the diffs you've posted differently than you do. For example, the first one, ("it takes a while to learn the system"), seems to be an explanation of the editor's early wiki misadventures, not of recent editing issues.  The second quotation ("there are several dedicated bullies who get away with murder by the expedient of always being exquisitely polite and never technically violating a rule") is a description of a real problem that exists on Wikipedia, civil POV-pushing.
 * The choice of words in the comment to you on the Adf discussion is unfortunate. It's quite possible, though, the editor did not realize that you were new here.  It's also likely he was frustrated that something he saw as clearly notable was getting lots of votes for deletion.  For obvious reasons, AFD discussions regarding articles on tragic events can be a bit touchy.  One of my early frustrations on Wikipedia involved creating an article about a Somali freelance photographer, Yaasir Maario, who died in a bombing in Mogadishu.  The article clearly did not satisfy the WP:VICTIM guideline, and was deleted.  I was rather upset that a tragedy involving, say, an American photographer would probably be deemed notable for the encyclopedia due to the enormous amount of press coverage that would be generated, but this tragedy was not. I can certainly relate to the sentiment behind the editor's comment, even if I think the choice of words is unfortunate.
 * I don't know the full history of this editor, and it may well be that the block is fair. In any case, it seems from their very last contribution they'd left for good before they got blocked, so discussing what to do now about their accounts does not seem to have much point...
 * I hope you are not still frustrated based on your interaction with this editor.

London parade 1946
Ok sorry about deleting your edits. I dunno how to manoeuvre here yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.199.139 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the belly laugh
"I'll stick with 'he who must not be named' in future, I suppose." I haven't laughed wholeheartedly many times over what I've read on-wiki, but your comment did the trick. Very, very funny. Thanks! – OhioStandard  (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Question
Thanks for adding your input on the Greg Hicks article talk page. I noticed that the POV tag is still on the article page. Did you mean to leave it? If so then no problem. I was just confused because I thought that your note was okay with its removal. Thus, I thought that I would double check with you. Thanks again for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 01:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the reply. That makes sense to me. Again I appreciate your time in this. MarnetteD | Talk 01:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Personal attack"?!
I have the right to defend my homeland and kill hostile invaders who occupy my home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawsradio2 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. How is that relevant? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

pictures: cyprus main article
I have removed the pictures on the basis that no 1: for an island that is looking towards reunification such images are reminiscent of a sad past: no 2. i haven't seen any pictures on the USA article for instance of killings of indian aboriginals (to give an example) nor any images from concentration camps and killings on the Gemany article. Such images are disturbing and should not appear on the main article. Furthermore there is no actual proof that such killings took place neither do we know if those images are real.

Regarding the mosque pictures: This is a Republic of Cyprus article, the only legal entity according to the UN in the island, that in reality controls only the Greek part of the island. There are practically no muslims living in the south of the island hence a mosque appearing in the religion section is at a minimum absurd. Apart from that, inserting images of mosques and naming the mosques when in reality they are Frankish medieval christian cathedrals and OMITTING to mention that is NOT acceptable. This is not a propaganda page but a page on a country in an online encyclopedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgoos (talk • contribs) 18:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

star
Hi, thanks for your questions and edits as regards Porter BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Rick Scott
Likely needs attention for sure - look at latest "edit summary". Collect (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Users talk page guidelines
are here. Please take a look at those. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Every time you edit a user's talk page (including mine), it links you very clearly at the top of the page to the talk page guidelines which are at exactly the wikilink I gave you. Even the policy at the link you have just provided directs the user to the talk page guidelines. The policy at your link also contains the text If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests - I have received no such request. What are you not understanding here?


 * I am not going to take this any further since prior experience suggests that it is unlikely to achieve anything. However, I do advise you to exercise considerably more caution in accusing other editors of vandalism. You may boast about the size of your block log elsewhere, but you shouldn't assume that people will put up with incivility indefinitely.


 * --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology (Technical University)
Hi! I want to ask You, why were You undid my last editions in the MIET article?

So, is it contrary to the rules of Wikipedia??


 * Firstly, as it said in Manual of Style (linking), “Do not be afraid to create links to potential articles that do not yet exist (see Red links below).”
 * In fact the phrase “National Research University” before the name of the university must exist, as it said at official website, in my opinion, since it is one way of expressing the status of the university.
 * Especially because with the removal this phrase, the first paragraph of article brought to the absurd: a reduction from “National Research University” still indicates. Plus in russian language also indicated: the full status and abbreviated. Plus title Soviet Silicon Valley changed to Soviet Silicon Valley. --Ksaine (user talk · user contributions) 21:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: Please, answer this in my discussion pag, please and answer please to the questions at my discussion page, at last dialogue. Thank You. --Ksaine (user talk · user contributions) 21:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:3RR concerning Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology (Technical University)
Plz, specify my incorrect edits (from 3RR and your PoV) more exactly or exclude my correct edits. I understand, that some of my edits are not obvious. But do I need to explain why full date are unwikilinked and sup-categories are removed? Or, are you talking about official names and acronyms?

Or, plz, specify aspects of article which are disputed and which are non-disputed from en-wiki principles and/or your PoV.

Or, plz, specify version of article from which edits must be discussed. Alex Spade (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:3RR does not "exclude correct edits". It applies to all edits that revert what an earlier editor has changed, except in specific cases such as reverting obvious vandalism. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that you didn't understand me. I didn't ask, why did you thinked, that I was close to 3RR? I ask you, what does we need to discuss?
 * Well. Let me try another way and ask you some simple question about en-wiki principles (which are not required any knowledges about MIET or Russia).
 * (1) Should I explain why full date are unwikilinked? How? Or you can do it (explain or/and unwikilink) as neutral editor.
 * (2) Should I explain why sup-category are removed? (Sup-category is Category:Universities in Russia for Category:Universities in Moscow). Or you can do it (explain or/and remove) as neutral editor.
 * (3) Should I explain why uncreated category are removed? Or you do it (explain or/and remove/create) as neutral editor. Alex Spade (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Which noticeboard should I use instead? 93.97.59.17 (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This one. http://www.microsoft.com/communities/forums/default.mspx --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the corrections on this edit. Take Care... Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 03:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. It probably makes a nice change for someone to edit your userspace pages while not vandalising them :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair
User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Alpha Quadrant   talk    01:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey
I think you need to talk to TropicalAnalystwx13 about a few things.

Firstly, he should not be tagging his (and other people's) sandboxes with WikiProject tags. This has happened on more than one occasion.

Secondly, you really need to have a good talk to him about citing sources and original research, cf. List of Category 3 Atlantic hurricanes, which he started in article space then moved to User:TropicalAnalystwx13/Sandbox7. The entire thing as it stands is very bad OR.

Finally, please talk to him about his signature. It's useless when there aren't any links to his user or usertalk pages in it.

Sorry to be a bother. Thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 02:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, but I will be addressing one thing at a time :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:TropicalAnalystwx13/Sandbox&curid=29672060&diff=398341328&oldid=398335958 *headdesk* Looks like consensus is another thing he needs teaching about. StrPby (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it just looks like a question. I've just answered it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Keep is winning"? There is no such thing as one side or another "winning" a deletion debate. I do buy that, anyway, and I saw that line as not understanding how the debates and consensus works - not only on numbers but on strength of argument. StrPby (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I saw the main issue as being the assumption that if !votes are strongly towards keeping the article, then the discussion can be abandoned early. Which in this case it can't, since there's at least one serious !vote in favour of deletion, or two if you count yours.


 * To add to the confusion, the nature of the article (and therefore the nature of the problem) seems to be changing repeatedly while the mfd is open. When the mfd was opened, the article was basically a copy of some old version of the real 2010 Atlantic hurricane season article, with some material added, presumably as part of testing. He then blanked just about all of this content, which I saw as a positive sign and a step in the right direction. As of sometime today or yesterday, there now seems to be new fictional material being added about 2011. Anyway I'm about to go ask him about this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As he has now addressed all the issues constructively, I have withdrawn the MFD. I have also warned him that this doesn't give him the right to edit that page in such a way that it ends up violating the guidelines again; I suspect that might end up being classed as disruptive editing. Best, Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 08:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ian's talk page
I meant the constant chatting and providing irrelevant personal information. I n k a 888 04:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, just like is all over most users' userpages and talkpages... and just like the numerous Wikipedia users who chose to come to his talk page to chat with him. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair


Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Alpha Quadrant   talk    21:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have recreated the page here for you User talk:GiacomoReturned/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair please feel free to copy it back into your user space. I am more than happy for it to be widely seen.  Giacomo   23:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Belated thanks for the template, AQ. However, as I pointed out here, the page is not an attack page; it "comments - through humour - on a viewpoint or set of viewpoints. Not on an individual. It is totally in the spirit of commenting on content, not on the contributor". A concensus was reached at MfD that the page did not require deletion, and the page was kept. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
Hello I am Apiel51 (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC). I am representing a group of students deciding to edit the article the Virginia Plan. We would like your help with this. How should we start?


 * Replied here: User talk:Apiel51 --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello this is Wikipedian107 and I also am a member of team 2b at Southern Lehigh. As you already know we are going to edit the Separation of Powers; so if you have any questions or comments please post tips on my Discussion Page. Thank you and hope to hear from you soon! -Wikipedian107 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedian107 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Replied here: User talk:Wikipedian107 --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Soccermonkey3
Hello````, Im from Southern Lehigh Middle School Im doing a project and want to know if you could help. Our project is on separations of powers. Looking at your wall you seem to be very knowledgeable about this topic. Do you think you can help us???????????? thanks ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccermonkey3 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Replied here: User talk:Soccermonkey3 --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi I'm Schaffere (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC) from Southern Lehigh Middle School in Center Valley, Pennsylvania, USA. We are interested in improving the Civics article for our group's social studies project. Our group was wondering if you might want to help us edit this page. Examining your page it seems to appear you are a very reliable and knowledgeable ambassador that might be willing to contribute to this project. Do you think you may be able to assist us? Thank You!


 * Replied on your talk page here: User talk:Schaffere --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP - thanks
Thanks very much for your help there. I have further queried whether the material in question should be permanently removed; I've also noted the template uw-biog3 that you used! Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Michigan student projects
I see that you are helping out with the Michigan student-essay business in Wikipedia-Chemistry. I urge caution, and hope that you can guide this changing consortium and/or individuals to cooperate within the spirit of WIkipedia. Here are some problems that I see: --Smokefoot (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (i) the group takes an all or nothing approach, uploading OVER other articles whereas 99.9% editing in Wikipedia of course is done by improving bits and peices.
 * (ii) the group apparently has a strong sense of "ownership" of their articles, fending off other edits and refusing to discuss the idea of integrating content vs their scorched earth approach to editing.
 * (iii) when one tries to edit "Michigan articles," one gets back messages from a committee (!!, not an individual) like this: "I don't think that they .... There are a lot more details that we could add to the migratory insertion" So any wikipedia editor is contending with some sort of consortium plus their teacher.  Very complicated process that impedes article improvement.


 * A slight misunderstanding here - I'm not involved with the Michigan/Chemistry project, I was just asking for feedback from someone who had encountered problems that the group I'm helping might also run into. The project I'm involved in helping with is located here. I will however keep your points in mind and I'll also feed them back to the project, because I think all three tendencies are possible with student group projects at any level. In fact, one of the main complications, thinking ahead, is precisely that the group intends to copy existing articles to a user sub-page sandbox to work on them then move them back, with the intention of avoiding excessive disruption. EdChem has pointed out to me that this needs to be handled with considerable care to avoid trampling on existing work. I'm not sure how open to change this is, but, is it your feeling that the student editors, once they've experimented with wiki-editing in a sandbox, would be better off editing the live mainspace article directly to make their improvements, rather than copying/moving articles to and from a sandbox to produce the final result? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Trampling" is precisely their technique. And the level of non-cooperation post-trampling has been revealing, i.e. reverts when confronted with of silly mistakes. So to my mind, if you and other good samaritans succeed in rescuing content from this consortium, then you inflict this tag-team and their poor behavior on diligent, long-term editors (like me) who follow rules and seek consensus.  I don't see the point in rewarding bad behavior, past and anticipated.  But good luck and best wishes. --Smokefoot (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Daedalus969 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sigh
Hey. It's about 1867 Atlantic hurricane season, aka User:TropicalAnalystwx13/Sandbox7. Without wanting to be too WP:BITEy towards him, I've tagged the article for needing more sources and original research. I'm sorry, but just three incline citations from two sources throughout that entire article just screams "original research". You need to talk to him about using sources and citing them. Have a good holiday season. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I mentioned to him (before your note) that I think he has moved the article into mainspace a little too early. There are actually quite a lot of sources (see the talk page) and what's currently in the article is far from OR - even if it may look like it right now. I was going to work with him on actually citing the sources (which should happen at the same time as the material is written, but, for whatever reason, hasn't this time), but then he wanted to work on some other sandbox, then he was ill for a while, then it got moved into mainspace, now I will probably be away for a few days. Anyway another member of the tropical cyclones wikiproject has agreed to do some work on the article, and I'm quite confident it will get dealt with one way or another. In terms of sourcing it is probably an improvement on existing Wikipedia content on that year's weather, even in its current form, so I don't see it as a huge crisis. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I'll leave the tags up until they've been properly sourced but my concerns have somewhat been assuaged by your response. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 02:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What about the 1870 Atlantic hurricane season? There is only two references on that article, and there is no problem with it. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * True, but that article is much shorter and therefore doesn't look as concerning in terms of possible OR or needing more sources. Also, it was mostly written in 2008 when requirements for sourcing were not as strict... and it's worth noting that concerns about OR were raised in that article's edit history too. It could certainly be improved by adding more sources. But anyway, it doesn't change the fact that the 1867 article is supported by more sources than are listed in the article at present - so we need to get round to citing them sometime. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting request
Hi. I'm wondering if you can help me with an article I'm working on to prepare it for GAC, Malmö FF. I've already put out a request at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests but I noticed that you are a british native, I've decided to go for the british norm in verb form and spelling of some words so I think your help would improve the article. I´m myself a native Swedish speaker so there might be some mistakes that I've made which is why the article needs copyediting. I would really appreciate your help! If so please confirm that you're working on it at the guild of copy editors request page. Thank You! --Reckless182 (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I will start work on this one once I've finished closing off the previous article I was copy-editing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot man! Let me know if you have any questions regarding the subject of the article. Happy copy-editing!--Reckless182 (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've not made any progress on this yet, I got overwhelmed with some other things. If certain technical issues allow, I'm hoping to get this done sometime roundabout 26th December. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problems! Just inform me if you have any problems completing it for a longer time. Merry Christmas! --Reckless182 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a small comment, in the "Early years" section of the "History" section you changed "Malmö IP" to "Malmö IP stadium". In "Malmö IP" IP stands for "Idrottsplats" which means a place for sports or a smaller stadium. Therefore "Malmö IP stadium" sounds wrong for the Swedish reader, perhaps it could be changed to "Malmö Idrottsplats" in the article or back to just "Malmö IP"? Change it to what you think would be best or write me here and I'll change it. Other than this the changes you've made this far looks very good.--Reckless182 (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I can see how that would sound wrong. I will have a think about an alternative wording. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tried a new wording for the first sentence of this section. Let me know what you think. I've also done half a dozen or so additional tweaks today, and some more copyediting yesterday, so the copyedit is now complete. If there are any future revisions that you'd like me to check over, just let me know. Otherwise, good luck with the GA review! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the new wording sounds fine. If I make any larger changes of the article in the future I will let you know and perhaps you can help me. Thank you very much for your help! Hopefully the article will reach GA status and then FA later on. Again, thanks!--Reckless182 (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 Sylvania 300
Thank you for your hard work on the article; it was needed. Also, what do you think of its chances at FAC? I'm planning to nominate soon, but first I'll need to review that problem in the Post-race section. Thanks again and happy editing.  Nascar  1996   02:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, now that's an interesting question. Not that I'm much of an expert on it, but give me a day or two and I will type out my thoughts here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Slightly later than planned, here are some thoughts on that.....


 * As far as I can tell (I may have missed something), there are no NASCAR race articles that are featured articles. This may be a hint that it will be far from easy. Anyway, as the nearest thing, I took a look at some of the Featured Articles on specific races over at WikiProject Formula One. However, I paid less attention to the structure and balance used in the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix and 2005 United States Grand Prix articles, because the extreme events connected with those two races meant much more weight was put onto other things.


 * Looking at the other Featured Articles on individual races there, there are some differences that may be worth picking up on. One thing is that the "Race" section of the 2010 Sylvania article is still very matter-of-fact and descriptive. I realise that's hard to avoid since you want to have an accurate description of the events of the race, but it is still worth looking at ways of adding variety. Something that is noticeable in the existing Featured Articles, compared with the Sylvania article, is that there tends to be more discussion of strategy, tactics, cause and effect. Not just who overtook whom and who moved up and down places, but more about why it happened, what tactics or strategy the driver(s) were (supposedly) trying to use and why it did or didn't work. Just from looking briefly at some of the sources you've already used, they do discuss aspects of this in more detail. Introducing more material like this might also help to reduce the extent to which that section (and indeed the whole article) relies on nascar.com as a source.


 * The other thing I notice is that most of those Featured Articles include items of commentary, usually in the form of quotes, from individuals not involved in the race. Examples might be well-known commentators from major media organizations, or uninvolved drivers or former drivers who have commented on the race. (The latter can be quite numerous because media organizations often pay them to get involved in commentary as "experts" - whether it's TV or newspapers or whatever.) Material like this is most commonly found in the "Post-Race" section. Take a look at the F1 Featured Articles to get an idea what I mean.


 * If you make any significant changes based on this (or anything else), feel free to drop me a note and I can copyedit the updated version too.


 * I'm also going to ask a motorsport journalist if he has any suggestions, although he may not have time and he isn't familiar with Wikipedia requirements (he's never covered NASCAR either, as far as I can remember.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am about to change the article (if I am able to), which I have just delinked all the not needed links. So hopefully by next April this will be featured. Thanks for your suggestions.  Nascar  1996   19:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * One extra note. At present, the article (correctly, I feel) mentions almost all of the drivers by their last name only, after they have been mentioned for the first time. The exception (apart from the two siblings in the race) is Dale Earnhardt, Jr., who is mostly referred to as "Dale Earnhardt, Jr". This feels slightly awkward to me. Since I think Earnhardt Sr is not mentioned in the article at all, I would suggest referring to Earnhardt Jr as "Dale Earnhardt, Jr" the first time he is mentioned, and then just "Earnhardt" after that. The MOS doesn't seem to cover this, but it seems the best way to me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge article
Hello I noticed you are named Demiurge. I have been working off and on for some time on the actual demiurge article. I was wondering if I could get you to contribute to the article? I have a very hard time expressing the actually meaning of Demiurge (i.e. the pagan God as consciousness) and getting that articulated to the article as there is the difference between the arche and the consciousness (dyad, demiurge, nous) that is rooted in the perception that no God can ever relate to mankind without being anthropomorphic in it's thoughts (logos), and essence, for example Philo of Alexandria).

Which of course is rejected by the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God (yes in Greek he's called the creator but that's linguistics for you) whom is incomprehensible in his ability to create from nothing (i.e. not anthropomorphic). However the closer to reason or logical a person (in paganism) the more sane they are, and therefore to malign the nous (demiurge) is to promote insanity (at least in Pagan philosophy). Some of the early pagans it appears had kinda of boxed in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God as a (creator, demiurge) that shared the same limits (anthropromorphism) as their creator Gods and they had a set of "ideas" that undid the holding of such a being in the highest esteem. As there was much criticism of Zeus for example. This is very complicated and I would like to stop working on the article.

Somehow this understanding and distinction needs to be added to the article and I am at a loss as to make that happen. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I greatly enjoyed reading a number of Wikipedia articles on the demiurge concept and its relation to various heresies and offshoots of the Christian church. In particular, I had been unaware that various Christian groups at various points considered a "Creator" to be neutral, misguided or evil, and the benevolent God to be a separate entity. I did read all of this before I created this account (Demiurge1000) but the inspiration for the username came more from the original Greek meaning of the word demiurge, "craftsman" or just "worker".


 * Unfortunately my academic background in philosophy took a very long break between Plato and Descartes (I would have missed out Descartes too, but it was required study) so I don't have the in depth knowledge of the relevant periods, or indeed access to the relevant literature, required to carry out any major work on the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Your actions at my talk page
Hi, Demiurge1000. May I please ask you to review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, and to stay off my talk page? Thanks. Warm regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, WP:DTR is an essay (not a guideline or a policy) giving advice on how to deal with editors who are already aware of Wikipedia policies. I felt that some aspects of your behaviour on Wikipedia give the impression that you're unaware of some of the policies we have about staying civil towards other users. I certainly wouldn't want to assume that you're just deliberately ignoring those policies, after all.


 * What Don't template the regulars says is that "an amicable resolution to the problem is going to require a human explanation" and "A personal message tends to work better in these situations". It then goes on to recommend "you can append a personal message immediately after the template" as an option to achieve this. Take a look at my message again. You'll see that is exactly what I did - including a personal message written to explain to you exactly what the problem was, and offering some advice on how to better deal with situations like the one you found yourself in.


 * Now, I see you've already swept away to your archive my advice and a reply you made to it, one minute after you made the reply, and thus before I had time to read your reply, much less reply to it. So I'll reply here. The link to an old ANI archive that you provided, does not indicate that it's acceptable to alter section headings made by other editors in order to accuse them of lying. (Lar hadn't been quite that specific, in any case.) It merely indicated that some editors did not consider the issue needed administrator action at that time.


 * I will re-iterate my advice to you. Try to deal with other editors in a way that reduces, not exacerbates, confrontations. Consider editing in topic areas that don't cause disputes and upset for you. Good luck! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, much appreciated. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

wording
i've never started a ban proposal, hope i'll never have to again; feel free to change the flippant wording @ANI if you like. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's OK, I think everyone understands the frustration of dealing with the guy, and that the justification for the ban is well established without further explanation. My only (very slight) concern was that AN/I frequently gets criticised for being "a huge pile on" (implying some sort of unfairness or "mobbing"), so someone reading over it quickly without checking the background, might have got the wrong idea.


 * Probably not a good idea to change the wording now, as it risks the ban being challenged later since we'd be changing it after people already !voted. It's not a big issue. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Didn't last long
The one user should not have posted that he was going to contact the parents, and the other user should not have asked the totally stupid question of why he was going to do that. In fact, the name of the minor is still within that user's rambling essay, last I looked. The entire page (except for the block notice) should be rubbed out and full-protected. Why the admins have not taken that action already, I have no clue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you were fanning the flames of the foolishness a bit unnecessarily. If you really thought it was a troll, you (and others) shouldn't have been feeding it. Although I can see why you were annoyed with the person. Anyway it seems all taken care of now, I imagine there has been some off-wiki discussion to reach this conclusion - in fact after one of the comments earlier today I was thinking of prompting some off-wiki discussion myself, but I decided it would happen in due course and it has. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I expect there was, and it's been done now, so all's swell. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD Nomination of Da Gryptions
As you are the one who PRODded the above article, I thought I should alert you to the AfD. Thank you in advance for any comments you make there. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 04:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. It seems to have got somewhat borderline during the time elapsed between the PROD and the AfD, so it will be interesting to see how it turns out. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Not Vandalism
That edit I made: It wasn't vandalism, it was an expression of angst over the state of batch production in this world! GMANTHETRUTH (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Oh, I see. Well, the best thing to do would be to copy some of the contents of the batch production article to the sandbox, and then express your rage there, rather than doing it on the article itself. However, Wikipedia is not therapy so it may be a good idea to try a website like Wikia where you would have more leeway to discuss your concerns regarding batch production with other like-minded people who also have difficulties with it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
I am very glad to read that you have removed deletion tag from Sheikh Omar Hayat. I hope you will really help me in the future or not...?

--—just feel it (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I am happy to help any time, just let me know. However, the article about Sheikh Omar Hayat is still very lacking in reliable secondary sources, and I haven't been able to find any with web searches either. So you may have a considerable challenge to improve the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
 * Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
 * Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
 * Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
 * Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
 * Please read Help:Reverting and Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
 * You can test Rollback at New admin school/Rollback
 * You may wish to display the User wikipedia/rollback userbox and/or the Rollback top icon on your user page
 * If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks HJ! I will exercise all due caution :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Student projects - attribution and licensing
Hello. I noticed your inquiry at EdChem's talk page. For a similar situation and the solution used in that case, you might wish to read Talk:Nominated Member of Parliament. - Station1 (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military History project
 Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
 * If you have an idea for improving the project, we have a strategy think tank that provides a dedicated forum for discussing it.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors
I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. It's certainly something I will consider in the future, but I had probably not take on any extra at the moment, as I'm already mentoring two editors plus involvement in mentoring groups of students in another project over at WP:SUP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

RfA vote
I would just like to point out that the article is not unreferenced. It doesn't have inline citations, however. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Replied at the RfA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Beth S. Green
I am currently addressing the citations and other issues needed to correct the page for Beth S. Green. Please give me a few days to make these corrections so we can avoid a deletion of the page. Thank you.

Drmidi2010 (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: HMS Nimble
I reverted your change. All (or least it seems to be all) of the sources I've been looking at on the interception of slave ships by the Royal Navy and the U.S. Navy refer to "recaptured Africans". I know it's an awkward term, but it appears that the Africans taken from illegal slave ships had an unsettled status until they were declared emancipated by an appropriate authority, which in the case of Nimble was the British-Spanish Mixed Commission Court in Havana, or the equivalent British-Portuguese court in Sierra Leone. For one thing, only the importation of slaves from another country was forbidden. Existing slaves could still be moved by ship. The Spanish/Cubans claimed that the slaves on the Amistad were legal slaves, not newly imported, and if the courts had decided that was true, the Amistad slaves would have had to be returned to Cuba. I'm thinking about looking into whether there is enough substance to the concept to create an article. It may also be covered in some existing article, and if I can find a suitable article, I'll link "recaptured" to it. -- Donald Albury 01:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

ARBCOM about recent AN/I
There is an ARBCOM request which is related to an AN/I thread you recently participated. You may be interested in the discussion. -- Cycl o pia talk 10:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Gluckman
Hello Demiurge1000: Many thanks for your reply, and all the links, in response to my query about how to fix the wikipedia page about a living person, namely myself (in subject line). Wikipedia is a fantastic site, that I've referenced often in my work as a journalist (and in life generally). Its workings, all the volunteers and dialogue and collaboration is absolutely fascinating. But the coding and procedures are totally beyond me (and apologies if I've mucked this reply up, but I'm so old world, I cannot let your kind note pass without acknowledgement and thanks.) In any case, I think the wiki guidelines are right - people really shouldn't edit their own pages. Best wishes....ron gluckman Rongluckman (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC) (hope that was right?) Rongluckman (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

common on WP alas
Listing of dismissed charges is entirely too common -- see David Copperfield (illusionist) for a clear example (the "rape charges" stuff) (and the older edits were far worse). BLP needs to be strictly enforced IMHO. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Richard Boyd Barrett
Please do not perform disruptive editing of Wikipedia articles, as you did to Richard Boyd Barrett. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Before making such claims I think you would be better off participating at the talk page for the article, as I already requested you to do, or reviewing the discussion of this topic at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Richard Boyd Barrett, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The warning you gave me on Viticulturist99 (talk) was a frivolous warning. I haven't done a single reversion but kept editing and improving the article according to the consensus finally reached on the talk page. Your intervention amounts to censorship if not to harrassment. Wikipedia is not not censored. Please stop. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An uninvolved administrator commented on the above edit here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Demiurge, I would appreciate some guidance re adding material to the RBB page, I have lots of well sourced additions to make, and would like to know where I can get some help re properly inserting references etc Dave Lordan (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh
Please read my last comment in this Rfc. Is wikipedia a dealing company ?!!! Now that I have discovered it, the author should have his own article. *** in fact ***   ( contact )  11:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Mithras article
I've just had a note from you that I am engaged in an edit war. If you have the power, can I ask you to lock the article? I wrote most of the Mithras article. For the last week one user, "CivilisedEducation", has been trying to change it to reflect some POV of his own. He knows nothing about Mithras, and he won't discuss sensibly the objections of those of us who have been working on it for years. I asked for the article to be locked, and wrote a list of the changes for discussion on the talk page. This was ignored, and an edit war commenced. You're attacking the victim here! Can you help? Roger Pearse (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can try, but this particular issue has all the hallmarks of something that is not going to be dealt with easily. First of all, I can see that CivilisedEducation is edit warring just as much as you are - I left him an identical message to the one I left for you. I think there is a lot of frustration on your part because it is your perception that someone who has not studied the topic, is trying to put non-scholarly information in an article that you are largely responsible for writing.
 * I saw your request at AN/I to fully protect the article. I don't think full protection is likely to happen - at least, not for any significant period of time - just from a request there. If one of you gets reported for edit warring, the article might end up fully protected from that, but only for a few days; or it might get one or both of you blocked for a few days.
 * Much better than either of those options is to seek some form of dispute resolution. You may find this frustrating in the sense that it involves bringing in another person who probably won't have a scholarly knowledge of the topic (or indeed any knowledge of the topic) and may not see things the same way you do. However, it's better than just letting the edit war spiral downwards into outright disaster or just giving up in disgust.
 * Looking at the links at WP:SEEKHELP I'm not sure any of them will produce results for this sort of dispute, so I'm going to ask for help at Mediation_Cabal and see where that takes us.
 * Incidentally, my undergraduate degree was Lit Hum, so I spent a lot of time in the Philosophy Library on Merton Street. But I think most of what I know about Mithras comes from the pre-GCSE Latin studies... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your note, and your intervention. You hit the nail on the head, of course.  I do try not to bite newcomers to the article -- it is not 'mine' after all, and, hey, I keep hoping someone interested in iconography will come along and rework that bit (because I fall asleep when I read about that).  You are right that I feel a little frustrated, and why.  Both I and Tom Hennell did write at some length to try to reason with the poster, that downgrading the quality of sources was not the way to do things. So yes, a third party would be wonderful!-- glad to take a steer from anyone who actually wants to have good quality articles, in fact.  I'm not sure how these things work.
 * I realised earlier this evening that an edit war was imminent, so I posted the request for protection in an attempt to force some discussion by giving a motive for all sides to reach consensus. To facilitate this, I went back to the last sound version and digested the changes into a list of proposals.  Not that anyone looked at it, it turned out!  Didn't work, because the lock didn't happen; so just precipitated the edit war. (My alternative was simply to allow the page to be wrecked, so what was there to lose?)  Oh well.
 * You lucky soul, to read Lit Hum. Wouldn't it be nice to back there now?  I read Chemistry, rather than classics, although funnily enough I owe my interest in primary sources to the volumes of the Loebs in Merton library.
 * Thanks for your calming words. They have quietened my soul, so to speak.  (I don't use my PC on Sundays, so will pick this up Mon.)  Roger Pearse (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Answer
yes, i am part of User:Wikipedian107 's team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apu1010 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

blocked
THe information on the Academy at Lincoln page is incorrect. Trey [surname redacted] was voted top conceited debater by the class not top debater, and he himself creating the page put false informmation up to make himself look better. 2.20.11 Kittyhalt (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it unlikely an official class vote was held to that effect... so you had better be careful of our policy about what you say about living persons, unless you can provide a reliable source.


 * Anyway the article shouldn't be mentioning individual students or teachers apart from the principal, unless they are notable in their own right. So that will get fixed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:WPSCH
Thanks for correcting the obvious cut and paste error that was a result of a lot of improvement to the page; next time consider leaving the sarcasm out of the edit summary. --Kudpung (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

CLEANSTART
On cleanstart now. -- Perseus  8235 16:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The Academy at Lincoln
I have tried to follow much of your advice and I am still working on other thing that you have mentioned, thanks for all your help. Right now though I am really confused, on all of the categories that is is in it shows up under the M section and I really have no idea why can you help? Thanks. @ d \/\/ | | | ,~Adwiii -[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adwiii Questions? Comments? ] 02:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, how odd. I will try and work out why that is. (It might take me until tomorrow though.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I figured out why, when I was putting in categories I accidentally put one of the category names in the default short (i had put in middle school as the default short) I fixed it and it should work now. Thanks again for your help. @ d \/\/ | | | ,~Adwiii -Questions? Comments? 02:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment
Basically, I think we are looking at a case of WP:CIR. Frank &#124;  talk  04:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying to explain, but the first thing that strikes the eye in WP:CIR is where it mentions "major disruption". And I'm not seeing major disruption. And the next sentence after that is where it mentions "bull in a china shop" ... well the closest thing to that, as far as I can see right now, is the charging around after a particular individual and trying to pick apart relatively untroublesome aspects of what they do.


 * "it doesn't matter much whether someone's disruption is due to mischief or incompetence" ... well you could characterise some things as mischievous or mildly annoying, but I'm not seeing anything that can reasonably be characterised as actual disruption. What am I missing? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The first diff I linked limits the list of users this could be to about 100 who had already supported a particular RfA, essentially rendering the thought of a clean start moot (like you, I've limited the actual number to exactly 1). Diff #2, going right back to RfA, is editing in previous areas; not strictly forbidden, but definitely not in the spirit of cleanstart. #3 is announcing to the world the very thing that cleanstart is supposed to avoid - that you are really making a clean start. And #4 is a direct copy from a previous account...and announced as such in its edit summary. There are more; I could find the diff accusing an editor of sockpuppetry but you could find it as well if you're interested. We are dealing with a user who just doesn't get it.
 * Disruption can be a bit of a slippery concept, I admit. But one way to define it is to note how much time is being taken away from editors' other pursuits to follow along behind someone who definitely needs supervision. When you have multiple experienced editors watchlisting a user and finding many things to scrutinize and then comment on or revise, and these things keep happening, you have what I consider to be a textbook definition of disruption. A user who has repeatedly requested his user page to be deleted and then fills it with the same stuff is also disruptive. (I question why that was ever done, really.) A user who retires and then returns hours later is disruptive. When other editors start having discussions about using REVDEL to limit the scope of edits that should never have happened in the first place, that's disruptive. Frank  &#124;  talk  13:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This looks pretty disruptive to me...what do you think? Frank  &#124;  talk  20:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At first glance, it looks very disruptive.


 * At second glance, it looks like... A GIANT DUCK.


 * That page is only kept to be humorous, it looks like the edit was entirely in keeping with that intention. However, maybe you and I should both head right over there and engage in a righteous edit war to keep the duck-size under control? Its huge glaring red eye is kinda scaring me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point...the change made the image so large that it is really not visible on any human-sized monitor. It was a fairly disruptive edit. Regarding edit warring...you can plainly see I neither changed it nor even commented except to you. My point was to give you another data point. We are definitely dealing with WP:CIR here. Frank  &#124;  talk  22:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * it is really not visible on any human-sized monitor No, I didn't miss that at all. Thus my comment about how it looked at first glance. Perhaps that was part of the "humour" intended by the edit, not incompatible with the "humour" of the page itself, which openly declares itself to be humorous only to a select few?


 * Before the edit, the page was really not meaningful on any human-sized monitor. Should I therefore accuse Egg Centric of WP:CIR ? Should I try to promote WP:CIR to a policy (skipping guideline along the way)? Don't you see how silly this sounds?


 * Just incidentally, WP:CIR has been through AfD at least once, when I voted to keep it. But the rationale of many of those who voted to keep it, including myself, was that it is not useful for, and should not be used for, this sort of targetting of another editor.


 * As for "dealing with" it, as far as I can see, 28bytes is the only person that is assisting me with dealing with it on the talk page of the user concerned right now. It's odd that some other people who were so vocal before, so suddenly vanish when it looks like there is even a tiny chance that things might be improved and the encyclopedia might ultimately benefit.


 * I encourage and exhort you to go there right now and suggest an additional ground rule - one that's specific, reasonable, fair, and useful. But please, not one about about whether giant ducks that are only kept because they're humorous, are too big or too small. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have monitored the list thus far and find nothing that needs to be added at this time. I will consider it a success if a majority of them are followed, and I don't need to get further involved in trying to make that happen. Furthermore, I think that the list is already a bit long, so if I did think of something, I would expressly not add it at this time for fear of being overly intimidating. It appears to me you've misconstrued my involvement in the first place, and further that you feel I am looking for reasons to wield a large stick. Nothing could be further from the truth; I've steadfastly avoided being heavy-handed in any way. If you look through this user's histories, you'll see that I've applied gentle reminders and admonitions all along the way. And, of course, giant ducks are not the point; you know that. Frank &#124;  talk  23:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my slightly anatidaecentric comments. I do understand that what you're trying to achieve is to point out where you consider things to be not going right. I may be slightly too cynical in my assumptions about why others are not suggesting more ground rules.


 * Then again, I may not! I still think there is a major disconnect between the approach of the people who followed the user to his new account in order to point out the (many) ways in which his move and his subsequent edits were not quite perfect, and the approach of the people who think that obsessing over such is the bull in the china shop mentioned in WP:CIR, and that in fact most of the disruption is actually caused by that bullish behaviour.


 * You (or at least, some people) think that the time wasted has been wasted because he messed up a "cleanstart" and people therefore "had to" follow him there and spend time telling him all about it and debating it with me and other people. (I mean, gosh, what would have happened if they had not followed him there, or had waited 24 hours? Would the encyclopedia have been destroyed? Would he be in grave danger?) I think that the time wasted has partly or largely been wasted because once people followed him there, they felt they had to tell him all about how he hadn't done it right. That was the basis of my original comments about it being made more difficult than it had to be. Perhaps the reality of it is somewhere in the middle.


 * I've suggested that his parents look at all this, and to be honest, the average parent will look at our obsessive nitpicking over whether his actions meet the exact required definitions of some policy or other, and quite rightly tell him that we are a bunch of weird internet people that he should view with considerable caution.


 * I do appreciate your efforts to help with this (and your pointing out my mistake about hotmail/live.com/mail.com merrily giving out everyone's IP address again) but I think we will still have disagreements over the extent to which random silly non-vandalism edits - even in numbers greater than five per day - constitute a risk to, or potential damage to, the encyclopedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A well-measured reply. Thanks. I don't see myself specifically so clearly in what you've written, but I do see the general direction you've described, so there's little reason to try to quantify "how much" of what you wrote is spot-on. But for me, the bottom line is not risk or damage so much as pure time-wasting. I recognize very clearly that some wasted time (as in this case) is partly the choice of the one actually wasting it. The issue here is more about productivity. If several people spend time watching and/or undoing things, that is not necessarily a detriment to the encyclopedia in terms of risk or danger, but if something isn't improved when it otherwise could have been, or if some other user isn't helped when s/he otherwise could have been, that is a something that fails to improve the encyclopedia.


 * I think you will not find very many editors who are as patient with newbies as I am. I can, unfortunately, name several who I bent over backwards for in order to bring them into the fold. In more than one case, people said things like "indef and move on". Unfortunately, that often wound up being the end result, despite effort to avoid it. I suppose what I'm saying here is that I see that as a very real possibility here. Having seen the pattern before, I recognize it when I see it again. I'm not saying it is pre-ordained, but...it's certainly possible. Frank  &#124;  talk  00:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, indeed. (My reply partly related to you and partly to some other people in different proportions, and I was writing an foolishly long email to one of those people at the same time, so it was something of a mishmash, as I partly implied.) I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm spending my time (over there) right now because I think my approach is sure to "work" - it's had only some dozens of minutes of apparent success, interspaced with moments of OMG WHAT DID HE DO NOW and WHAT IS THAT DUCK DOING HERE which were not exactly stress-relieving.


 * Sadly not everyone ends up staying here - for whatever reason. If one chooses to get involved in these things, then one needs to accept that. Yep, it's annoying sometimes.


 * But I still have the naivete to say that, if you tell someone they need to stop doing a certain thing, and they say "hmm... OK", then there is hope. Not a blinding flash of absolute certainty of salvation; not a reassurance that there won't be absurdly sized ducks or similar foolishness by morning; but hope.


 * Wikipedia is losing active editors at a steady rate, and hope and a positive outlook help with that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I for one don't feel like "losing active editors" is a problem, any more than the "ZOMG-we-need-more-admins" complaint at WT:RFA holds any sway with me. But that doesn't mean I think the encyclopedia is (or ever will be) "done". It's changing. That's OK. Maybe it's a sign of maturity - of the project. The encyclopedia "anyone" can edit is more like the encyclopedia "anyone who wants to learn how" can edit. That may not be Jimbo's vision, but...it seems to be the reality. And that's how things go as they mature. It was probably much easier to get a job at Google 5 years ago than it is today. And it was easier to edit Wikipedia too...and easier to become an admin or bureaucrat. Heck, it was easier to even understand Wikipedia 5 years ago. It's a big place, getting bigger all the time. Frank  &#124;  talk  00:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)