User talk:Demiurge1000/Archive 10

Charles Jaco
Hello, Demiurge1000 I'm going to have to ask you to revert youre most recent edit to Charles Jaco, as you changed it after I had made a reference point. I thank you for notyfying me on my talk page of this but as you can see in the history there is a reference. Cole132132 (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment placement
Demiurge, is it possible you misplaced a comment of yours (the one starting "Sounds sensible ...") on Jimbo's talk page? I 'think* you were probably replying to Corporate's or my post about the COIN noticeboard; instead your comment ended up a couple of paras higher up. Cheers, Andreas JN 466 19:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you, yes. Moved it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If the template makes sense, should we use it? I'm game for BRDing the template until someone complains ;-)  Corporate 16:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't the obvious immediate application of it be to put it on the talk page of every single BLP? That number of hundreds and thousands of changes might be a bit too bold. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The feedback so far has been not to use it for BLPs, just companies. Our prior discussions were to start with an experimental sample. For example, we could use it on a dozen closely-watched company articles and see what the reaction is. Corporate 17:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, sounds sensible to me - try it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Check the separation of powers talk page
I have replied to you in the talk page of the article.—Slurpy121 (talk)


 * Thanks, will reply there later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway

 * D Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks!

ME NO ORBISTON


You imply that I am Orbiston. I am not. Though I have read his entry (and the Stuart Murphy history) very thoroughly indeed and I agree with a lot, though not all, of what he says (I note that he is now  barred from  Wikipedia). There seems to be a bizarre wall of steel around mention of Stuart Murphy's sexuality, and I share Orbiston’s suspicions that his image is being protected by PR people probably in his or his company’s employ. It is well known that top TV people have PR accounts. If Mr Murphy is having the references to his sexuality removed, then I find this paradoxical. He came out to Broadcast Magazine and subsequently The Guardian, so why would he care? And where is the shame? And what do you  mean by saying the entry is  “not helpful”? Again I agree with Orbiston. It Is as if there is a deep level of homophobia going on here. Take Stephen Fry’s entry. That deals in some detail with his homosexuality. So why should Mr Murphy’s on-the-record statement be ignored? He is a highly influential man and for young men who are homosexual but who feel they cannot come out, the announcement Mr Murphy made about his sexuality could be vitally important to them. I am amazed by the ferocity of Orbiston’s censorship. Take a look at the history. True to say he is a little frantic, but he makes some good points. The more so in the light of recent published revelations where PR people have been caught in the act of editing Wikipedia pages for money (and apologised). This sort of thing does happen, and the revisions on this page point very much to that aort of activity. So, in the spirit of Stephen Fry’s page, I am changing the category to Personal Life and replacing the text. If you wish to censor this again, you should refer it to senior, fair-thinking editors who specialise in BLPs. I am new to Wikipedia, so will simply sit back and watch the process with interest. And I think if there is much more of this, the whole history should be examined by a wider body. And my single point on the user page was a slip and should not be interpreted as anything else. As I said I am new to Wikipedia PRDISTORTION (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * More paragraph breaks would be nice. I am not a "PR person" nor have ever worked as one or for one. Nor has anyone asked me to make any changes to the article about Murphy.


 * Your conspiracy theory doesn't make sense. If Murphy or his company were having the information removed, why would he be openly presenting that same information to newspapers and magazines?


 * I don't see the connection with homophobia.


 * I also don't see that "young men who are homosexual but who feel they cannot come out" would ever even have heard of Murphy (I hadn't, and I'm from the same country).


 * I'm also a bit puzzled that you are "new to Wikipedia" but still managed to find Sockpuppet investigations/Orbiston within less than an hour of its creation, despite not being notified of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

“More paragraph breaks would be nice”? Well, Fewer patronising remarks would be nice too. Criticising the poor layout from a Wikpedia neophyte is unworthy of an experienced editor. Imagine a paragraph break here. I am not accusing you of being a PR person. I am saying that the history of edits on the SM page come from various people many of them “one offs” and that Orbiston’s (more often than not) reasonable attempt to do no more than mention SM’s sexuality has been dealt with in a disproportionately aggressive way by some of those people. That said, I think Orbiston showed signs of a grudge. Accusing me of conspiracy is also unworthy in the light of recent revelations about paid PR companies editing Wikipedia pages. Imagine a paragraph break here. I notice that you choose not to tell me why my edit contravenes Wikipedia’s policy on Biogs of living persons, nor do you address the analogy I make about Stephen Fry’s page which is littered with references to that living person's sexuality. You are correct. It seems bizarre that Murphy might be behind this aggressive censorship (for that is what went on with Orbiston). But, let us imagine a scenario where, earlier this year, SM sniffed a  tabloid exposé (disgusting but they still happen even post News of the World)about him leaving his wife and child for a gay lover. Could he have perhaps come up with a solution whereby he decided to come out and give a “spoiler” interview to a trade mag (Broadcast) in the hope that it would all go away? But now there it is in Wikipedia and he doesn't like it (or maybe his bosses don't). If so, he shouldn’t have given an interview in the first place. Imagine a paragraph break. By the way you still don’t define what you mean by “not helpful”. Finally, any young person, male or female wanting to get into the media would know Stuart Murphy well. He runs many Sky channels. To a gay person, young or old, his coming out would be significant. And finally finally, I didn’t find  Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orbiston “within less than an hour of its creation”. I am a journalist (not the exposé type though I am getting very interested in how Wikipedia works) and was contacted by another journalist who is following this activity. If my entry is removed again, I trust you will be fair (you seem to be a reasonable person) and refer it to the biog of living persons community and I will follow that process closely. PRDISTORTION (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)




 * You have absolutely no evidence to suggest that I am a reasonable person, so I suggest you withdraw that insinuation.


 * Also, you have been blocked per Sockpuppet investigations/Orbiston.


 * Now, as for my not having replied to every single one of your points, well yes, when you present me with a wall of text of that nature, brimming with implications and assumptions and accusations and who knows what, I will indeed pick out the specific points that spring to mind. I'm not here to write essays explaining things to you. And in fact, much of this discussion should be happening on the talk page of the article, not here. But, since the template I used invited you here, I will entertain your questions here for a little while.


 * First, I don't see any "bizarre wall of steel" around Murphy's article. I see a single-purpose account (Orbiston) repeatedly and determinedly trying to insert negative material, and a small selection of other accounts and IP addresses (some of which were single purpose accounts, and some not) dealing with that. Orbiston was neither being "reasonable", nor trying "to do no more than mention SM's sexuality", nor was he willing to abide by Wikipedia's policies. That's why he got blocked - not "aggressive censorship".


 * I haven't used the word "conspiracy", so I have no idea where you got that from.


 * The Wikipedia page Stephen Fry mentions Fry's sexuality with due weight - I think one or two sentences out of a very lengthy article that has more than 150 references, as against 5 (currently) for the Murphy article. Also, Fry has publicly campaigned on gay rights and related issues - he deliberately makes it a part of his public persona and his internet fame. Murphy has not done so.


 * Now, imagining for a moment that your postulated scenario is correct, that the only reason that Murphy's sexuality was mentioned in published sources was that a "disgusting tabloid exposé" was planned, then I don't need to explain to you that such material is not the sort of thing we use to evidence commentary about a living person on Wikipedia.


 * I'm making this reply on an "I'm started so I'll finish" generosity basis, but really you have no right to make accusations of this nature, here or anywhere else. Don't do it, please.


 * As you are an investigative journalist, I recommend to you the website and forum http://wikipediocracy.com/ - that site has amongst its "trustees" a number of individuals who consider themselves "professional journalists" in the USA, and I am sure that many of them share similar concerns to yourself about places where young gay men can express their feelings.


 * Please don't make silly "might be behind this aggressive censorship" accusations here again, or I'll have to remove them without comment. I really am quite busy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's talk turkey
Yes, I have been making edits to the Video Game Critic page, and you are probably wondering my reasons. Honestly, my main reasons are because I see more bias in his reviews than most do, especially in Mario Platformers and games staring non-humanoid characters. I have compared many games he has reviewed to each other, and I've found a lot of the games he has given high reviews to, B+ or higher, are generally mediocre games, where as a lot of his C+ or lower games are generally really good games. In my latest edit, I cited a few bits from his reviews explaining a few questionable remarks he made in some of his reviews.

And the reason I have never signed in to the Wiki is because I prefer to remain anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.162.20 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, but you need to cite to reliable sources that discuss his reviews being biased (or not) - "citing" one of his reviews and then giving your opinion that it's biased is not acceptable.


 * Incidentally, editing as an IP address basically makes you less anonymous, not more. But it's up to you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

24 hour block for personal attacks
I have blocked your account for 24 hours for repeating your personal attacks. I have explained my reasoning here. Fram (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your |talk page by adding the text. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or submit a request for unblock to the Unblock Ticket Request System.


 * Since I specifically said I wasn't going to repeat the statement, you're out of line.


 * 24 hours, though? That sounds like an ideal opportunity to spend time looking for the diff - and your statement at ANI suggests that you think I should post it right here on my talk page when I find it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You repeated it at the ANI discussion, which was more than sufficient. And any further accusations of sockpuppetry should be filed at a WP:SPI, not here. Fram (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not making any accusations of sockpuppetry. Are you seriously saying that you blocked me for not posting the diff, but are also now telling me I shouldn't post it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You are accusing another editor of having made an impersonator account. How are you then not making any accusations of sockpuppetry? And I didn't block you for not posting a diff, I blocked you for repeating unfounded personal attacks, while making it even worse by claiming that for one, you had a very good source which you just couldn't reveal, and for the other, you had a very good diff which you just couldn't be bothered to search for.


 * Now, if you want to search for that diff anyway, keep it off-wiki, and either you feel that it is solid evidence of sockpuppetry and you present it at SPI (althoug if it is old, there is very little they will be willing or able to do anyway), or it is insufficient as evidence and then you simply don't mention the accusation or the diff again. But posting it here will serve no purpose but getting yourself blocked for longer. Fram (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Fram, I disagree with the "let's brush this under the carpet" mentality - I know the history here, I'd rather see this in the open and sorted. Rather than alluding to stuff, I'll just post the diffs I know about. Discussions at Malleus talk page and at your talk page. In summary, you and Malleus had a disagreement in July and August 2011, culminating in this comment, an hour later Demiurge10 was created, made one edit (an Isreal-Palestine rant) and was blocked 4 minutes later for abusing multiple accounts. I do not know who it was a sockpuppet of, but I hope you have more evidence linking it to Malleus than his comment. If that's all youv'e got - you need to drop this. That Malleus mentioned Demiurge100 last week, a clear typo of Demiurge1000 and unlikely to have anything to do with Demiurge10 given context, does not prove anything and gives the impression of extreme paranoia.
 * Regarding alternative accounts - I have a vague recollection of Malleus making some sort of comment like "I could have an alternate admin account, but you wouldn't know" in the past two years, but have no idea where or indeed if he said that. Even if he did say that, it doesn't mean he actually has one and based on other information, I would be surprised if he did.
 * The long comment on your page was not appropriate, it was a personal attack. You went on to repeat the allegations without evidence at ANI, even if you were stating that you would not repeat them further. I'd suggest you drop the accusations and stay away from Malleus. If you can't do this voluntarily, a formal interaction ban might be the best option, I doubt Malleus would object. Worm TT(talk ) 13:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC) The comment I was thinking of was in reply to "Malleus has never had admin rights" where he stated - "Perhaps you assume too much. Certainly Malleus has never been an admin, and never will be, but I'm not Malleus. That's just the name of this account." Worm TT(talk ) 15:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I did some alternative research in the meantime, and Demiurge100 (instead of Demiurge1000) has also been used by jc37 here, SandyGeorgia here, Kiefer Wolfowitz here, and, coincidentally, Worm That Turned here. Using that as evidence for any sockpuppetry case is not really convincing. Fram (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's certainly an interesting list of users.


 * As regards the threat diff, you don't need to try to prevent me posting it here, because Worm has already posted it. Yep, exactly sixty-one minutes between Malleus' threat, and the imposter account being created. I draw no conclusions from that coincidence at all, of course. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So the accusation is all based on that coincidence? Nothing further that links Demiurge10 to Malleus Fatuorum? Worm TT(talk ) 13:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You're aware of my views of that coincidence. But, as I've said (repeatedly), I'm not making any accusations. This seems a bit WP:DEADHORSE over a single edit that I made more than three days ago. As I already said at ANI, I am prepared to accept Dennis' reassurance that nothing untoward is (or was) going on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The account is a duck sockpuppet of JarlaxleArtemis, who is completely unrelated to Malleus. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. As to my other question, would you agree to a voluntary interaction ban with Malleus Fatuorum? Standard stuff, don't comment on him, discuss him or reply to him. As laid out here. I'll ask for the same from him. Worm TT(talk ) 13:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There was only one diff to look at, and it was easy to see that the 100 account WAS a sock, but a sock that hated Palestinians (looking at the RevDel'ed edit), and the edit was a copy/paste of a hate article and they had an obvious goal. It was very clear that it wasn't Malleus.  I take socking quite serious, which is why I have spent 6 months learning the craft of defeating socks.  I promise I wasn't just dismissing your claim and used the same diligence and respect I would have used in any SPI case.  As for the "hidden admin account", there is no way to prove a negative, my comment was only that the claim was bizarre, and it is.  Hopefully we can just move forward from here. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of the content of the revdel'd edit, although I don't necessarily share your conclusions about it. But I don't (and didn't) doubt your diligence at all. The comment Worm remembers Malleus as making about admin account access was indeed a little bizarre, but it's a funny old world. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I will add, though, that it's a little less bizarre when you consider that there's at least one currently active administrator who has in the past given access to his account to someone else who was not an administrator, who then used the admin tools extensively on that "shared" admin account. There was also at least one other admin who did the same in a related incident, so it's not beyond the bounds of belief that there are other such incidents that we don't know about. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WHO? Never heard that before. If true, I would like to see the diffs so I can demand an emergency desysop.MONGO 14:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Dealt with a long time ago. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, before the drama unfolds any further, can we verify a couple of things: a) although accusing someone of being a sock (even repeatedly) is uncivil, but not usually a personal attack (admitted, YMMV), b) the real Demiurge has identified that the intent was not to WP:PA, c) the real Demiurge has identified that the behaviour (even if it was perception) will not recur, is there any actual value-added reason for this block to continue in terms of protecting the project or its members? Yes, a voluntary IB might be called for here, but I don't believe it's overly germane to what actually occurred (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "the real Demiurge has identified that the intent was not to WP:PA"? Demiurge has made claims that he didn't intend to accuse anyone of socking, while actually doing nothing but. The original post here, amongst some other backhanded PAs, contained things like "One too many coincidences, I feel. The leopard shows its spots." when discussing Malleus, Demiurge 10, and the Demiurge100 typo Malleus made one year later. Here, after the block, he continued with statements like "I draw no conclusions from that coincidence at all, of course." You may be convinced that that is evidence that he didn't accuse anyone of socking, and that he didn't want to attack anyone, but to me this reads quite differently. I saw plenty of reasons to block, and see no reason to modify the block or its length here. Fram (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Why do you read "I draw no conclusions from that coincidence at all" as meaning the opposite of what it says?


 * Come to think of it, why do you justify your block at ANI by saying that I didn't post the diff (or, in fact, I said I'd find it later), but then here on my talk page you tell me I shouldn't post the diff here?


 * Something fishy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have revealed myself now, I am in reality the secret admin account of Malleus. Apart from that fishy smell you so expertly found; for the last time, that is not the block reason, and not what I said here. I repeat: "I didn't block you for not posting a diff, I blocked you for repeating unfounded personal attacks, while making it even worse by claiming that for one, you had a very good source which you just couldn't reveal, and for the other, you had a very good diff which you just couldn't be bothered to search for." And I continued to state that if you want to repeat the accusations anyway (straightforward or hidden in rhetoric), do it at the appropriate noticeboards (in this case, at SPI), not on your talk page. If you still can't see the problem with what you did, nor the correct way to handle such a thing in the future, then there is even less reason to lift the block. Fram (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Now that Worm has posted the diff (above) where Malleus himself openly and specifically puts forward the idea of him possibly having access to admin rights on an account other than the Malleus Fatuorum account, it's clear my comments were not unfounded at all, so your rationale for the block no longer applies. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Demiurge1000, the key here is that your claims are unreasonable when compared to the evidence. Your post wasn't just saying "I wonder if MF has a second account", the entire post was a rant, assassinating the character of another person.  I think you have to reflect a bit and admit that your personal opinion of Malleus got in the way of your better judgement and that the entire rant, not just the one claim, was uncalled for.   You are taking minor unrelated statements and weaving them into something bigger than life. I think your emotions have gotten the best of you here, friend, and your good judgement has taken a back seat.  The purpose of the block is to prevent further disruption, and this is accomplished by having the block for a period of time long enough for the actor to reflect and understand why the block took place, to reevaluate their actions, and figure out how they can conform to community norms.  I think you need to pause here and reflect, to understand why you were blocked, so the same mistake isn't repeated.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not weaving anything into anything, but Fram is certainly weaving a rather imaginative tapestry of things that I haven't actually said. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you should being a bit clearer instead of relying on innuendo and "coincidences". Fram (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * So you pressed your little block button for the cardinal sin of not being clear enough? Very neat.


 * Meanwhile I'm now less puzzled by your diving in here and repeatedly twisting my words. I'd been wondering where it was I'd seen your username before, and it turns out I commented multiple times - and rather strongly, too - in opposition to your recent proposal to ban a prolific contributor from DYK. A proposal that failed to get community support, but that you still don't seem to have given up on. I think you should find something more constructive to do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Gotta say I disagree with this block, at least for the reason given. Yes, Demiurge was intemperate and attacked Malleus on thin/no evidence. The thing is, it looks to me like 1) he was told his assumptions were incorrect and that he was jumping the gun madly, followed by 2) he said "ok, well, I heard that accusation from someone else, but since it seems to have been baseless, I won't bring it up again", followed by 3) he was blocked for a personal attack. Let's review that again: he said that he wouldn't bring up the attack-ish theory again...and he was blocked for an attack. Prior to that comment by him, you could certainly have defended an NPA block. But blocking after he said he was no longer going to beat the horse seems like a very bad call unless there's something huge here that I and the ANI thread are missing. Dropping the stick and not pursuing the dispute are good things, not things to block over. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If that was what he had done, obviously it would have been a bad block. What he did say was that he read the statement by Dennis, but that he had a better authority for his claim, and that he stood by his sock claim, but that he couldn't be bothered to present the evidence and might perhaps put it on his talk page later. I don't see any "oh, apparently I was wrong", neither explicitly nor implicitly, only repetition of his earlier attacks. Fram (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see acknowledgement (albeit with a rather sharp edge of sarcasm) that the admin account accusation has been rebutted and that he wouldn't pursue it any further. As for the impersonation accusation, I see a comment along the lines of "Fine, ok, not pursuing this right now either. If I find the evidence for it later, I'll present it." Could he have recanted that more strongly? Sure. Did he nevertheless say that he's not pursuing this matter any further? I think that was his intention. At any rate, presumably this can be cleared up fairly easily by asking Demiurge to make a definitive statement about his intentions: Demiurge, do you intend to continue pursuing these accusations about Malleus, on ANI or elsewhere? That would include anything from starting ANI threads to making insinuations elsewhere, without presenting valid evidence for the reality of such claims. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ETA, on re-reading this talk: I managed to miss a little ways up on here where Demiurge asserts that based on what Worm said, he was clearly right to accuse Malleus. Demiurge, we're definitely going to need you to pick one or the other at this point: either you get that your accusations were flimsy and you're not going to keep pushing them, or you continue to believe you're right and you intend to pursue them. If the former, the block isn't necessary. If the latter, your choices are basically either to stay blocked, or to tamp down your temper and request an unblock on the grounds that you will file a very neutral SPI, wait quietly for the results, accept the results, and end things that way. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I do find it necessary to state clearly here, it was Malleus himself that openly and specifically put forward the idea of him possibly having access to admin rights on an account other than the Malleus Fatuorum account (diff above). Having made that statement, no, I will not now raise, mention, bring up, or refer to (even obliquely) either that comment of Malleus', nor the interpretation of that comment previously provided to me by a third party, nor the conclusions I based on that, nor the Demiurge10 or Demiurge100 accounts, nor any assumptions I may have made about those accounts, anywhere on-wiki. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "but that he had a better authority" is twisting my words somewhat. I was quite specific that I accepted Dennis' assessment of the situation; my statement that I had heard it from another source was an explanation (inadequate or otherwise) of where I heard about it from, not an assertion that my source was correct and Dennis was wrong. You are, again, putting words in my mouth, and it's getting increasingly difficult to AGF on your reasons for doing so.


 * "he stood by his sock claim" is twisting my words a lot. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not he was blocked or is unblocked, he needs to understand why this is disruptive to Wikipedia as a whole, as it creates a hostile environment. Not as a condition to be unblocked, but simply because that kind of conduct is detrimental to the project regardless.  For that matter, had he said "Yeah, I was mad, I shouldn't have said that publicly" then he would have been unblocked by any number of admin.  The whole of the statement, not just the sock claim.  I didn't want him blocked to begin with, which is why I tried to handle the situation with a firm but respectful admonishment on his talk page.  Had he paused and reflected a bit instead of going to ANI with a statement that was reinforcing his previous attack more than admitting that it was improper, then we wouldn't be here.  Once you notice you are in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Understanding is absolutely the ideal, but in most cases we're willing to settle for "May not agree that they were wrong, but nevertheless won't do it again". We can't really control - or try to control - what people think, we can only make it clear that no matter what they think, they have to act according to our policies and guidelines. In this case, that would mean we want to see Demiurge (even if he still privately thinks Malleus is doing something wrong) acknowledge that given that there's no evidence that Malleus is doing anything wrong, he can't go on acting and talking like Malleus is doing something wrong. He can think that if he likes, but he can't bring it onwiki. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is consistent with my comments. I wasn't asking Demiurge to admit his conclusions were wrong, but to recognize that his methods were, posting the entire section that was attacking another editor.  He is free to conclude whatever he wishes, but he isn't free to publish an attack. Like I said, if he had said "Yeah, I shouldn't have said that publicly", this would be over.  This doesn't dictate what he thinks or says in private, only what he publishes onwiki. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Fram doesn't seem to be around, I've unblocked as he has stated he understands and I'm inclined to believe him and I don't think anything is gained from laboring it further. Again, I'm not telling anyone what to think, nor discouraging anyone from emailing a CU or filing a report, nor from simply having an opinion.  The key is avoid "crossing the line" into attacks, and not digging in, and instead being open minded when an objective party tells you that you have crossed the line. You're a smart guy and good contributor, and I hope we can all just put this unfortunate situation behind us, and get back to writing articles.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all for constructive and thoughtful input on this. As an additional mildly entertaining coincidence, it was actually as I was trying to add a comment to BWilkins' talkpage (unrelated to this) that I first ever saw the "you can't edit Wikipedia right now" (or whatever the exact wording is) message. An interesting moment!

It seems the discussion continues elsewhere, but I think I'll leave them to it on this occasion :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Some fish
for being a bit of a noodle with Malleus and allowing yourself to get Blocked.  Rcsprinter  (rap)  @ 19:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * edit Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Blimey... fish... noodles... turkey... it's all happening here! There's another fish further up the page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Mmm.. turkey! Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Cyberbullying


Thanks for diving in. I was standing far to close to it to be able to see the wood form the trees. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Some folk will miss the point even when it is applied to their throats, you know. I am grateful for the existence of such folk. They make me happy not to be one of them :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you ever amazed at the way some folk choose to be unable to grasp simple concepts? I love the alleged wisdom of crowds. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ha! Crowd-sourcing is great for many things, however it always seems to let you down when you're least expecting it. It's also not a great tool for the management of a large project, as Thucydides would doubtless tell us we should have learned from the experience of the ancient Athenians.


 * I like your metaphor about points and throats :)


 * I think there may be some truth in the assertion that mention of Fae dragged the proposals discussion unreasonably off topic. Bizarrely, I'd not heard "LGBT themes in every obscure article they could get their hands on" cited as a reason that Fae was a problem, before. But still, "If an editor is harassing another editor" betrays a real lack of more than a few seconds thought trying to understand what the essay was about. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Some folk over reacted to Fae (etc). Some folk still do. Some folk are unduly shocked by homosexuality, Some homosexual folk see homophobia at every turn. I recently has a disturbing talk page conversation with an apparent bureaucrat that appeared to bring some latent homophobia into the conversation, or, more probably, it did not, but was just a disturbing conversation. I subscribe to Occam's Razor in one spelling or another :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have had it suggested to me that "Signpost" is a great way to promote this essay. I've created a draft document there under this heading where it is, currently, receiving comments. In view of the sensitive edits you made to the essay I wonder if you might both comment there and consider improving the article itself. I am sure, if you wish, there is a chance to take credit in the eventual article for substantive edits that you have made, though I am unsure of the rules there. Credited or not I find your eyes highly useful in this area. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That could indeed be very valuable. I notice you've already had suggestions of getting help from some of the top Signpost writers. I've watchlisted the discussion about it, although not yet the draft document. I doubt I'll have much time to do more there, but do feel free to drop me a reminder sometime if it needs some more work and I might be able to help.


 * I notice a WMF employee has helpfully improved the original essay a bit, and also followed links from it to fix nearby essays! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * We are making a ripple, albeit a small one. Enough ripples will make a small wave, and all that us needed is a small wave. THis is by no means the size of problem of alleged bias at Arbcom that rears its head from time to time, whether true or not, but it is an area where kids suffer. Wikipedia is to be enjoyed by all, and kids do not need to suffer because of WIkipedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Damned good thrashing
Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I remember about 10 years ago, there was a drive by our local council to stop cyclists from riding on the pavement. The leader of the council contacted the local NHS Trust to find out how many people had been hospitalised by being run down by bicycles on the pavement - the answer - none at all. Alansplodge (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "A drive by" at a local council always makes me think of this kind of thing; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/975012.stm


 * Strangely enough, I was in fact nearly hit by some pavement-cycling child a few years ago. He was coming round a blind corner at maybe 15mph. I dodged by no more than a foot or so; his frantic braking and weaving and dodging and nearly falling off his bicycle reassured me that he had probably learned from the experience even without hitting me.


 * The reality is that most pavement cyclists (postmen or otherwise) move very slowly; collisions will be extremely rare, and serious injuries even more so. One does have some sympathy with elderly citizens who might be more brittle when hit even at low speeds, but by the sound of it those collisions are just not happening.


 * The postman was cycling slowly along the pavement on Friday morning as per usual, but I'd missed the chance to observe crossing patrol cycle etiquette. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've now confirmed with my own eyes that, never mind her views on children and others cycling on the pavement or across the crossing, our crossing patrol lady herself actually arrives in the morning on a bicycle, which, of course, she rides along the pavement! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk page
Why don't you move those comments to my talk page where we can speak more about the subject? I wasn't aware I was violating DYK guidelines at the time and I hope we can work collaboratively in the future so all rules are obeyed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see in the last few minutes, there's nothing to prevent us from speaking more about the subject in exactly the same place that you commented and I replied. I do see some people who would prefer me to be silenced, but I don't see anyone succeeding in silencing me for more than a few hours at a time (and if I'm at work at the time, that's kind of wasted effort for those kiddies).


 * If by some mischance my comments and/or your comments at that other page should be mislaid, feel free to copy them here if you'd like to discuss them further. I can't quite offer Nableezy's level of hospitality, but I will do my best.


 * If you're aiming to follow the DYK guidelines, then that's the important thing. I made a rather glaring mistake with them, a few years ago, but I survived :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It turns out you were right, and your and my comments were indeed mislaid, not to mention that our friend from that badsite seems to be back to his personal attack ways in his edit summary. I guess he might soon need to be sent back to the naughty step again, for rather longer this time.


 * Feel free to copy any of your or my original comments here, if there's anything more on the topic that's useful to discuss. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Greed article.
First, thank you for all the great edits. I care a lot about this article and just want it to be good. I was wondering about your opinions on the difference between Stroheim and von Stroheim within the body of the article. Its explained more fully in the Talk section of the film. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Having looked at it, I think we'd better go with von Stroheim. Personally, I find the shorter version easier and neater, but with most of the reliable sources using the longer form, along with some or all of the quotations and also at least one category, I don't think we can use the shorter form without it appearing to be a jarring inconsistency for the reader.


 * I'm planning to finish this copyedit sometime on Friday. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting DYK criteria.
So after your (and Harrias) replies, and a bit of research on my part, you both seem to follow best practice when reviewing DYK hook/articles. Both in terms of the literal requirements of 'the rules' as well as the extra mile you go regarding quality. However from reading the DYK page - just a couple of sections down - other reviewers state outright prose quality is not a criteria they look at. I dont feel this is really acceptable for the main page.

What I am going to do later this week (probably weekend) is an audit of the hooks/articles reviewed and take a look at a few key (in terms of article quality) criteria - prose quality (basic spelling/grammar), sourcing (sources OTHER than the one related to the hook. I know at least two articles where the hook source was a legit high quality one, and all the others were completely unreliable.) and a couple of other things. Its only going to be a few criteria (3 or 4) as I dont want to be drawn into subjective judgements. Example: Plenty of articles have been promoted where they have (in my opinion) clear 'padding' to hit the character mark, but thats going to vary from editor to editor as to what constitutes padding. So I wont look into detail at that sort of thing.

I want to reiterate this isnt about blame & shame, this is about identifying which editors are reviewing and promoting good quality articles, then identifying their methods so it can be spread out amongst the other reviewers - hopefully by altering the DYK reviewing guidelines - thereby increasing the quality of the main-page linked articles. As you and Harrias appear to be following (IMO) very decent practices, I shall be using both yours as a baseline for some minimum standards. Once I have the data, I shall post on the DYK talkpage and hopefully start a productive discussion. (As I have mentioned Harrias, I will let him know about this here.) Any thoughts? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is interesting and I have a number of thoughts on it. However, can you clarify what you mean by "just a couple of sections down - other reviewers state outright prose quality is not a criteria they look at"? Do you mean a couple of sections up the page, not down the page? I can't see any statement like that in sections further down the page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Literally a couple of sections below. The bit on Alfonso Litta, Hawkeye - "They are not reviewing the writing style. It is not a criterion at DYK, or for a Start class article." followed by The Interior confirming he (like yourself & Harrias) does look at things like grammar and changes/rejects, but that it is not part of the rules (and in his opinion should be added). From a basic cursory glance, it appears that the 'better quality' DYK's do seem to correlate with basic things like correct sourcing, grammar etc. Hence why I am going to do a more extensive audit. With some hard facts to back it up, a revision of the reviewing rules/criteria should be easier to argue for. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, right. Now, Alfonso Litta in the version which went on the main page is a really good example here. Reading through it - think of this from the reader's point of view - there is only one point where it's not almost immediately obvious what the article is trying to say. That point is "because of his health problems and his clashes with the Spanish government he was thought to resign from the Archbishopric of Milan: he however never resigned but was not able to return to Milan".


 * All of the other problems (and there are many) do not greatly hinder the reader's understanding; instead they are exactly the sort of small errors (using the word "such" when the word "this" is needed, or "to" instead of "in") that might tempt the potential new editor to think "here's a small problem that I can easily fix, I will do it!" Remember, that's one of the purposes of DYK, right? (And, trust me, it works.)


 * Another point that struck me is that, remember my comments about machine translators; it's obvious this version of the article was not produced by a machine translation. It instantly reminded me of the way parts of Norman conquest of southern Italy read before I copy-edited it. Yep, a quick check will show you that the Alfonso Litta article was expanded by an editor who rather accurately claims to be "en-3" on his userpage - I'll assume his first language is Italian. There are quite a few regular contributors of DYK articles who do not have English as a first language; should we tell them that they are not allowed to nominate their articles for DYK until they have gone to GOCE to get them copy-edited - which would basically exclude them from DYK altogether because copyedit requests normally take weeks to be acted on?


 * So, that's one aspect of the "prose standard" issue. We really do need to be able to say "this is our newest content" with the understanding that it is all work in progress (even more so than In The News, and certainly more so than any other main page section).


 * Another aspect is the idea of adding "free from bad grammar" or somesuch to the DYK rules. How can that not be subjective? In fact, how is it workable at all? One man's GA is another man's "bad grammar". "Up with this I will not put" (Churchill) - is this bad grammar or just bad style? What Hawkeye actually said was "they are not reviewing the writing style" - and by the exact definition, he is right there - writing style is mostly out of scope even for GA. Alfonso Litta as it went on the main page was intelligible and waiting to be improved. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I was referring to the comments themselves, rather than as they applied specifically to the Alfonso Litta article, which I agree was not that bad compared to some I have seen. Which was rather my point, there are far worse ones that make it through - a couple of grammar or spelling mistakes here and there is forgivable. When its riddled with them however... Your above comments are noted though. I will stick spelling/grammar in the 'not absolutely necessary' column. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Precious
  respect for living persons

Thank you for contributions to quality articles such as Battle of Radzymin (1920), for copy-editing, and for treating not only biographies of living persons with respect, but also, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Question about your edit /edit summary
Does this edit mean that you believe that the notability criteria have been met or just that you don't like the notability template? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Feel free to AfD it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Greed copy edit
Hi. I need to archive the request, which unfortunately will delete your comment. If not suitable to put on the IP's own talk page, perhaps on the article's talk page? Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, no problem, archive away. I will pursue the IP all over the place! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanks for the copy edit and making the article ten times better than I could have. I'm just going to finish up the lead so it sums up everything and then submit it. Thanks again. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, does anything need to be added to the talk page to show that its been copy edited? --Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There's Template:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. I stopped adding this after copyedits a year or two ago, although I can't remember why. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Demiuge
Thanks mate for the message. I am new to this site so i will be looking around, practicing my edits in the mentioned sandboxes and i was wondering if i can get some tips for this site like for example how to edit articles properly, how to use wikipedia as a learning tool, it would be helpful and will be off doing some edits. And thank you again. (Simbass (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC))


 * That's great. As well as the links in the welcome message, you could also try signing up for SuggestBot. An example of the sort of thing it sends is below; to sign up, see User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Chenevix-Trench again
Hi, just a small point, when editing Anthony Chenevix-Trench you overlooked, momentarily I am sure, the need to use the date format already established for the particular article. Since this is a UK article, the date format in use is DMY. I have fixed it now. Also, a perhaps even smaller point, the citation template style in use is "cite news" (etc.) not "citation", which produces slightly different results. -- Alarics (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Alarics, thanks for fixing this. (Replied on the other points further up this page as well). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Read the sentence
Read the sentence,

"In Ayurveda (traditional Indian medicine) and traditional Chinese medicine, liquorice(मुलेठी, 甘草) is commonly used in herbal formulae to "harmonize" the other ingredients in the formula and to carry the formula to the twelve "regular meridians" and to relieve a spasmodic cough."

The latter and unreferenced addition of "Ayurveda ..." makes no sense because "meridians" are not part of Ayurvedic medicine.

Now, liquorice may have similar uses in Ayurveda, but if so, then it should be a) referenced, and b) in a sentence of its own referring to the nadis; pingala, ida and sushumna.

Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL!
Just to confirm your Okip comment was one of the most sensible in the whole discussion, and very funny too. I vote you should re-add and maybe someone else will say Okip is okay! FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection request??
Hi Demiurge, I just want to ask you how do I semi protect a page or how do I request for an article to be protected or semi-protected, I would like to know because I want to request for a semi protection for an article, Thank you.--(Slurpy121 (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC))


 * You can request semi-protection of a page at WP:RFPP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello Demiurge1000, thank you for removing the threat Rinpoche has posted on my talk page. I am now going to WP:ANI to take the matter. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 14:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Why?


 * I thought you'd read WP:DENY - have you forgotten what it said? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Uh yes, sorry about that :) Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 14:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Welsh Not, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clwyd South (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) 10:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅  Rcsprinter  (babble)  @ 22:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Special Barnstar

 * Thank you! Mr. Sparkley can now into launching peaceful satellites for greater future of the Korean nation and world peace! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP so needs a like button. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Legoktm (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The Case of Charles Jaco
Hello, my name is Josh and a while ago I edited the wiki page for "Charles Jaco" the news reporter. I sourced the accusation of his honesty with a video from Youtube. While I understand your professionalism, and that Youtube is not usually a good source, when the Youtube video contains video evidence of the accusation I published, how is that not source-worthy? The man was on a set and the leaked behind the scenes footage showed him acting out what he told people was a serious battle zone during the Gulf war to millions when in actuality it was a set in Atlanta Georgia. It's a conflict of interest to the media, to CNN. The fact that he was caught red-handed is one thing, it's another thing to not allow this cover-up to be a significant part of his life. After all, how could one trust a journalist who tells people he's being shot at in Iraq when he's really in a studio in Atlanta? Shouldn't this story be published? It's a significant part of his life that all people deserve to know before taking him seriously. It's an insult to the people's intelligence. I'll provide you with a link to the EVIDENCE, whether a Youtube video or not, I'm quite positive that it is a worthy source. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWY14eyMFg

Please do the right thing, thank you.

-Josh, truth seeker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.21.118 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi! I agree, the story should be published!


 * Once the story has been published (by multiple reliable independent sources), I'm sure it will be worth consideration for inclusion in Wikipedia.


 * I've watched the video before, and I can't say with certainty exactly what it proves (as opposed to what it appears to show). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Mystery deletion
Hi there, what on earth happened on 's page? I only left one message as far as I remember. I wasn't aware I reverted anything. Sorry. --  Cassianto Talk   23:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, you probably hit rollback accidentally. It's very common with smartphones and tablets and such, but also happens from time to time with a mouse - usually when some widget or geonotice or something makes the page jump around after it seems to have finished loading. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's what it was. I thought it strange. Bloody rollback, it wouldn't be the first time, and it certainly won't be the last. Thanks for fixing it the way you did. All the best! --   Cassianto Talk   23:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Dozier
Is it okay if User:Demiurge1000/Arthur G. Dozier School for Boys is moved to the mainspace? A new story came out about it: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/12/justice/florida-school-graves-investigation/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

I also want to redirect "Dozier Training School" to the new location WhisperToMe (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ouch, wasn't expecting that. I'm quite unhappy with the state of this draft at the moment - I never sorted out the chronological/structural problems introduced by the fact that originally I thought no complaints were published about the school until well after the 1960s (I was wrong). Anyway, the journalist who did most of the work in breaking the story properly thought the draft was OK, and we can't have a mass of people coming to Wikipedia expecting information and finding a redlink just because I've been busy, so I'll move it to mainspace now and then tidy it up this weekend. I also never did manage to sort out proper image licensing for photos (the bloodstained wall etc), so I'll have to do that pronto.


 * Thanks for spotting this and following it up. Please create the redirect as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Or in fact, not - seems another version has been in mainspace since 2010! I should've been watching the page title. At a glance, the mainspace version seems thinly referenced and relying very heavily on over-long quotes - I'll have a go at improving it over the weekend. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice! I guess it was a bit of a surprise WhisperToMe (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Considering that I currently seem to be an evil henchman to one of your evil henchmen (see how the web spreads?), this is about... the best award I could possibly receive! Thank you! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Florida School for Boys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isolation (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) 11:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

CCI instructions idea
"An alternative would be to strikethrough the diff and add a comment indicating why you believe that particular diff is now "fixed"." Interesting idea! Why not update the CCI instructions and discuss. Hugh (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend following Moonriddengirl's suggestion instead. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, although I was somewhat disappointed in that I thought perhaps that the next time I heard from you, you might have the courage and directness and regard to elaborate on what you wrote of me on 23 October 2012 "I happen to strongly disagree with the editor's approach towards WP:BLP" Will you ever get that off your chest or will your concerns always remain unexpressed and an issue between us? Hugh (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry Hugh, I'm afraid you're going to have to live with the fact that, yes, I (and others) disagree with you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Laurie Penny
I did cite a reliable source. It had links to the Twitter messages in question. What the hell do you think you're doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.31.148 (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, an unattributed and poorly spelled blog entry posted by a "workers' co-operative" that sells T-shirts is not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards - especially when one of the purposes of the blog entry is to promote sales of a T-shirt.


 * Do you have any connection with the "Sabcat" organisation in question, incidentally? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

What a load of old shite. There are links to the Tweets in question, it can all be verified by looking at the timeline for @pennyred I have no connection at all with Sabcat. You however seem to have some personal reasons for censoring wikipedia, you're abusing your position on here. Shameful behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.31.148 (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Abusing his position" as an editor who understands the rules and policies? Truly shameful. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

you're right, its disgustingly shameful. The article in question is mostly made up of self published articles by the subject, in fact it reads as a self promotion piece. Yet links to this persons Twitter feed are considered unreliable? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.31.148 (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Not always that tough
Regarding this, I've listed issues brought to Jimbo's talk page over the last week by Wikipediocracy denizens. The character case was this. I'm fairly sure Jimbo knows what I'm referring to. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Anthony, thanks for clarifying this - I had indeed missed exactly what sort of low characters were intended. (I have no idea whether Jimbo also missed it, but you may be right that he won't have.) That particular class of low character does still present us with the dilemma of total free speech being incompatible with the preferred way of dealing with them, but I for one am fully in support of Wikipedia's current policy on that. I would agree this particular case should have been handled promptly, discreetly, and otherwise in accordance with that policy, and for some reason it wasn't. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

FLC
Hi sir, How are yo? Could you please help me on List of awards and nominations received by Priyanka Chopra as my aim is to take the list to FLC. Please help me.Pks1142 (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't think I'll have time to help with this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

study skills page
Hello - It appears you removed my edits to the Study Skills page. I am confused. I provided reliable citations and greatly expanded the usefulness of this page. I am a professional teacher who teaches this topic. My sources are verified and professional. I am also trying to expand the study skills page to included external links to the many new online tools that students can use for study. These have all been removed as well. Perhaps as a new user I am doing something wrong? Please advise. Thank you. Christobias84 (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Christobias84 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christobias84 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure. If you are indeed Chris Tobias, then it's somewhat self-promotional for you to be including your own book as a reference for this technique (and indeed giving this technique such prominence if it's one covered in your own book). Secondly, like other Wikipedia articles, the Study skills article is intended to include encyclopedic coverage of the topic, not just a collection of links to external websites that provide "resources" for those interested in the topic. If you wanted to open a discussion as to why this article should be different from others in that respect, or why particular external links are appropriate for this article, or why your book is a key reference on this topic, then the talk page of the article would be the place to do that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have started a thread on the Talk page as you suggest. I agree including my own book is somewhat self promotional but at this point there are no other reference works that have been updated in the last 5 years in this area. That's one of the reasons I wrote the book. I look forward to continuing the discussion on the Talk page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.18.186 (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Holidays Demiurge
I just wanted to stop by to say hi and say merry Christmas, even though I'm a day late to say it, i want to wish you a happy new year and luck for the following year. Peace my Friend

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slurpy121 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

AN
I'm gonna assume that your removal of my comment here was an accident. Volunteer Marek 02:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct! It's edit conflicts like crazy over there, and it looks like we were both adding things in the same place at (very nearly) the same time. Thank you for assuming the best, especially under the circumstances. Are you OK to put it back, or should I? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nah, it's fine, the whole thing is closed and it should stay that way. Volunteer Marek 05:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The Howards School
Per the naming convention for US schools, I just moved The Howard School to The Howard School (Atlanta, Georgia). I have now placed a speedy deletion/move tag on the original article so that it can be moved back from its controversial and undiscussed move. Hopefully that will sort things out but I will keep an eye on things. Best wishes, --Bob Re-born (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bob, that's perfect! I was at something of a loss of how to deal with all these "beautiful woodlands" etc appearing where they shouldn't be :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)