User talk:Demiurge1000/Archive 11

Anthony Chenevix-Trench
With reference to your voidance of amendments I made to Anthony Chenevix-Trench's biography.

You initially state I am writing about a living person, Anthony Chenevix-Trench. He is long dead. I accept that the comment that Richard Ingrams and Paul Foot harboured unremitting antagonism to ACT refers to a living person, Ingrams, and as such is not suitable and as such should be deleted. However, I have written testimony from Ingrams' biographer, addressed to me, which would substantiate such an assertion.

But what justification can there be for removing all the other references, which contrary to what you say, are sourced? I may have referenced them in the wrong format, but they are referenced. The four letters quoted, with names, for instance, were extracts printed in the Guardian on 4th September 1996. I quoted a letter I had written to the Daily Telegraph on 3rd September 1996, and referred to a Peterborough article of 31st August 1996.

I believe the current Wikipedia biography of Chenevix-Trench, as reinstated by you, is grossly one-sided and unfair, viz the four letters I quoted from the Guardian which put the other side of the coin. I believe I am well-placed to comment on this as much of the publicity against CT put out by Private Eye and Paul Foot ( and Richard Ingrams, but we can leave him out of it ) cited alleged mistreatment CT had meted out to me personally. However, there was no substance to their allegations at all and I never had any problems with CT. He was always fair and decent to me and I liked him.

To fail to put the other side of the case, and there clearly was one, and to quote almost exclusively salcious allegations against CT - allegations which were largely fed by Foot and Private Eye - is unprofessional and unworthy. Given the history Foot and Private Eye wrongly attributed to me, and which I have disputed on the record, I believe I am entitled to make edits to the current biography and to have them respected.

Hume shawcross (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be more useful to discuss this on the talk page of the article (I'll explain why in a moment) but I'll answer here to begin with.


 * You can't accuse Ingrams of things without backing those things up with reliable sources. A letter from Ingrams' biographer to you is not a reliable source (by Wikipedia's standards). The biography itself (has it been published?) probably is a reliable source.


 * Before you started editing it, the article did not mention you at all. The article does not exist to be a vehicle for you to publicise the fact that some material was wrongly misattributed to you elsewhere. On the other hand, nor is it appropriate for the article to contain poorly sourced statements about ACT (or about anything else.) That's why it would make sense to discuss what should be in the article on the talk page for the article - then we can look at what reliable sources we have, and consider what the article should contain based on that.


 * Letters from people involved, whether published in the Guardian or not, are considered very weak as sources on Wikipedia. That's not to say they can't be considered or mentioned.


 * You don't gain an entitlement to editing a particular article merely because you know the person involved and at some point were misattributed (not on Wikipedia) regardling some statements about him. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I understand your point about Ingrams. A few points: Paul Foot and Richard Ingrams launched thir initial attack on ACT in Private Eye by citing his alleged treatment of me. This was repeated in other publications over the years, not least in by Foot in the London Review of Books and the Guardian when he published a riposte to a favourable biography of ACT 'The Land of Lost Content'. My alleged mistreatment by ACT was a hook on which Foot ( and Ingrams ) hung their story about ACT. However, there was no truth to their allegations about me. I never had any problems with ACT and in fact I liked him. I am not trying to become part of the Wikipedia story, as you imply, nor am I seeking publicity. Rather, I see the completely incorrect story about me, which was put out by Foot as part of his life-long campaign against ACT, as an example of how ACT was, at least in some instances, unfairly maligned.

I quoted the favourable letters from the Guardian story - which the Guardian quoted to show that there was another side to the story - to illustrate that many people viewed ACT positively. The controversy about him was stoked and kept burning by Foot and Ingrams. It has thus passed into the ACT folklore but it has to be seen in the context of Foot and Ingrams' very successful campaign against him. He was a remarkable man, may indeed have had his faults, but it is unbalanced and unfair to have his Wikipedia entry dominated by the allegations against him without stating the backgorund to the allegations and that he was viewed favourably by others. My own experience shows that the demonisation of ACT was not always based on fact. I would appreciate working with you to try to put some persepctive into his entry.

Hume shawcross (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it would be useful to try and find some secondary sources that discuss (or even mention) the campaign against ACT, as a campaign rather than as a list of things that people said about him. That would then make the campaign (and indeed any counter-campaign) a topic for inclusion in the Wikipedia article about him.


 * Regarding the various letters to the Guardian, I imagine we can perhaps justify mentioning, briefly, that a number (or a large number) of letters supportive of ACT appeared. We could then have a footnote mentioning extracts of what some of the letters said. This is slightly awkward territory, as these letters really are people's personal recollections and opinions about ACT, and thus are primary sources not secondary ones, but I would hope it's possible. (Many newspapers have published material by their various writers which stray into "when I was at school XYZ was common" territory, which really are just as much personal recollections as "letters to the editor" are.) If the newspaper printed something like "we have received many other letters similar to these", or any other even slightly editorial comment about the correspondence, than that's even better.


 * The Land of Lost Content is presumably a reasonably substantial book, so it could be used to produce a fuller Wikipedia article about ACT that would not be dominated quite so much by material that may have been produced largely by a campaign against him.


 * I will try and begin assembling a list of sources and possible approaches on the talk page of the article sometime in the next few days hopefully. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I will keep checking. I have not read The Land of Lost Content but I expect it would provide a useful balance.Hume shawcross (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree the article is unbalanced, with well over half the article at present devoted to corporal punishment, and that in a far from neutral tone. Foot and Ingrams clearly had/have a POV on this, as also Nick Cohen, whom we quote as saying "Even by the standards of England's public schools, Anthony Chenevix-Trench [.....] was a flagellomaniac". There we have Cohen freely admitting that he comes to the subject with a predetermined opinion. We on the other hand should not be appearing to take it as read that the public schools were full of flagellomaniacs or that ACT necessarily was one, as opposed to the possibility that he was simply doing what was normal in boarding schools in that era.
 * My recollection is that it was the publication of Tim Card's book in 1994 that caused the main media storm about all this, rather than Foot's activities in Private Eye. Ought we not to be including that as a source? At the moment we have it only as "Further reading" and obliquely quoted in a newspaper article that seems to date from before the book actually appeared.
 * I also agree with Demiurge that the article should be filled out with material from the Mark Peel book "The Land of Lost Content", which as his biography should surely be one of the main sources for this article. At the moment are citing only the Daily Mail review of the book and then only for a couple of isolated facts.
 * Demiurge would you consider shifting this whole thread to the article's talk page? -- Alarics (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Not this particular one, just in case Hume shawcross (if that should be his real name) might not want his views or concerns semi-permanently on display on the ACT talk page (which is likely to stay around unarchived a lot longer than this my personal talk page). I was going to add a new section to the article talkpage about this, but I got diverted into adding fragments of info from newspapers to the article itself. I'll add a new section to the article talkpage tonight. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Demiurge, for your concern about my name being displayed. It is my real name. I am not seeking publicity but as I was named repeatedly ( and falsely ) by both Foot and Ingrams as having been one of ACT alleged victims, and in that context was a hook on which they hung their original Private Eye story, I am happy to be quoted, on the ACT talk page or elsewhere, that there is no substance at all to the allegation. I see one of the contributors to the ACT talk page, Emeraude 16/7/2007, states that the Private Eye stories "were certainly verifiable". In as far they cited me, and this was repeated by Foot in the London Review of Books after the publication of Land of Lost Content, and in the Guardian, and quoted in the Daily Telegraph, these allegations were false. I had no problems with ACT, and wrote to the Telegraph to set the record straight. Based on this experience, it makes one wonder how much of the other rather sensationalist allegations were also embroidered. I note in your recent comment on the ACT talk page headed Neutrality, that you also consider the present bio to over-emphasise the negative. Amazon quotes a review by Martin Baird of A Keen Wind Blows: Fettes Story, which states of Fettes' headmasters that "ACT in particular was an outstanding but ultimately tragic figure". At the moment the bio does not reflect much of his positive side.58.8.12.35 (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC) I failed to log in for the above message of 5th December. I have bought a copy of The Land of Lost Content. Is there any way I can send it to you for your reference in editing?hume shawcross (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

My post at the Reference desk
What was wrong with this post you reverted? There is a dispute as to weather the Palestinian territories comprise the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or whether is a vague and dubious term (that's my understanding of the dispute anyway). Do you think I could have worded the post more neutrally or something? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I think that the Reference Desk is not the right place to use your own choice of wording to seek further input on something that you yourself admit is already a dispute. (It's also one covered by WP:ARBPIA, by the way). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Didn't know the Reference Desk was a bad place for disputes. Where do you think I should have gone to get some input. In my experience posting something at wikipoject Palestine tends not to get a response, even for something major like a proposed split to portal:Palestine. The plobleam with not using my choice of wording is that any attempt to describe the confect, even in a neutral manner would require wording it somehow, and unless I could quote someone else it would be my choice of wording. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you tried following the steps in WP:DR? It doesn't seem to mention the Reference Desk at all! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I was hoping to get some people to comment on what the PT was, preferably with some RS, not really for something like a mediator (in the general scene of the word, not referring to the Mediation Committee). I think perhaps what perhaps I wanted was Requests for comment. Might be a little premature to do that yet tough. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I would recommend it as the next step, and certainly a step to take before canvassing at the Reference Desk. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm still concerned about why you're calling it canvassing. Was it because I posted it at the the Reference Desk, or do you thing the description of the dispute could have been more neutral, or what? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Come to think of it I did oversimplify Greyshark's position somewhat. Perhaps what I should have said was "an vague term that has multiple definitions" or something sort of like that maybe. I guess the lesson here is don't try to describe your opponents position when your tired. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the location was what made me think it might be canvassing, but it's not a big deal. Hope it all works out for the best! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Demiurge
Hi again! I wanted to ask you where can I talk to an administrator? thank you :) (Slurpy121 (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC))


 * You should probably use this, which says "If you need help from an administrator, you can place this template on your own user talk page or the Help desk, and write your question below it. Then our administrators will be notified." There is an example of how to use it on that page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You have mail!
Regarding a t-shirt nomination :) Jalexander--WMF 02:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Demiurge1000
Thank you for your advice at my talk page about reviewing at AFC. But there was a problem for me last week. A family problem. But I did editing at Wikipedia for my love to wikipedia. But everybody told I made mistakes last week. and I'm really sorry for my mistakes. And I promise, in the future I won't made mistakes like this. Thank you for your advice.-- Pr aty ya  (have a chat?) 04:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, good, thank you for your reply. I hope everything works out OK. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

My comment
Hello, I made a comment, but got reverted. I am not nocal whatever it is. Could you please re-post my comment? Thanks. 71.202.122.82 (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I was in two minds about this, but now it seems that you or someone else reposted it anyway.


 * As I've argued at WP:ANI, just about all of the stuff about this guy being a journalist (or a poor journalist, or a twit on the boxcutter site, or whatever different people may think he is) is not really relevant to the AE case. The AE case is about his repeated disruption on Wikipedia. Although, if you find evidence of him canvassing on the boxcutter site or anywhere else, that's generally worth knowing about.


 * Now, if you're not nocal, who are you? :P --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This Baby Code Monkey...
This Baby Code Monkey is very careful! He only gaves away his age and a little info on what he is like! He knows not to gave away information about were he lives! A Wiggin13 (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Perfect! :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This Baby Code Monkey even knows how to make his computers location look like it is somewhere else! (My dad showed me how!) A Wiggin13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My parents have a Mac too. Parental Control is set on it to stop them breaking things by accident. (After all, the Parental Control feature is provided to allow you to control parents in this manner, right?) This confuses them greatly when I change the desktop background to be a surprising picture and they can't change it back. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hahaha! I confuse my parents by finding ways to BYPASS parental controls. They have all but given up on trying to use them on me :D By the way is you can suppress those old revisions for me that would be wonderful, thanks :) A Wiggin13 (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Age
E-mail sent. -- Avi (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Replied. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Age debate
As far as my part in this saga goes, I jumped in only to ask Avi to show A Wiggins the rules that he was stating in his opening paragraph. With retrospect, I probably should have checked those rules, but I trusted Avi enough to support him. The rest, you know about. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I know more about it than anyone else in the world right now, but I'm still a little lost and confused, to be quite honest :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

safeguarding wikipedia
Hello Demiurge1000,

thank you for your reply to my post. I've been away on holiday, apologies for the delay thus.

It was not my attention to suggest that the fake persona on facebook would be a problem for us. Rather, I am suggesting that 1 natural person, an agent, could control half a dozen socks without wikipedia realizing it, and could even control multiple admin accounts.

Since wikipedia is widely trusted, and a lot of people look to wikipedia if they want a balanced view on anything, it is a price worth conquering ... the corruption of wikipedia for corporate needs.

PR-firms and intelligence agencies must be targetting wikipedia for their covert activities on information biasing. What point would there be in a multimillion PR campaign if wikipedia shows it's not truthful at all?

How can we defend wikipedia from this?

Info-sabotage would likely involve both insertion of biased information on the one hand and also deletion of 'unwanted' information on the other hand. Wikipedia has so many editing rules, that wikilawyering in combination with the control of multiple accounts could scare off 'honest' contributers easily. How savvy are we at wikipedia to fence off such attacks ? Mick2 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Davut Kavranoğlu copyright violation
Hi. I noticed that you declined a CSD for copyright at Davut Kavranoğlu. I disagree with your reasoning and I have listed the article as a possible copyright violation at Copyright_problems/2013 January 5. Although it is not a complete word for word copyright violation, the edited version only slightly modifies the copyrighted text. This is also prohibited under copyright law, and it would be better for an admin or OTRS clerk to make the call. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   23:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you disagree with my reasoning, you will need to explain how the text in the version I removed the CSD tag from, meets the CSD requirement "this criterion applies only in unequivocal cases, where there is no free-content material on the page worth saving". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In my view it was an unequivocal case. Policy states: "Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure..." (WP:CV).  Here, the entire "Life and Career" section was taken from http://www.sanayi.gov.tr/Pages.aspx?pageID=708&lng=en, with only minor word changes, in other words, an unequivocal violation.  The only free content left is the infobox and external links, so without the main body of the article, there was nothing worth saving.  Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If that's your view I have no objection to it. That's why CSD tagging has checks and balances to it. The author (or at least, I assume it is he) still apparently has problems with that, but seemingly I have to put up with that whereas you, if you're lucky, may not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Reasonable people can disagree, and I agree about the checks and balances--I've had editors question my declination of CSDs before too. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes not (and I'm not saying I'm right in this case).  In any event, I've looked back at the article, and the author blanked the section and rewrote it in his own prose, so it's a moot point now.   GregJackP   Boomer!   05:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greed (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canary (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) 11:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks bot, I've fixed this now. Previously the word used was cannery, which is actually something different. Altered after the problem was pointed out by someone using the article feedback tool... so you see, it does have uses after all :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
I think you should read the Anticyclone and Cyclone and make sure it does cover the stuff in Anticyclonic rotation and Cyclonic rotation before we redirect them. Jason Rees (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will take a look later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Indian Rape Victim: male friend, boy friend, or fiance?
At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case#What_needs_to_be_done_to_the_article, you said "BBC News, which is generally more reliable than the Mirror, is also reporting the person being very specifically not a boyfriend nor fiance." What are some links to the BBC News items about this, please? Thanks, David F (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It was the last section of this that I was thinking of, but now I look again, it's not actual news reportage as such, and it's also not as specifically stated as I thought it was. But it is stated. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Last section" you refer to? David F (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It comes in six sections, similar to how kola nuts used in divination come in four sections. The sixth section is the last. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I see. Each section contains comments by an individual. The last section is a comment by Uma Subramanian, a social worker, not reportage by the BBC. Thanks for clearing this up. David F (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A Wiggin13 apdoption
Hi, and sorry for not getting back to you sooner (I've been busy with school). I didn't yet have any plans for formal tests and such, so no, you would not be duplicating work by making some. I would, however, be willing to collaborate in making or grading them, if you wish. CtP (t • c) 20:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That would be excellent; one problem I've had with user adoption is that I like adoptee answers to receive proper attention, which usually means a detailed discussion, and I don't always find the time to engage in that level of discussion as soon as necessary. Being able to delegate some aspects of that would be awesome.


 * I'll set up a few things and let you know once it's underway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reminding me about WP:CONSENT. I hadn't thought about it in quite some time. Mkdw talk 21:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I use it a great deal, although pretty much always for images. You're right that there are very few instances when it's useful for individuals or organisations to freely license text from their websites for Wikipedia, but the option does exist. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV policy note
A comment by you in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case#Victim.27s_name mentioned me. NPOV impartial tone calls for avoiding personal comments. David F (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, WP:NPOV concerns "Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content"; it doesn't say anything about avoiding mentioning other editors' problematic behaviour.


 * I'm glad that you struck part of your unwise comments. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Review suggestion
Thanks kicking off the review of Template:Did you know nominations/Political development in modern Gibraltar. FYI, Template:Did you know nominations/Grand Casemates Gates‎ needs another review following (yet more) objections - you may wish to have a look at that one too. Prioryman (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 14:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Social/structural change in Wikipedia
If you can add anything to this list it would be appreciated. I think we need to talk about a central repository for this splintered discussion. Perhaps a notice in Signpost? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Greed
Hey, Thanks a lot for all of the help on Greed, its infinitely better because of your contributions. I've just added my last contributions in terms of new content and was going to submit it for a Peer Review specifically for FA status, unless you have a better suggestion. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Did the GOCE copyedit for FA happen yet? I specifically asked for an FA-level copyedit from someone who knows the ins and outs, so it's probably worth waiting for that before putting it up for peer review. I'm pretty sure it hasn't happened yet. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your block of 213.103.161.12
Look at the history of Moja domovina. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've looked at it. What am I expected to see? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Persistent vandalism and lying in edit summaries to be doing the opposite. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Philippe
My only concern with Philippe is he said I was being ridiculous and offensive and had made a leap of bad faith. I asked two questions on Jimbo's talk page: I see from the discussion at Commons AN that the file has been saved on our Florida server and is viewable at will by staff, oversighters and stewards. How many people does that represent? Does the complainant know the image has been saved on our server and is still being viewed? Is there any reason to save this image on our server? On its face, this seems very wrong. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That question was asked, I didn't see any response beyond the 'omg its deleted stop questioning us already'. If its been deleted due to a legal issue, it needs to be gone completely. Not viewable by anyone. If its been deleted out of process because someone thinks there is an issue, well there are questions that should be answered. More importantly though - it was on there for 2 years and survived a deletion discussion! Great that it has now been deleted, there are lots of people who would like to know exactly how and why so the method can be applied to other suspect material on there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a knee-jerk reaction by a cadre on Commons that any thing with a hint of nudity, or sexuality MUST BE KEPT no matter what. They are supplying a bungy rope to ensure that Western Civilisation is protected from sliding down that slippery slope back into the days of the Inquisition. John lilburne (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And they're entrenched at Commons and have the buttons... Carrite (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm. Are some these people who obsessively save porn on Commons able to view that "deleted" image? I'd still like to see a list of people who have free access to the image. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Without speaking to this specific case, in general, images that are problematic are oversighted and not deleted from the servers. There's a very good reason for that: law enforcement advised us to do so, so that the image remains in place for their investigation, should they need it.  After a certain amount of time, we have it quietly removed.  Let's not go casting about breathless lines about people obsessively saving porn unless we know the whole story, okay?  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC) (Edit summary:"Don't be ridiculous)

Philippe knows how indenting works on Wikipedia talk pages. He was addressing me. The claim that people were obsessively saving porn was made by John lilburne and Carrite; I was addressing my second question to them. Is Philippe saying there is not a cadre on Commons that believes that anything with a hint of nudity or sexuality MUST BE KEPT no matter what? If he does, he should take that up with Carrite and John. The link in my first question says, [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=87401520&oldid=87401240 Correct. As a steward I can still see the content and I understand why it's suppressed. Trijnsteltalk 19:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)] My second question was straightforward, not ridiculous. I never encounter "stewards" on Wikipedia, and don't know what they do. Since this person, Trijnsteltalk, had just said they could access the file, a file that had been "deleted", it was reasonable to ask who else could access the file, and whether any of the abovementioned porn savers were among their number.

Philippe, in his "apology" on his talk page, said my "leap to bad faith (in suggesting that there was a group of people harboring illegal material on the wiki, and that the WMF would allow that)" was offensive.

There is no leap of bad faith or anything offensive in my questions. I had a perfectly justifiable concern, and I raised it. From what he says on his talk page, it is clear there is a group of people harboring illegal material on the servers (on advice from the police or prosecutors) and his claim that my assumption to that effect is offensive is baffling.

Philippe has offended me. His "ridiculous" comment and his "leap of bad faith" and "offensive" epithets were unfair. He doesn't see it that way. I would very much appreciate it if you and everybody else would drop this, not respond. This is between Philippe and me. He should apologise. He hasn't. It's over. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
for 'fnix'ing my brackets. Hate it when I do that and forget to use preview. I hope the editor who presumably tried to fix it actually responds. I did ask him to after warning him. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

2002–03 South Pacific cyclone season
Hi Demiurge1000, what's the status of the above article's copy-edit? I'm asking because it's booked out to you at the GOCE Request page and your last edit to it was on the 5th of January. Should the request be archived? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I'm still working on it when I have time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll pop a note on the page. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what purpose that serves, but all right. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

AN/I notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. gwickwire talk edits 00:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Very useful that was. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edit at Om Prakash Chautala
Hello, Kindly conform your edit at Om Prakash Chautala. You have identified it as vandalism..--Sachinvenga (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Trashy Bags logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Trashy Bags logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — ξ xplicit  01:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Article feedback
Hi. I have to say that I'm pretty disappointed and hurt that you chose to deliberately misquote me in an attempt to create drama here. It really speaks poorly of you. :-( --MZMcBride (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've replied there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2013 (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) 14:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Trashy Bags
Hi Demiurge1000. I wrote you a message at WP:REFUND. I wonder if you could please reply there? Kind regards, --Unforgettableid (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Replied there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Unban request
Un ban me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.208.254 (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Katie, how are you? I'm afraid that, as far as I know, you're not currently banned anywhere that I'm able to unban you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for stepping up and answering some of my mail when I wasn't feeling well lately. Much appreciated. Danger High voltage! 18:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Typhoon Edit
Here we go with the American strangulation of wikipedia. Only the facts you want hey? Can't wait until your dollar sinks because I can't stand you.

And by the way, the talk functions are crap. They're overly complicated and confusing. As are the edit and edit summary facilities. Please improve them. It's just a jumble of text at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your timely "man-urgement" input, Demi. Why isn't that Australian strangulation (by Dr Carlo Kopp?), I wonder? And I didn't realise that one could make the dollar sink just by not standing you. Any idea what this editor means about the "crap talk functions?" If the vandalism warnings posted on their Talk Page appear to this editor as simply "a jumble of text", that might explain a lot. I belatedly assunmed GF, but they don't seem to be editing in a particularly collaborative manner, do they? Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The tabloid-like Licona analogy
Demiurge:

Thank you for your comments. I have rewritten my two postings, removed all the subjective evaluations, and neutered my objections. My first draft was influenced by the style of comments I had found on the TALK page, and I thought I was writing in the same uninhibited spirit. Do note that the Talk page is much more loaded with subjective evaluations and reactions than my new version.

I concur with your hypothesis of "good faith", but it is not enough. Competence and scholarship are also valued criteria. I have dealt all my life only with the top experts in their field, and it is an education to encounter writers who are well below that level of knowledge. If I had used the Licona comparison or similar in any of my papers at Harvard, I would have been laughed out of his office by my supervisor. I am sure the same would have happened at Oxford or Cambridge. Anyway thanks. This is a different world. Very few top scholars accept to make an input in a Wikipedia article. Nonetheless some articles are first-class. But others are unsatisfactory. This Licona analogy would not be even accepted by our tabloid "New York Post" (or so I hope!). --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The French system of conscription brings together a fair sample of all classes; ours is composed of the scum of the earth—the mere scum of the earth. It is only wonderful that we should be able to make so much out of them afterwards. — Arthur Wellesley.


 * I will reply to your other points when I have a little more time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Matrix article's CE
Hi, Demiurge, I have a question. Bear with me a bit, because I'm still new to CE Guild process. I've noticed that you're working on The Matrix article, and sometimes you leave things off, and I can't tell whether you're done. I assume that it is the standard procedure that when you're done, you'll inform the editors working on the article? Is that correct? Anthonydraco (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'll drop you a note when I finish. (Not all GOCE copy-editors do this.) I tend to work intermittently over a week or more, and generally only work on very small sections, so it's fine for you to make more additions or changes in between. Some GOCE copy-editors do entire articles in one edit or a few very large edits, so they will normally put an "in use" template at the top while they're working, to avoid edit conflicts.


 * I'm more or less finished now; I'll confirm this later today. However, just to forewarn you, it looks like there is (or was) at least a small amount of overly close paraphrasing (WP:PARAPHRASE) from the Andrew Godoski piece. This does bring up the risk that there's lots more, so this will need to be looked into carefully before a GA review. More on this later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Matrix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evil genius (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) 11:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh?
Hey, I have no idea who Philippe is or what he does or what list you're talking about. In any case, as I've said somewhere, I'm scaling back my commitment to wikipedia to staying with that RFC/U until a resolution appears. Then I'm done. Right now, I'm going to take my daughter to the park, and then I might read a book and she has a book she wants to read too. If there's something you want me to do, e-mail me: "daniel.judd@gmail.com" and I'll get to it next time I can be arsed to visit this place. In other news, I didn't see your notice at the top asking for no talkbacks, so I'm replacing that with this. ˜danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 02:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. A walk in the park sounds like a good idea. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK
Hi there! I understand you are knowledgable on DYK nominations. Can you have a look at Women in Turkish politics and help me/us/WP to make a DYK out of it? Thanks in advance and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This will be tricky - the article was created on 25th January 2013 so you are fast running out of time. You would need to submit the nomination today, and even then I don't know if it would be accepted.


 * The most obvious thing that needs fixing is that every paragraph should have an inline citation - that generally means at the end of the paragraph. There are some sections that have no citations at all, and some that have a citation but only half-way through the paragraph. See if that can be fixed first. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like we're late. Thanks all the same. Best. --E4024 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard M. Daley GA nomination
Thanks for the heads up about the CCI, i'll check it out shortly. Retrolord (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Sorry, they wuz all out of barnstars!

Drmies (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC) 

BLP
I'm not sure how WP:BLP applies to a dead girl. I would kindly request that you undo your edit. Eminence2012 (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Replied, rather bluntly, on your talkpage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Starship9000 (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:REFACTOR
Can you please please tell me where in any policy it says users may not change their wording after someone has replied? Because if that's not in policy, you're violating REFACTOR. Thanks. gwickwire talk edits 14:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I'm not following the entire situation, WP:REFACTOR says "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted" and also warns that "Refactoring may cause confusion if improperly applied to an ongoing discussion; an editor should take great care to preserve all such discussion and all relevant details to its context" ... the obvious meaning of this is that you should not change your original post after it's been responded to, or else you change the meaning and context (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * More importantly, there's WP:REDACT, which states It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement. ... Removing or substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deprive the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Worm TT(talk ) 14:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have put a note in to state it was refactored . Please carry on with normal business. If I see any more edit warring, I will hand out blocks. Worm TT(talk ) 15:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for help with IRC
Thanks for you help in IRC today. I really do want to be more involved and be able to create and publish articles. Is there a mentoring or training program like there is in vandalism? What would you recommend? I am just too intimidated to get started. Thanks! Jab843 (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you too! There are training programs in vandalism? I do hope not. But yes, of course there are training programs in editing. And yes, they do take away some of that "too intimidated" feeling. I'd be happy to help you through an adoption/mentoring course if you like - just let me know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Monmouthpedia
a primary source would be the report itself or the blog post by wmf and wmuk. the source i provided is secondary. didn't you click the link? 174.141.213.40 (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Really?
I would've appreciated if you'd added a note about removing my hatting, or at least notified me. Archive tops and Hats have always been something of a gray area, TPO-wise, but I'm of the strong opinion that if a closure note has anything other than a purely routine note in it, the reopening editor should either link to the diff of the closure, or include the full text that accompanied it. I don't think "foolish" is a very fair word to use, especially when both threads were complete bullshit. If you actually feel like taking a stand for either ideology espoused there, then by all means do, but otherwise I can't see what purpose it served to un-hat them - Jayron32 has re-hatted the latter, and the former remains unanswered because, as I correctly guessed, no editor has any interest in dignifying it with a response, yourself included, it seems. Additionally, while I'd stop short of calling it POINTy, it seems at the very least imprudent to unhat me twice after I hatted a recent fight you got into with another user. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  12:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well the conclusion from that is that perhaps you shouldn't go round hatting things all over the place just because they seem - to you - to merit it. There are plenty of "ideologies" or points of view that we may feel are "complete bullshit" but there's absolutely no advantage or purpose in hiding away such things under pink rugs (or any other colour) just because we think they're dumb or nonsensical or trolling. If it had been a discussion on the reference desk, it might have been more appropriate to hat it (though I've recently unhatted some there as well, where further responses were obviously justifiable). But people should be able to bring their views and concerns (however apparently weird) to the village pump without busybodies jumping in to close them down because subjectively their concerns (which may well be sincerely held) aren't important.


 * We also shouldn't be mocking such problematic people by wittering on about being "faux cabal" as you did - it's rude and a completely unnecessary in-joke, and if these people are crazy then shutting them off in that way is only going to make them crazier. (Quite apart from which, your argument "If we were controlled by the PRC, do you think you would've been able to post this" was clearly flawed, so should've been as a comment that they would be able to reply to and reason with, not a hat to prevent them doing so.)


 * "Close" notes don't have any special status in my eyes, so if you're using them to gain that, don't bother. I'm not going to edit war with you (or anyone else) over the closures, though, because re-opening them is only a matter of opinion (mine) just as much as closing them is. However, I don't inform people of unhatting a discussion, any more than I inform them that I've replied to them.


 * I'll give you a couple of examples to think on. In the last week some guy popped up and started getting very excited about altering Haiti; he was enough of a loon that I had to ban him and subsequently it turned out he was a sockpuppet as well (I think he ended up with an indef on all accounts). His style of discussion revolved around listing off names of individual Haitians with French-sounding names and demanding that I (and the rest of the world) google them. He was entirely incapable of explaining what this would prove or what his actual problem was or even what part of the article he felt was wrong. But, despite all this crazy, a bit of investigation led me to one of the things most troubling him, and in fact it turned out that part of the infobox was partially misleading, unnecessary, and likely to cause trouble. So yes, he was not a person that we could reasonably co-operate with on building an encyclopedia, but it was still appropriate to take his concerns seriously, rather than assuming he was trolling.


 * Another example was a few months ago at Jimbo's talk page. Some Japanese person repeatedly turned up with various questions and demands and accusations, completely incoherent through being Google Translate only, and spreading over into legal threat territory (against Jimbo!). Jimbo was completely polite, answered the person's questions where they made sense, told them each time that he didn't understand the rest of it, and so on. Eventually I went and found someone fluent in both English and Japanese, who looked into it and concluded the person was an idiot (not the wording I would've used myself) and that there was no chance of getting any sense from them. That was that - but it was absolutely correct of us to go to that trouble rather than just deciding the person was a loon right from the start and closing them down. Because doing that, as I said, makes crazies more crazy. (Especially if accompanied with apparent taunts as you did.)


 * Even fluent English-speakers struggle to understand how Wikipedia works; when I fix BLP problems I am often accused of being paid to do so or being associated with the subject, but that's a sincere and understandable mistake, and should be treated as such. As the largest Wikipedia, we do very regularly get complaints or queries from people whose English skills are either bad or just non-existent. Many of these look equally incoherent and ridiculous - some of the complaints about the Turkish Wikipedia have been just as bad, even though it seems very likely there is actually a serious problem over there. Although there are a few instances where the "assume a genuine problem" stage has passed a long time ago, in most cases rushing in to close down discussions for the sake of it, and mocking the original poster along the way, is not the route to take. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing that "close" notes have any special status; quite the contrary. I'm saying that when re-opening a discussion, a user should include a reference to the previous close. As you said, contributors to the previously-closed discussion may want to respond to points raised in the close note.
 * As for your points about respecting fringe/unintelligible POVs, my feelings remain the same: If you care so much, you should actually respond to them, not silently revert me. If we could understand what the first thread said, I imagine we'd hat/remove it as rife with personal attacks. The second got itself promptly re-hatted, and the subsequent discussion proves that there's nothing about a hat that means that interested users can't simply click "show" and see what it is that got the user so up-in-arms. Threads stay on VPP for 5 days, last I checked, so that's 120 hours in which anyone can check to see if there was any substance behind all the trolling. Anyways, I'm all for ignoring certain conduct policies if the users violating them are making good points, but... despite all of your philosophizing, I don't see you actually contesting that this was bullshit. I agree with your abstract points, but I don't think that they apply here. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  17:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to get into an argument about the rightness, wrongness, or "bullshit"ness of the complaints that you hatted. If you want to make a point about something that someone posts, you need to put it in a comment, not in a hat. No-one is "ignoring certain conduct policies". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, remove Gwick's comment if you must, but I just asked an honest question. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  18:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed Gwickwire's comment because he's apparently too lazy to even look at the issue that arose (even to look at the discussion you yourself gave a link to!), never mind actually reading what was said in response. (He finds it "intimidating" when someone gives a proper reply, I love that.) He's basically only here to continue his childish squabble about his failure to understand policy, which he's now taken to ANI multiple times (where he was told how ridiculous his behaviour is) and been warned for at WP:ANEW. He would do well to find something more constructive to spend his time here on.


 * As for your question, I don't have "rules" about hatting something, I exercise editorial discretion. It is generally not appropriate to hat something when it appears to be a sincerely meant complaint about policy or policy related matters, for the reasons I explained at length above. I have, however, collapsed material from time to time when it seemed appropriate (feel free to sift through my contribs for such exciting incidents, I'm sure there's one quite recently!), but I don't take particular umbrage if I get reverted after doing so. (Because, like I said above, the revert is an opinion that's as valid or invalid as the decision to collapse the material in the first place.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Quail Valley Middle School
Thanks for the suggestion!Cmckain14 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion
A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Demi
Hey Demiurge, like I mentioned that one day, I'm working on adding references to the Norman conquest of southern Italy article since there weren't very many, so I started working on it in my userspace. With me going over a few sources I changed some of the content after reading them (and citing what I found in them). I just wanted to get your eyes on it in my userspace before I put it "live" incase we want to talk about some of the changes and such. Anywho, I look forward to any feedback/response you might have. If you wouldn't mind using the userspace talk page for your response/feedback that would be appreciated since I'll ask for a few others opinions as well. Thanks again, cheers, — - dain - talk    01:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's great that you're working on adding references to this. It would be nice to see this article reach GA one day, and a shortage of refs is one of the main things holding it back.


 * However, I'm not sure that copying it to userspace and then working on it there is necessarily a good idea. For a start, what happens if other people edit the mainspace version while you're editing the userspace version? You'll re-incorporate their changes when moving the userspace version over the mainspace version? How will you handle attribution if the userspace version ends up being edited by multiple different people - will you need to ask for a history merge later? Unless there's a reason for working on it separately in userspace (e.g. you're aiming at a 5x expansion for DYK and it will take more than five days), it's usually better to just improve the mainspace version. (WP:BOLDly.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You bring up a good idea regarding having to merge histories as well as folks editing the article in the interim before I "finish" contributing. I wasn't going for DYKs or anything of that sort. Thanks for the input, do you think you will be adding to the content later or just checking out updates, I assume it's on your watchlist since you have 30+ edits to the article. — - dain - <font color="#000">talk    02:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It will always be on my watchlist, but I won't be adding much content - I was mostly involved as copyeditor. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Updates to technical pages
Hi Demiurge1000 - thanks for your note. I'm clearly new to wikipedia, so I would love to better understand how you would have written those updates. You mentioned that the updates were promotional - on the oscilloscope page, I definitely can see removing the mention of the brand of oscilloscope (although it is factual in nature), but slow update rate *is* an inherent drawback of digital oscilloscopes. Why would we try to hide that on a wikipedia page? For the RS232 page, there was no mention of any brand of oscilloscopes - how could that be considered promotional? It was the same context as the information above it in the development tools section, just about a different (and very common) development tool. What would you suggest? TIA. Richpike (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Richard, you must have forgotten, when you say "For the RS232 page, there was no mention of any brand of oscilloscopes", that in your edit to that page, you included a link to cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5990-6677EN.pdf which has the lovely quote "Agilent’s InfiniiVision 3000 and 4000 X-Series oscilloscopes (DSOs) and mixed-signal oscilloscopes (MSOs) offer optional integrated serial bus triggering and hardware-based protocol decoding solutions that give you the tools you need to accelerate debug of your designs". The only other article you have edited is Oscilloscope, where you included a link to a different piece of Agilent marketing literature, and also took the trouble to mention (without an independent source) how the fastest devices on the market today are, just by coincidence, made by Agilent.


 * What would I suggest? First, it's easiest to avoid mentioning the brand name (or the products under the brand) at all; unless you can find a reliable third-party source that discusses the importance of the products for the topic. Second, encyclopedia articles do not address the reader in the second person like marketing literature does; thus, we do not write things like "faster update rates allow you to see more signal detail and increase your probability of capturing infrequent events" in Wikipedia's voice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Very helpful! I thought it was beneficial to provide sources, but I see your point about the sources needing to be more indepedent. Thanks for the insights. I'll try again - thanks for the fast response. Richpike (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Mirror image discussions
Hmm. I've never read nor edited the Binge drinking article. I'm not sure I can be much help. Alcoholism and addiction are their own special area that mixes mental health with internal medicine.Legitimus (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, indeed. The common theme was perception of those involved being a major part of the issue and its portrayal here. As I say, just a curiosity that struck me this evening. (I'm working on a biographical article that touches on both topics, but am trying to relate only history rather than risking straying into medical territory of any sort - I have historical qualifications but no medical ones apart from some undergraduate psychology courses .) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I will say that from what I know from colleagues who work with alcoholism that the denial involved is a breed all its own. It goes well beyond the simply psychological process of denial and cognitive dissonance.  It involves genetics and brain chemistry.  But as you can probably figure out, only an alcoholic goes around trying to justify destructive usage and disparaging medical science.  A bitter irony when you realize the other person both is completely "outing" themselves by arguing with you, but at the same time revealing you will never be able to convince them through reason.Legitimus (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

PERM/ACC; removal of not done template
Hello, Demi. I would like to ask why you have removed the not done template I placed when closing a request. Yes, I am not an administrator nor would I normally be handling requests for permissions but that is an area that I or another ACC admin is required to comment. If you wish for me not to use a template that an admin would place hours later, then so be it but I find that highly unnecessary. :) <span title="Shoot!" style="font-family: Mono; Cursor: crosshair;">-- Cheers, Ri l ey    19:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Riley, congratulations on your latest hat. The template was removed because, as has been discussed at length, requests for permissions should be approved or denied by administrators. The presence of comments with sarcastic edit summaries and bravado about "the big boss", suggests it wouldn't be wise to change that any time soon. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Tim Gustard
Many thanks Demiurge1000, I appreciate your input. A great deal of info has been erased by this user who seems preoccupied with belittling the Tim Gustard page. The person who created did so in a rather flowery manner and was obviously an admirer and perhaps also not reliable. If you require any further information or wish to improve this article or indeed feel it is time to delete it, please contact me, Tim Gustard on bobdunda@btinternet.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.15.212 (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Tim, it looks like the article will probably be deleted within a week or so, which is probably the best solution to the problem. Check in a couple of weeks and see if things look better. I wouldn't recommend re-creating the article (or keeping it), as it would most likely lead to the same sort of problems again. (Having said that, I'm not especially against the existence of an article, but it would probably be difficult to get right.)


 * Incidentally, is it correct that this rather nice image is public domain (i.e. freely useable) - it seems to have been uploaded as such by Pamela Ball on behalf of Beckstones Gallery, does this sound right? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your positive contribution to the discussion  on my talk page. I appreciate it.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  20:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. I doubt it will make much difference to the outcome, but I do believe we should be very careful in assuming COI in such cases. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Land reclamation
Hello Demiurge1000, you reverted my adjustments in the article Land reclamation.

An article about Land reclamation without mentioning the extensive Dutch history with the subject is a huge omission. I assume you don't disagree with that. If so, I would like to hear before I make the adjustments in the coming days.

You reverted all the adjustments all at once, because of too close paraphrasing the source. But only parts of it is paraphrased.

In the coming days I will put back paragraph by paragraph, rephrasing text and adding additional sources, since the article needs some more resources. If you still think parts of it are too close paraphrased, you can only revert the relevant parts. --Watisfictie (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Demiurge1000, I just read your remarks, making my own remarks above not relevant any more.--Watisfictie (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou
Hi Demiurge1000, thankyou for your comment you left on my talk page. You are right the photo was taken on the sea front of clacton on sea, although its not the best quality, i believe its one of the only on commons that show a complete rainbow so close, in your opinion do you think its worth a go at featured picture? Best regards --Danesman (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not much of an expert on the featured picture process, but I do know that even minor flaws in quality or composition can lead to Opposes. Still, there's nothing to be lost by trying. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Where have you...
...seen a nomination by a low trusted user of a community? I just want to know what nomination was made by the user with low trust in the community, who is the nominator and who is the candidate. I need a link please. C mach  7  01:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't believe that would be useful to you (or to Wikipedia more generally), as it's something that happened nearly a year ago now, and I believe the opinions of the people involved may have changed in that time anyway. You may wish to just take my word for it that it caused some bad feeling and some problems for the nominator (and, as far as I know, one Oppose in an RfA that ended as successful).


 * As has been noted (in rather harsher terms) on your talkpage, you should probably stay away from nominating, requesting nominations, or requesting any other sort of rights, for a good six months or so at least. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Irish Music Festival
Hi, Little confused to as why my contribution of our Irish Music Festival Sligo Live was not accepted into wikipedia. There are many other Irish festivals listed. Kind regards, (Dan.young3000 (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC))


 * Talk:Main Page is not the place to post such things. Try Articles for creation instead. You'll also need to write it neutrally instead of promotionally, and you will need to provide citations to independent reliable sources - see WP:42. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of posted content
This is rouge Bantha 21 young that I posted my lego Star Wars post with information from LEGO STAR WARS.com.

And my name is supposed to be spelled like that.

Cheers, Rougebantha21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rouge bantha 21 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 22 February 2013 (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) 13:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)