User talk:Demiurge1000/Archive 16

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. 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 on the SuggestBot study page.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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) 00:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)
Books & Bytes Sign up for monthly delivery Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world. Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations... Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...  Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...  Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...   Read Books & Bytes , 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

ITNC post
I noticed you posted a comment to ITN; it was posted in the "Libya Law" section but the way it was worded it seems to belong in the NSA section; I just didn't know if you made a mistake. 331dot (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting me know. God forbid I might have posted a comment that... actually, never mind. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Images or celebrities
Hi Demiurge1000 I want to know how we can add images or celebrities in our articles?

Rgds Sandy Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor0071 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Sandy. If an image of the celebrity is already available on Wikimedia Commons (use the search facility at the top right of this page), then you can add it to a Wikipedia article by following the instructions at Wikimedia Commons.


 * If not, the simplest method is as follows:


 * Purchase a camera.
 * Point the camera at the celebrity and take a photo of them. (So long as the celebrity is an adult, it doesn't matter whether they are wearing clothes or not when you do so, because Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. So long as the celebrity doesn't object, that is.)
 * Upload the photo to Commons


 * You can then add the photo to existing Wikipedia articles using the method already mentioned above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

My response
Demiurge1000, I responded to you at mark's page, but mark usually archives posts, if he doesn't know how to respond. So here I am. I see you'd like to talk to me. Okay, let's talk, I'd like to talk to you too. For example I'd like to understand how somebody who used to be a teacher could be ... well as you are.But before we talk could you please repeat after me: "I was the first one to support your community ban. I did it while you were blocked, and your talk page access was removed. I knew you have no means to defend yourself. I used the content of your hacked emails that I got directly from the hacker or the hacker accomplice as the rational for my support vote." and sign this statement, and please remember demiurge1000, you're an anonymous user, and I am a named person. Of course feel free to tell me what I got wrong about your conduct. Otherwise I am sure you'd have no problem with doing what I asked you to do because apparently you believe your conduct is perfectly alright. 69.181.40.174 (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies - Nelson Mandela.


 * You're not banned by the community because of something I did. You're banned by the community because of the things you did.


 * Realising that would be your first step towards getting unbanned. The second, if you're now admitting that the emails forwarded by the whistleblower were indeed your emails (as you just said), would be to apologise to Gatoclass, to apologise to Nableezy, and indeed also to apologise to the Wikipedia community for deliberately misleading them and dishonestly subverting community processes in order to push your point of view.


 * The third step towards getting unbanned would be to stop trolling all over the place as ban-evading IPs, and email WP:BASC instead.


 * Merry Christmas, and good luck. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not unhappy that I am banned. I am proud I am banned. If I knew what would be done to me for exposing a bully who between others hurt 16 years old kid beyond belief I would have done it all over again. Quite a few editors before me tried to stop that bully. They failed. I succeeded and proud of that.


 * I was not banned by the community. The community are thousands upon thousands users who are adding the content, not a few involved users who see their purpose in bullying absolutely defenseless human beings on ANI.
 * Who is "the whistleblower"? The unanimously community banned the hacker or the hacker accomplice? In that situation it was really the community because no user who supported the ban had a prior involvement with sol., or maybe "the whistleblower" is the impersonator who sent my an email pretending to be a member of the arbcom? Besides if you aren't sure what is the right therm to name the hackers of email account you should read this article.
 * As I told you personally in my email to you the hacked emails were written in purpose to make the hacker to act and to expose itself. I knew about the hacker as soon as it got into my Gmail. I emailed Avi about it, and he could confirm it.
 * I am not trolling. I am trying to make the project a safer place, which means exposing anonymous users with twisted understanding of what is right and what is wrong just like yourself, but I'm afraid it is useless in your situation.
 * Of course it is your talk page, and you could remove my post, but it would mean that once again you denied me the right to defend myself a basic human right which is ignored on Wikipedia.
 * Bye.69.181.40.174 (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Why would I need to remove your post? The more you talk, the clearer your character becomes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Demiurge1000, why don't you give Edward Snowden's barnstar to your personal hero user:Sol Goldstone? It deserves it for hacking my email account and for impersonating a member of the arbcom, and by doing this saving the humanity. But in my opinion heroes, I mean real heroes, if they really believe that they've done the right, heroic things do not hide in the countries with totalitarian regime like for example Russia.
 * Demiurge1000, do you understand English? The hacked emails were written in purpose to make the hacker to act. I knew about the hacker at the moment it happened. I emailed Avi about it. Avi blocked the proxy used by the hacker. All of that happened long before sol and you started harassing me over these emails. Who knew that some idiots would believe these emails to be real. It's getting boring to repeat it over and over again. 69.181.40.174 (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * (1) I don't believe you. (2) I don't care about your excuses, because they excuse nothing even if they were true (which they aren't). (3) I don't care about your opinions of Edward Snowden. (4) WP:BLP applies here just like it does on the rest of Wikipedia. (5) You're banned, go away. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I cannot care less if you believe me or you do not, but because this is a public talk which is read by others here are a few dates with on-wiki diffs to consider:
 * 1) February 15, 2011 I'm trying to figure out who used the IP that hacked my gmail. I was able to find the person who used the IP via email. He was not the hacker. He did use that proxy, but proxy is a proxy, the owners are changing all the time. As you see even back then in that post I told the user I contacted Avi about two months prior to that February post.
 * 2) February 19, 2011 sol starts harassing me over the hacked emails.
 * These dates clearly demonstrate that I knew about the hacker long before Sol showed up at my talk, and I did not lie, when I said I contacted Avi and IP was blocked, and all affair was conducted in order to find who was the hacker.
 * And with this I am leaving your talk page. 69.181.40.174 (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The emails predate that by months. Go. Away. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Demiurge1000, I see you have problems not only with English, but also with arithmetic. OK, let's count the months together, shall we?
 * You know the hacked emails in question were about DYK nomination. That article (not yet DYK) was only started on December 18 2010. Another topic of hacked email was my participation in the talk page of article Egypt, which started on December 19, 2010. Now as I told you before on February 15, 2011 I'm trying to figure out who used the IP that hacked my gmail. As you see even back then in that post I told the user I contacted Avi about two months prior to that February post. How many months between February 15, 2011 and December 18, 2010, Demiurge1000? So would you please stop spreading unconfirmed lies about me. I told you in the beginning I am a named person. You're an anonymous user. As you yourself said BLP applies everywhere.
 * Now you're clearly loosing it. You started with quoting Nelson Mandela, and now you keep repeating "Go Away". I'd be happy to go away, but I am a named person, I have my reputation to protect. So kindly please stop lying about me and I would go away. 69.181.40.174 (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * He didn't even quote Mandela, who never said any such thing - the quote actually comes from the Alcoholics Anonymous 12-step program, and ultimately derives from a 1930s AA text The Sermon on the Mount: The Key to Success in Life by Emmet Fox. For some reason people tend to attribute this quote either to Buddha or Mandela, presumably on the grounds that AA isn't dignified enough to use as a source for pithy epigrams. See this for a brief history of that quotation. 188.29.164.201 (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this update! I personally read it in the London Evening Standard a couple of days ago. Not the world's most reliable source, mind you. Perhaps you should update them, and also Good Reads. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That was definitely said by Nelson Mandela. It is not a question, but I'd like to ask you, Demiurge1000, one more burning question please. See, I thought that as all normal, law abiding people you believe that the hackers of at least private email accounts and their accomplices are dirty criminals, but apparently you believe they are the whistleblowers and the heroes. Then could you please explain to me why in March of 2011 you said on IRC: "05:05:49 < Demiurge1000> Also people seem to hack other people's Wikipedia gmail addresses, so I thought I'd fill mine with bullshit so that any hacker will be driven insane"? I mean what is the problem if a hero-whistleblower would hack your email account? Why do you want to drive that poor hero insane? 69.181.40.174 (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sweetie, you gotta understand... my relationships with the "hero-histleblower"(sic) people who hack my email accounts are a matter just for me. You may be jealous. You may be full of hate. But I'm sorry. You need to move on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that not only you call the hackers of private email accounts "the whistleblowers", but you don't know that calling someone "Sweetie" is considered to be Verbal sexual harassment.
 * I don't hate you at all. My feelings towards you are absolutely the same as to a brush I use to clean my toilet. I mean I feel as washing my hands every time I clean my toilet and every time I talk to you. 69.181.40.174 (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding CCI Notice
Thanks! I went through that CCI notice and spotted those entries. I have however stopped editing those pages, and so will not be making any more changes there. I request you make a post on the talk page of those pages so that any of the current editors will make the desired changes.-- PremKudva    Talk   04:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If the CCI request is accepted, then all of your contributions (including those five) will be checked for copyright violations, and fixed if necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that.-- PremKudva    Talk   03:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Do instruct whoever is fixing it to rephrase the offending sentences instead of deleting them.-- PremKudva    Talk   04:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The people fixing the copyright violations are volunteers just like you and I, and they are very busy as there is a large backlog of copyright violations to deal with. Also they might not have knowledge of, or interest in, the topic areas in question. So in some, or perhaps many cases, especially where a considerable amount of text is at issue, they may have to simply blank the existing content rather than re-write it. This seems already to have happened at Karnad Sadashiva Rao, which has been entirely blanked.


 * You may be able to assist by editing Contributor copyright investigations/Premkudva either to note that you are re-writing particular articles not to use copy-pasted material; or to note that you have done so; or to note that you believe the problems do not affect some of the articles listed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Cavendish Pianos
This article was on DYK today - thanks for your assistance/feedback on preparing it --nonsense ferret  23:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know, that's good to see!


 * As you're aware, though, I still feel that piano manufacturers' most important work will always be in upsetting Hermann Göring:

"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked."

It is not clear whether Göring did indeed have the opportunity to own a British radio set between the end of the war and his death shortly thereafter. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Christopher-lee dos Santos article edit disputes
Hi Demiurge,

I represent Christopher-lee dos Santos. Thank you for contacting me. I am not familiar with how wikipedia works, but am glad to see there are editors involved that are willing to be neutral. I believe you need to understand, that the original write ups on the Wikipedia page, that were originally done by BobbyandBeans in 2012, were done out of spite to inflict damage to dos Santos' image. BobyandBeans, who is the original writer of the dos Santos article (the article in question), believed dos Santos needed to be brought down after the film Eternity got bad reviews, and her friend, David James, one of the stars of said film, received bad press for the role portrayed in the film. David James was involved in the much acclaimed district 9. The original writer of this article felt that the film Eternity destroyed Mr. James' hard earned respect from District 9 and she blames none other than dos Santos. Not the writers, not the original producer and director who cast Mr. James in the early months of production. BobbyandBeans refused to listen to dos Santos about him being the 5th Director on the film and him being handed a broken film to try fix. He only facilitated the completion of the film and took over even after some of the film had originally been shot. Mr. James and Mr. dos Santos are both very close friends, and had Mr. James felt dos Santos was the reason for his bad press, I am pretty sure Mr. James would not have accepted to partake in the new film directed by Mr. dos Santos. We actually have it in good faith that Mr. James feels rather proud of dos Santos's achievements. We can send you a link to a video interview if necessary.

The point of a wiki page is to be factual, is it not? Yet all we see on this page is a biased view of proceedings by the original poster, who after Mr. James had asked her to cease, has not updated this page since. We are now trying to set things right and be factual and remove the negative stain that BobbyandBeans has tried to place on Mr. dos Santos. Please understand this predicament. BobbyandBeans had a personal vendetta against Mr. dos Santos and thus, this page actually cannot be taken seriously. She personally knew him and hid behind her writing to get back at him, using misguided quotes to try her hardest to paint him in a bad light. Even when looking on the Wiki page's talk section, one can easily see her dismay at being told her article was being edited as her sources were vague. I have spoken to Mr. dos Santos about his private conversations with the original poster, whose real name we will keep private at this stage. He originally had Facebook messages from her, (his account is now inactive) and has emails between her and himself that paint a rather clear picture of her distaste for Mr. dos Santos and her goal to bring his name down since Eternity's release. The fact is, dos Santos was only involved in the last 4 months of Eternity till it's release. The film was in production for over a year. But none of this is mentioned in the article, yet in many reviews dos Santos mentions his taking over at the last minute right through the middle of shooting.

I propose, either we delete this Wiki page from existence as it is biased and can be proven so, or we correct it and be factual. Most Wiki pages talk about a person's biography. They are to the point and touch lightly on parts of said person's career and life. Yet this article touches nothing on dos Santos' life, his background is lightly researched, stating quickly about his film school, yet nothing about his film awards, his bursary invitation to the Nelson Mandela Rhodes Scholarship fund, his meeting with Steven Spielberg at Cannes, his being invited to write a feature script in los Angels, his directing of countless music videos for big bands in South Africa and directing several TV shows aired on national television in South Africa. No, it only focuses on the negative feedback and uses misguided quotes to paint a negative picture of this young filmmaker. I have seen many celebrity wiki pages and they have much less information that we see on this page. It appears well researched at first glance, but does that not seem suspect to you. The original poster really went out of her way to try nail dos Santos, but BobbyandBeans has since ceased all write ups of dos Santos. They had a personal talk, and I believe Mr. James was involved as well and since then, all write ups have ceased.

We only reverted the article back to the previous edit as this is a factual edit without being negatively biased to cause harm to dos Santos's career. Either we can agree to this edit, or we ask for these deletion of the page completely, as it can be argued that two biased parties (namely BobbyandBeans and myself) who personally have dealings with the person in question in the article, are fighting over what edit is factual and not.

Please understand the reasoning behind these edits. dos Santos has no one else who is prepared to tell the truth for him, nor do they have the time to sift through the details. There are many positive reviews of his career yet none are posted on this page. Why do you think that is? Only the negative ones are sourced and posted ~ including a recent post by an AlexisVert, a female friend whom originally hosted dos santos' webpage, and has since had a fall out with dos Santos. Since the fallout, she no longer hosts his webpage and it also seems she is looking to cast dos Santos in bad light. Whatever their differences may be, is it right to have such a biased view? Is it fair that anyone who wants to slander someones name can make a wiki page and use only negative information about said person? We have already had words with Miss Vert regarding this update, she remains to say she was being journalistic, yet if she truly was, why not post any of the other positive reviews of the film in question. It seems that this wiki page has become a portal for anyone with a personal vendetta against Mr. dos Santos, to come post only negative reviews and interviews.

I thank you for being neutral and we are thankful for that. I only hope you can understand the article in question is not written out of neutral opinion, but out of biased anger.

Think on it.

Thank you for your time.

Gino Pisanti

PS. I would like this message to be deleted from public view after you have read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.198.66 (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I won't have time to read it until tomorrow. So I've encased it in a green thing for now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * User:BobbyandBeans has not edited for more than six months, so I think his influence on the article is likely to be extremely limited now. I am also somewhat uncertain about the motives you ascribe to him, since he edited a great many articles related to the movie industry, and there's no indication that he was solely interested in dos Santos. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. User BobbyandBean's personally knows dos Santos. Please give me an email address so that I can send you emails between dos Santos and said user, proving this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.237.61.159 (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you tried Contact us? I believe there is an email address available there.


 * Alternatively, if you register a Wikipedia account with an email address then you can email me using the "Email this user" link on the left. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Off topic
Hi Demiurge! First, a big thank you for the AfD reply! Second, if you're interested and you are available to take a look, the discussion is here. And third, how did that disagreement sound? I am really curious, apologies for chasing you Alma (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


 Pr at yya  (Hello!) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.  Pr at yya  (Hello!) 04:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Cyberpower678


— cyber power Online Merry Christmas is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. — cyber power Online Merry Christmas 22:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


Jayadevp 13  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Also have a very Happy New Year! - Jayadevp  13  06:47, 25 December 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 suggestions. 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 on the SuggestBot study page.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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) 00:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy 2014 from Cyberpower678


— cyberpower Online Happy 2014 — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

— cyberpower Online Happy 2014 00:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Signpost
Hi, Demiurge1000, I have removed your addition of "Wikipediocracy had also uncovered his history of conflict of interest editing on the English Wikipedia" from the Signpost News and Notes feature. I'm not sure that's completely accurate or that it's entirely appropriate where you added it.

First of all, I would imagine you are talking about the video game thing. He did an article of a video game he wrote, also several other articles about video games he did not write. Using the term COI makes it sound like paid editing. It was not.

Second, the byline on the piece is Tony1 and The ed17. Adding your own comment where you did makes it look like they authored it. I would suggest you put the remark in the talk section, where the authorship can be attributed more transparently.

Third, there has been some controversy about this, but if you are going to say something in the official voice of the Signpost, and not as an individual editor, you ought to give the individual a chance to respond to it beforehand. In this case you are making an accusation against this person, whose real name is known.

Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If Tony1 or The Ed17 want to cover up what 28bytes did, they are welcome to make that edit themselves. Otherwise, I suggest you leave the page as it is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What is your justification for making such an accusation? —Neotarf (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you alleging misconduct? Have these accusations been investigated in a neutral forum? And what do you mean "history of"--repeated instances? Why do you use the loaded term "uncovered"?  Was there a "coverup"?  Why haven't you provided any sources?  And why not put your own name to your accusations? If you are an insider to this Wikipediocracy group, why don't you say what you know, and how you know it? Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's kinda funny. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * No problem. As I said elsewhere, your persistence and perseverance over the several years its taken are commendable. To misuse a tangentially AV-8B related quote, I salute your indefatigability. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

News and notes
Hi Demiurge, on reflection and having talked it through with a few people, I'm uncomfortable with the clause you inserted, given that it's unlinked and unverified. The part I'm unconvinced about in particular is the claim that Wocracy did the research; research might have taken place, but I'm told that the person in question did reveal potentially COI edits at ANI.

So please take it up with Ed when he's next online. Tony  (talk)  12:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a modified clause, thanks to information sent to me elsewhere. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder, Demiurge was blocked by 28Bytes due to some behavioral issues one Demiurge's part, so he appears to be trying to get even. Cla68 (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I wasn't the only person blocked by 28bytes for the thoughtcrime of being critical of the website where he was deeply involved but trying to cover up his involvement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I think it was fairly inappropriate for him to have made the block given his undeclared affiliations and even more inappropriate to block yet another editor involved in the matter a day later, you were not merely being critical of the site. You were actually saying some fairly hurtful things. I think the more appropriate course of action for him would have been to report the matter to a conduct noticeboard as is the preferred approach when an admin may be too involved in a dispute to take action. That likely would have resulted in a block anyway and you would not have as much room to object.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well that's the thing - he did contact another admin, an uninvolved admin, who reviewed the edits in question and saw no need to block. It was only after she had declined to block, quite some time later in fact, that 28bytes went ahead with a month-long block himself.


 * And the pretext for that one month block was my comments on his own talk page. Pretty hurtful comments? No, I don't think they were. But I knew there had to be something fishy going on behind the scenes for a supposedly respected administrator to act in that fashion. So I wasn't too surprised when, at the end of 2013, we discovered what it was.


 * (Incidentally, I think it's quite witty of you and Cla68 to both turn up here with a "hey, Demiurge1000 has a history with Mason and that website, you know" spiel, while mentioning nothing of your own involvement.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am talking about the comments you made towards me that prompted 28's exchange with you. I got over it a while ago, but your suggestion that such comments were merely criticism of WO is not right.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 04:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for listen.hatnote.com
Wow! As I listen and see the 100+ edits per minute pouring in from the various Wikipedia projects, I am amazed. I've got all of the languages checked for maximum wind-chime effect. Thanks for the link. (And I'm even thinking of doing a little edit-and-watch-and-listen to see and hear my own contributions being picked up.) It is sheer fun. What an exciting way to actually see and hear how the project(s) are moving along. Thank you, thank you, thank you for posting the link on one of those frustrating and silly user comment pages. – S. Rich (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

== I'm guilty as charged sockpuppet of R-41, from a pathetic state of reoccurring addiction here, to which I requested to be banned, TFD ratted me out because I was going to report him for his behaviour ==

Yes I'm guilty, and pathetic, so block me. TFD is also guilty of highly combative behaviour to DIREKTOR as is DIREKTOR is to TFD, from their conversation at Talk:Nazism. DIREKTOR will probably end up being reported, but not TFD. You won't listen to me, ask DIREKTOR if you care.--70.26.113.85 (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Process note
I won't allow the accusations that the anon is making to stand on my talk page. I've redacted them. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Green children
Hey Demiurge, these children weren't feral. Only one of the two remaining narratives says something along those lines (the loose and wanton behavior), but that seems to have taken place when she was of marrying age already, so no longer a child. There is nothing like it in regard to the brother. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * She was still the child of her presumably emerald-hued parents, just as I am still the child of my parents. Personally, I consider both children to be more than a little feral. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Devil Baby?
What? I am terribly confused by your comment on my talk page about the proposed Kelly Lyn Noone article. Are you suggestion she and I are related? Or the article creator is related to me?

In the mean time, you may enjoy the devil baby video, which seems much more notable. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's the surname... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * HAHaha HAHaha HAHaha HAHaha HAHaha   HAHaha  !  I should have caught that one.  Very good, thanks for the laugh. μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Operation Bodyguard
Hello, Demiurge. I'm the one who added a small section to Bodyguard, as Copperhead was indeed part of that operation. The previous version 'worked all right', but the mention of Copperhead does add something to spice the stew. Valetude (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

deletion
Why have you nominated the page i created, Mark Burnett (producer), for deletion. It fully complies with the guidlines and states why he is notable. If you cant see that then you are not quallified to review on the subject. Makro (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Makro (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)