User talk:Demiurge1000/Archive 19

adelstein
Stop posting copy-pastas on my talk page; if you really think I'm violating the blp policy, please do pursue that further at an appropriate venue. There is nothing to preclude mentioning goto in Adelstein's article, as it's a significant incident, as demonstrated by its coverage in sources, and yes, those written by authors other than Adelstein. As I said on talk page. And please don't simply revert while ignoring points made on the talk page, per 3rr. bridies (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If there are independent reliable sources sufficient to satisfy WP:BLP, please include them at the same time as restoring any controversial material about Goto to that or any other page. Anything less will result in poorly sourced controversial material being removed - again - per WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They are in Goto's article, and the claims took all of 10 seconds to verify. And closer to 10 minutes to format on a touchscreen, cheers for that. bridies (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NODEADLINE is an essay worth reading. Put in the reliable independent sources for controversial claims about living people at the same time you put in the controversial claims themselves. (That's what WP:BLP says, and it isn't an essay.) It's up to you to choose what device you're using when you choose to do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I like how you keep calling this controversial when it's not, as evidenced by the multiple years it's been in the article and the multitude of sources which cover it. I like wp:sofixit - as in, for example, copy-paste one of the several refs you've been pointed to - and wp:dick. bridies (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well that's the second time I've had someone cite WP:DICK to me in recent months, and once again it says more about the person saying it than the person they're attacking. Learn to read Wikipedia policy. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Since you have indicated that you do not comprehend, or do not agree with, this policy, it is appropriate for every single edit you have made and subsequently make to be scrutinised for BLP problems and reverted without hesitation if possible issues are found. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, the second time of late is it? Ho ho. Yes, I'm sure it couldn't have anything to do with you... It's you that doesn't understand policy. The info was verifiable per wp:v, as I demonstrated on the talk page, a lack of citations does not preclude that. Also, as I said on the talk page and you ignored, if the issue is the libel of goto then Adelstein, as an expert on Japanese organised crime with a book published by a third party, is a reliable source. Your no-discussion quote does not allow you to continue to remove sourced content and refuse to engage in discussion when that discussion, and defence of status quo sourcing, has begun. bridies (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Verifiable it may be, verifying it is what you have to do. The onus is on you. I hope you've managed it now, and I won't have to waste more of my time on that particular article.


 * As for the requirement to examine the rest of your contributions now that these problems have been uncovered, it still stands. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Entirely spurious: verification and citing are not the same thing. I provided verification, and you could easily have cited it yourself (I argued it was unnecessary). God forbid you should waste time editing the article space, and perish the thought you might have to add to it. And you are still - still - ignoring my point regards Adelstein being an adequate source in the first instance. When a talk page discussion begins, respond if you have an interest. Ignoring a good faith, civil (and it was, at that point) argument and instead responding with copy-pasted block threats is an amazing - and unique, IME - assumption of bad faith (you'll be familiar with the relevant policy). Lastly, stop questioning my competency. As with your fatuous block threats, please do go through my history - you might even learn something about content creation - and mention it next when you have something of substance. bridies (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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) 23:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments on paid editing
Gosh, I wrote asking for help and Demiurge1000 was very mean and nasty. Uncalled for, if I may. Okay, we give up trying since the wiki people/employees seem to be very nasty. GreenLips (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * On reflection, you are correct that my comment was unnecessarily mean, and for this I apologise.


 * Having said that, Wikipedia is WP:NOT for promotion, and certainly not for "my biggest client". Editors with a conflict of interest are welcome to submit material at articles for creation (which is preferable to adding it directly), but if that promotion is going to take significant time and work from volunteer editors who could be working on encyclopedic topics instead, then it's not a particularly positive thing.


 * Good luck with your article submission. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Reason?
Is there a reason you decided to leave a snarky, unhelpful reply on BN? The thread had nothing to do with you; it was a legitimate, innocent, and perfectly legible question, and BN is not a grammar test. Please take it somewhere else. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It was an entirely helpful reply, especially for anyone who was interested in how people might react to requests for adminship. Some people react as I do. Some people do not. You may react as you see fit. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And while we're here, when you establish consensus that certain editors may not comment at BN (or anywhere else) because it's "nothing to do with" them, please let me know and I will cease commenting there. Until then, Wikipedia works on a consensus model like it always has. That means everyone can comment. Learn to live with it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The OP wasn't asking about how people might react to a request for adminship or anything like it; they were asking about how 'crats assess consensus in an RfA or RfB. So no, your comment was completely unrelated to the OP's question and was thus unhelpful. I didn't say you couldn't comment; of course you can. You would have been (and still are) welcome to give any kind of reasonable answer to the OP's question. But since your comment had nothing to do with their question, and instead just belittled them for making a minor grammatical mistake, and the question was not directed at you or about you at all, there was no point for you to make your post other than to be petty and a jerk to this editor. But thanks for telling me I can react as I see fit; I'ma go remove your post now. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You appear to understand neither the question nor the response, which is something of a "double whammy" in this case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/user:GreenLips/Sandbox
Not sure why you're picking on me. Something small people do, I guess. Yes (NO) --no money is being exchanged for me trying to help Mr. haney be posted. It's my way of thanking him for several years of his mentorship (FREE mentorship) he has given my company since his retirement some 10 - 12 years ago. Thanks. GreenLips (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 --- Bill Haney
you my friend are a first class jerk. Why Wiki let's you rep. them is beyond me. The subject has been retired for 12 yrs. Yes, he was an important client...now a mentor, and has a lot more class than you could ever dream of having. Of course no money is being exchanged as there isn't enough money in the world that could pay me to be exposed myself - or deal with - mean spirited losers like yourself. I'm doing this out of my admiration for the individual and his philanthropist ways of reaching out to help authors self publish. He does a lot for any one who asked for his help in writing or getting a book produced. FREE OF CHARGE. Something selfish self-centered jerks like you wouldn't understand, I'm sure. GreenLips (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * He sounds like an absolutely splendid fellow. An inspiration to us all, I'm sure. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:St Johns College Preston logo.PNG
 Thanks for uploading File:St Johns College Preston 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. Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Stefan, now fnixed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:DTTR
Thanks for the heads up at Kevin Barrett but I was just reverting an odd edit by a IP editor, not adding poorly ref'd material to a BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Did your edit add poorly referenced material to a BLP?


 * WP:BLP is a policy.


 * WP:DTTR is an essay.


 * There is a difference. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I appreciate the difference. DTTR allows us to collaborate more civilly, not an unknown difficulty here. Often a simple note is enough for regulars to identify and fix problems. Templates can be annoying and off-putting, I find. I appreciate BLP policy very much and so was attentive to your heads up. As an aside your edit at the article did not fix a problem, it merely inserted a different unref'd sentence into a BLP. I have now re-added the original ABC news ref that an IP editor had removed. Thank you again. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * But it seems that "DTTR" is not in fact allowing us to collaborate more civilly; on the contrary, it merely seems to be an excuse to ignore a valid criticism of your edits. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I do appreciate your valid criticism and am attempting to fix the article by going back into the history of the lede. You have slapped a template on my talk page and seem not to care that it was not a very friendly approach. I have now googled the link for the ref. I have found the reason why it was not live. The ref is from a book about 9/11 conspiracy theory, the author mis-identified the company. CBS Evening News not ABC News. I have the link (via the internet archive) now and will restore it unless you have additional problems. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:TTR is a far more useful essay  the panda ₯’  22:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha! That essay made my day. Thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

.
I think this is a parallel to this. With the exception of this, I might need help, here, I don't know the process. Hafspajen (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, won't be able to help with this until I have more free time. The process for SPI is described at WP:SPI, but it's not particularly intuitive as to what to do in which circumstances. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No need for help, sigh. Thanks anyway. Hafspajen (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge/GA2
Following your comments on Talk:King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge/GA2 about grammar errors, several editors have now copy edited King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge. Would you be kind enough to take another look and detail any outstanding issues which need to be addressed. Thanks.&mdash; Rod talk 15:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wondered whether you had a chance to take another look at this review?&mdash; Rod talk 08:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation
Demiurge1000, I would like to take this moment and thank you for taking part in my RfA that happened a while ago. Although it didn't turn out as I had planned, I certainly appreciated all the comments and suggestions given by you and other people. I will learn from all of them and will hopefully run again someday when I'm fully ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies!
Apropos my recent edits on Doon School page: would just like to apologise for blanking the Alumni section. Was whipped up by the utterly humiliating defeat of Rahul Gandhi, in the recent Indian general election, 2014, one of the many not-so-illustrious alumni of the said institution. But, I was rather proud of my word play on 'Modifying' in the Edit symmary, wouldn't you say? 137.73.126.183 (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that joke passed me by completely. Although I think I'd seen Modi's name on a few news reports, my knowledge of and interest in Indian politics is almost completely limited to Rajinder Kaur Bhattal. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 6, April-May 2014 by ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
 * TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
 * TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
 * New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

RC711 Message and Questions
Hello, Thanks for the note welcoming me to Wikipedia editing. I have been selecting pages using "Random Article" and making minor changes to them.

Variety of Links One thing I see is a wide variation in use of ref, See Also, References, Notes, and External Links. It is awkward to manually enter ref /ref in the text. It makes it hard to read the text without previewing. At least the references are gathered under reflist, but some editors will manually place items under References, using a variety of styles, or they will enter links under Notes.
 * Is there a way to automatically process the source pages of Wikipedia articles? I think it would not be hard to write a parser to put these various link formats into a common form.  Perhaps something that could be run as an option for a page, something like the old "pretty print".  A human editor can edit the page after cleanup.

Standard Order of Sections On a broader front, is there any effort to standardize the order of Notes, See Also, References, External Links, Further Reading and other common divisions? It seems like that could be automated, at least well enough to make a difference.
 * Perhaps we could run an automated survey to count the common divisions, their various orders, and the type of contents of each to provide a statistical basis for setting standards.

Sections in Biographies In the particular instance of biographies, is there a standard order and selection of sections?

Template Programming Language I tried hard to find the syntax for the template language. I managed to create one template, but I would like to use the IF statement and other features of the template language to broaden its use. RC711 (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the long delay in replying. That's a variety of interesting issues, and you are right that Wikipedia could handle some of them better! I will try to work through them one by one.


 * First, one does not have to enter ref /ref manually. In the editing window there is a "Reference" button which will add it for you (it seems to be a graphic that looks like a book, and only says "Reference" if you hover your mouse over it and are using a setup that supports browser tooltips). There is also User:Dispenser/Reflinks which will convert a bare URL into a "standard" format of reference. Personally I never use either of these methods - I am used to typing ref and /ref, and I don't like the end results that Reflinks often produces. Instead, I very quickly got used to the Citation templates that I liked, the parameters allowed by each, and the fact that none of the templates care what order the parameters are cited in (thus making it a lot easier).
 * Thanks for the specific pointer to Citation templates. I will read it and start using it. I would like to extract all the strings from all the pages on Wikipedia and look for patterns.  A fairly simple parser would read them and put them in standard format.  Massively rewrite every ref in every page, then it will be done.  Popup a window to enter refs while editing and store them in standard format.  That sort of thing. RC711


 * So yes, that is our "pretty print" equivalent. You are also eager to standardise, in some sense, how references are formatted. As I'm sure you remember, "something is not a standard unless you can tell me where it is written down!" The place it's written down is WP:MOS. Although even that does not cover everything...
 * I will keep reading and reading. I am eager to know everything about the workings of Wikipedia.  I am used to thinking about how all of the visitors on the internet interact with it to find what they are looking for.  I am applying the same approach to Wikipedia.  Certainly the various search features offered on Wikipedia now could be improved. RC711


 * One can often get an idea of the "best" way of doing things by looking at Wikipedia's Featured Articles; WP:FA.


 * I would ask, though, must all articles about people be forced to use a standard set of headings? If so, why? Surely a biography of a military commander might have sections called things like "Gulf War" or "Battle of Salamis", whereas a biography of a pop singer might have sections called things like "Third album" or "Jail term".
 * I would like to be able to scan all the biographies and count the various section names. Many are probably only used once in specific bios, but some are used again and again.  Listing them, descending, by count would show the most common section names first. I tend to look at things statistically. RC711 (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I am fairly ignorant about the template language, but does Help:Template lead to anything? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The John Lyon School - Removal of names of past pupils
Good Morning, you have removed names of past pupils of The John Lyon School, deeming then not notable as they do not have their own page. I am authorized by the Governors of The John Lyon School to include those names and I would respectfully request that you undo your edit. Many thanks. (M L Gascoine (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC))
 * You have a conflict of interest and the school governers do not get to control Wikipedia.--Charles (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Good Morning, Thank you to you and others on Wikipedia who are giving me such well needed guidance. I am understanding the intricacies of editing Wikipedia more and more and the points that have been made with regard to COI.  Your support is appreciated.  (M L Gascoine (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC))

I notice that Wikipedia does not yet have any pictures of the school. You may wish to take one or two yourself and upload them to Wikimedia Commons and let us know so that we can add them to the article. I don't think it would be a problem for you to aim your camera at the more flattering aspects of the school, since photographs of architecture rarely dwell upon refuse disposal areas and the back of the bike sheds etc. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale
Dear Demiurge, how are you? It's been a while since we last talked! Not sure if you remember who I am, but you helped me way back in September when I was trying to have Ashley Tisdale promoted to FA. I'm willing to nominate it again but before I do that, I want to make sure this time it will be promoted! I had three failed nominations and I definitely don't want a fourth one. Overall, I think everything is good with the article overall but I may need a copy-editor who has experience with FA articles. Do you know someone that could help me with that? The biggest issue in all three nominations has been the prose and I want to make sure it is perfect before any new nomination. Thanks a lot!! decodet. (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Decodet. Yes of course I remember, although I have to admit that it took me a few seconds to remember exactly which pop star was involved.


 * I will ask a few people who might be able to improve the prose to FA standards if they could help.


 * In the meantime, given that it can often be difficult to find FA commenters even when few problems exist (see section below!), you should consider;
 * How are you going to promote awareness of the candidacy?
 * What will you use as an enticing nomination statement?


 * --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I really didn't think of that yet. There are definitely two things I need to consider before nominating it again. I am going to give it some thoughts. Thanks so much in advance! You've always been supportive. I've been trying to have this article promoted since 2009 - five freaking years!!! - and I won't give up on it! Let me know if someone can help please. And again, thanks a lot! Hope you're having a nice day! :) decodet. (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Does behaviour of RHaworth
…in encouraging junior User Launchballer (please skim carefully his User page, ) to reply to queries directed at this Admin, simply odd, or does it rise to a level that it should be discussed at whatever level Administrators are supervised? You guidance kindly appreciated. RSVP here, I will watch. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The reply made by RHaworth to your query, this reply in fact, was entirely unexceptional, unsurprising, and not odd at all. It also provided you with some much-needed advice, in addition to educating you about some Wikipedia norms that also appear to be followed by RHaworth.


 * As far as I am aware, administrators are not supervised in any manner other than the one that I jokingly mentioned on RHaworth's talkpage. They are subject to intervention by WP:ARBCOM if they become a problem, but that is a different matter.


 * I will observe your future ramblings on this subject with considerable interest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To raise a frequent objection of your friend RH's, your link above was so vague as to be entirely useless in discerning your point. And, per the those I have consulted here, every group at WP potentially can serve in oversight of an Admin who breaches trust, through uncivil behaviour or otherwise, and certainly the stewards can and have acted when necessary, to ensure that the principles of respect laid down in the pillars are followed, regardless of level of the User. Cheers, best wishes to all involved, should you choose to press this forward in a one-sided manner.  Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In reply to your warning

Your warning is laughable in the context of RHaworth's page, which is a veritable catalog of incivilities against other editors, in particular against IP and new editors. Feel free to list specifics you wish me refrain from, and I will reply with a list, matching point for point more egregious incivilities, against ones less experienced and having every reason to deserve better from an Admin. No, your warning simply cannot be taken very seriously, given the context. Please, though, elevate this, and let my and RH's behaviour see the light of day. I will gladly have any entry I have made at his page, along with the rest of his page, brought under close scrutiny of those who supervise the Admins. Reply here please, if you wish. I will watch for it here. Cheers. Le Prof


 * Am a fan, by the way

...of your copyediting, of the mil history articles in particular, but also in general. I am just not a big fan of individuals standing by when other editors display incorrigible behaviour to new and IP editors, in particular when the WP policies clearly state that... "Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another… if an administrator finds that he... cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct." If your RH is leading by example, then your template message is near meaningless; users are already deterred, and WP is already damaged. Bottom line, the Admin you are defending, and so encouraging (instead of looking to the litany of uncivil behaviour evidenced at his page against new/IP editors) is also acting regularly against WP policies. Please, begin to redact those instances, or otherwise deal with that disciplinary issue, if you are fair-minded. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If you do actually have legitimate concerns regarding RHaworth's actions, your behaviour here and elsewhere is certainly not the best way to address those concerns. Your behaviour is increasingly becoming disruptive.


 * I also note that you attempt to second-guess my intentions or aims in your comments above. Judging by those comments, such attempts fail and will continue to fail. Save yourself - and me - the bother. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * WIll do. (Save myself the bother.) Cheers.  Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Greed
Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for your continued support of this article for such a long time. You were the one who first suggested that I attempt to promote the article to FA in the first place and deserve a lot of credit for its progress. I have no idea how to bestow Stars, if possible please consider this my version of one.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! It has been, I think, just over a year and a half since I first began copyediting Greed (film), for a GA review at the time, so not quite so long as McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II, which I first worked on in August 2011 and was finally promoted to FA in January 2014.


 * I remember that I did most of my original work on Greed in the most heavily guarded building I have yet worked in, which also had the annoying quality of having wildly over-exuberant air-conditioning. A very strange time in my life, as that nice guy in Fight Club said.


 * I should also thank you for the chance to work on the article, which I wouldn't ordinarily have stumbled across, and which I think was the most interesting article I have copyedited so far. And of course for your own persistence with the FA process!


 * Persistence is a great virtue, and I often remind myself of the words of Annibale Bergonzoli, who said upon being asked to defend Bardia "to the last", "I am aware of the honour and I have today repeated to my troops your message — simple and unequivocal. In Bardia we are and here we stay." Actually he didn't stay, but inspiring words nonetheless.


 * For Greed, I even went canvassing a little bit, though not with any success.


 * For historical reasons, barnstars can't be produced by clicking the star at the top of the page (which would be most obvious), but instead can be produced by clicking the heart icon (which opens up the much-derided but quite convenient "WikiLove" menu).


 * You may want to watchlist Featured article candidates/Ashley Tisdale/archive4 (a redlink for now but you can still watchlist it) and/or help out with the continuing efforts to improve Ashley Tisdale - see section above for someone who has been trying the featured article process for even longer!


 * And finally, there is also WP:TFA. The 90th anniversary of Greed's premiere will be December 4 this year, I guess? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've added it to Today's featured article/requests/pending, listing you and me as the contacts. Apparently this is just for preparatory purposes; someone would still need to add it to Today's featured article/requests nearer the time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Banc De Binary
I don't know how much - if any - interest you have in the page, but there is currently a discussion here about whether the article should be restored to a prior version. The page was protected after an edit-war, so a consensus needs to be built before an admin can consider making the Edit Request. CorporateM (Talk) 04:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note, and thank you for your diligent efforts to deal with issues like this one. I probably won't get chance to participate this time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Promotional content
Hi Demiurge,

I've got a message saying you undid some of my contributions due to suspected promotional content. Could you point me in the direction of what you suspect is unfit? I can't find any changes made.

Thanks!

Kris7Stories (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Strangely, I didn't actually undo any of them. However, when I see someone whose username implies they are part of an organisation, and their editing on Wikipedia consists of nothing else, or almost nothing else, other than adding External Links to the website of that organisation, then I consider that may well be unduly promotional editing.


 * There are also conceivable circumstances where it isn't. Reading the various links should give you some idea as to Wikipedia policy on this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thanks for the clarification. What are the rules for archives and libraries highlighting the manuscript collections they hold (assuming it's highly relevant to the article in question)?--Kris7Stories (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The rules are... not very clear. For external links, they are essentially summarised at WP:ELYES, WP:ELNO and WP:ELMAYBE, which are not the most readable pieces of text I've ever encountered.


 * I am a big fan of Robert Westall's work, and after looking through the material pointed to by the external link you added on that article, I would say the link you added is entirely appropriate.


 * The first external link you added to Enid Blyton goes to a "page not found" page. If the correct link goes to something similar to the Robert Westall resources, it is probably appropriate for the article. (User:Dr. Blofeld may have views on this.) The second external link you added there (the Wordpress blog) is probably not appropriate, even despite your organisation's obvious importance in matters relating to Blyton.


 * Your addition to Harold Jones (artist) is inappropriately non-neutral. The sentence should read something like "Archives of Harold Jones's papers and illustrations can be found at the de Grummond Children's Literature Collection at the University of Southern Mississippi, which contains her papers from 1966 to 1980, and at Seven Stories, National Centre for Children's Books (deposited by the Harold Jones estate in 2005)". That is unless you can find an independent reliable source which specifically says the 7 Stories archive is the largest in the world. The separate inline references at the end of the each clause are (unusually for Wikipedia) unnecessary. But if you can find independent reliable sources which discuss each archive's holdings on this topic, that would be worth adding.


 * You should probably put a note on your userpage disclosing that you are editing on behalf of the organisation (if that's the case), and indicating that you are only adding material in accordance with the appropriate guidelines and policies. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Robinsons Brewery edit
Hello Deminurge,

You have recently cited my addition to Robinsons Brewery as in breach of Copyright.

I work for Robinsons Brewery in their Marketing Department and require the information to be updated - there are several things that are incorrect about the current wikipedia page - specifically the beer brands (some of which are over 5 years out of date)

Please can you advise how we can update this to fit with Wikipedia's guidelines as we are struggling to understand the jargon of Wikipedia to update our own page,

Kind Regards,

Sam Kennerley Frederic Robinson Ltd sam.kennerley@frederic-robinson.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamKennerley (talk • contribs) 12:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Sam, thank you for following this up. We can't be having inaccurate beer listings or else CAMRA will be after us with pitchforks!


 * The copyright issue is that you cannot copy and paste material from Frederic Robinson's own web page or other publications onto Wikipedia, because that entails a licensing condition which your employer will most assuredly not grant.


 * I suggest you post on Talk:Robinsons Brewery, much as you have here, with something vaguely like this: (mutatis mutandis) "I work for Robinson's Brewery in their Marketing Department and would like some of the details in this article updated please. Many of the details listed are factually incorrect and badly outdated by as much as 5 years or more. Specifically, we no longer produce Einhorn lager or Hatters Mild or (another) or (and so on). Frederics Premium Beer is now 4.8% ABV instead of 5% for tax reasons. We have introduced the following new drinks: Gibraltar Fine Ale, a Spanish-style lager at 5.2% ABV, UKIP Idiot Beer, a faux traditional British style small beer at 2.2% ABV, and (something else) and (something else) and (so on). many thanks, Sam ~ "


 * You could also mention any other simple concrete facts in the article that are wrong, e.g. if the headquarters is now in Port Stanley instead of Stockport.


 * Then add somewhere on that same page Talk:Robinsons Brewery.


 * And feel free to mention it here as well if you like. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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) 00:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed
Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitz@undefinedgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

AFD for Stevie Awards
Mosmof has been trying valiantly to generate interest in deleting this bogus business award scam. But the whole thing is so marginal and boring that no one seems to care enough even to vote for its deletion. I thought you might like to make your say there, since you have been watching as our friend Ronn Torossian aggrandizes himself with his prodigious collection of Stevie awards. Here is where you can add you two bits (only if you want to, of course):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stevie_Awards_%283rd_nomination%29

--Ravpapa (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * So marginal and boring that the opportunity breezed by me completely. Or at least, I hope it has! I received an email from one of Torossian's people a while ago; I was going to reply saying that I didn't mind helping in principle, but that I no longer really had the time or interest to get involved. Then it turned out that I didn't have the time or interest to even send the email saying I no longer had the time or interest. Good luck! And please follow up by nuking some of the mindless WP:PORNSTAR bogus awards too. And perhaps a few hundred of their recipients. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I delete a page?
Hello, I was tired and created a page "Social Science History Association" with quotes around the name. I was searching for that exact phrase, is why the quotes. I moved it to Social Science History Association. But, how do I get rid of the redirection page with the quotes? I would like to do it myself to learn how. Thanks. RC711 (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hullo User:RC711. It's not totally easy. So, you go to Criteria for speedy deletion, and then you search around for a while, and then you discover that WP:G7 applies in this case (only because no-one else other than you edited the page before it became a redirect), and thus you put at the top of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%22Social_Science_History_Association%22&redirect=no


 * What a kerfuffle! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * kerfuffle squared. I did as you recommended. It is already gone. Thanks RC711 (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I should've mentioned that I expected RHaworth to delete it, since he is often speedy deleting things at that time of the day. And lo!, he did. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

WMAU
I'm reinstating the message that was left on my talkpage earlier today by an anon user. I don't know who it is, I'm surprised, but it's not a legal threat. And you should have contacted me to explain your action in the first place as a matter of politeness. Tony  (talk)  09:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:NLT is a policy, and should need no explanation for someone who has been on Wikipedia as long as you have. Furthermore, it's your talk page, so you get informed if something is added and removed.


 * Have fun with it, if you're into all that inter- and intra-chapter bickering. What an utter waste of human effort. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Libellous changes to a page
Same page as we discussed before (see my talk page 12 June). I have again reverted the unacceptable edit but it needs erasing from the record. Are you able to to that? Also do you think the page ought to be protected? -- Alarics (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Alarics. I contacted oversight, and an oversighter kindly suppressed the revision in question. I also requested page protection at WP:RFPP, and an administrator has kindly semi-protected the page for one year.


 * Such requests are really better going via email to the address at WP:RFO, because I can't even delete revisions myself, and my talk page is watched by all sorts of weird creatures.


 * Also most of my admin talk page stalkers seem to have turned into sleeping giants! (Or dogs, depending on one's choice of metaphor.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Not in a million years would anyone guess that the page to go to is called "Request for oversight". -- Alarics (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed... it's a right mess, since "oversighting" used to be an action that people would do, and thus the person doing it (and the right to be able to do it) was called "oversighter". Then later something better than oversighting was invented, called "suppression", thus oversighters don't oversight any more (mostly), but suppress instead. Of course, "requests for suppression" would be more easily understandable, but we don't have any functionaries called "suppressors", so it can't be. And... well there's more, but you get the idea.


 * Just in passing, after something has been suppressed or oversighted or revision deleted or whatever else may happen to it, it's fine to request page protection openly at WP:RFPP. Oversighters don't do page protection (mostly), since they are busy enough as it is. Even though ordinary administrators at WP:RFPP can't see things that were suppressed, they can often see that things were suppressed, and when; and this is often enough for them to make a decision to protect the page, as happened in this case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian
Do you think you could weigh in in the discussion I am having with Huon on the talk page. He and I have very different conceptions of how articles like this should be written, and a third opinion would be helpful. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The treatment I've experienced (re: Standardbred)
Demiurge, In reply to you, in those experiences that I have that were problematic regarding reverts that I perceived were excessive and/or unnecessary, they were made by men. Perhaps that is a reflection that most editors on Wikipedia are male? However, no, after this experience, I see that there is no longer a distinction since I've now experienced the same thing with a female editor. This experience with Montanabw is the worst that I've had on Wikipedia. Although I've already stated that I will no longer edit this article, things have continued and gotten worse. I was just about to go to 'dispute resolution' when I got your message. This has deteriorated to a point that is unnecessarily ugly and upsetting. Daniellagreen (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Daniellagreen, I have a friend who used to ask . Is that what you are doing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * (Meaning would be slightly clearer as "Is that what you are asking of people?") --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

King John's Hunting Lodge GA reassessment
Hi again, There has been no activity on the reassessment page you started at Talk:King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge/GA2 for nearly a month and I was wondering if you had a chance to take another look?&mdash; Rod talk 15:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I don't really understand the GA workflow. I re-assessed it as not being a good article. After some changes were made, and after being asked about it, I re-affirmed that assessment. I don't have time to revisit the article repeatedly, so if the problems with the article have now been fixed throughout the article, then presumably it is time to re-nominate it to be a GA? But if I'm wrong about that, please proceed however the workflow recommends. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)