User talk:Demiurge1000/Archive 4

RE: Korrekshun
lol, thanks for the correction. Yeah, it is difficult, but I like it. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  23:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jews and the slave trade
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jews and the slave trade. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Quick question
Yes, but it is indef blocked. Wuzzupbob (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes could you please ask Tiptoety's views on the matter. I will wait to see what Frickative says as I have already heard from Gungadin. In the meantime, I will refrain from editing until things are sorted. Thankyou for taking interest and trying to help me out. Wuzzupbob (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Bobby Gonzalez
Sorry, I just came back to this page after a few months--what's the story here? Don't get what the BLP issue is--everything was sourced, is there something I'm missing? I thought the only one raising objections had a pretty high COI. Blueboy96 03:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The huge section you restored, was sourced largely or entirely to a series of very clearly slanted editorial pieces in the sports section of the NYT, ... normally a reliable source, but in this instance rather crazed, or so it seemed. Have you look around for more and better sources? Even the wording seems... weird. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can look around in the Star-Ledger and the (Bergen) Record--where a couple of the sources in the restored section came from. Blueboy96 03:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 05:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank You For Your Edits
I would like to personally thank you for amending the Harold Covington article. I can't tell you how many times I have reported this problem to a moderator and they decline to correct it. It is nice knowing that it didn't take a month to have it fixed.

Thank You!--SlapChopVincent (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Sorry to bother you, but where can I find the list of unreferenced BLPs? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Here ... there's only a few thousand left, so get 'em while they're hot! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio continued...
Hi

Just wondered if you use Duplication checker ? I usually check at least 5 paras (or very long sets of sentences) when I copy-edit a page, normally putting them into Google. I especially check those that are to go to GA or FA when ce'ing from the GOCE requests page. If I find one plagiarism I put a good number of the refs through the Duplication checker just to make sure. I am sick and tired of finding copyvios and blatant plagiarisms, so I do understand where you are coming from. I think it is really time someone wrote a bot or tool that could just take a url, plonk it through the dup checker and report it to the copyvio project. Even something as simple as taking a look on Google books when there is no URL would help. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've used duplication detector occasionally, but I don't use it as a matter of course. In general, if I'm copy-editing an article for GA or FA then I spot-check some of the content against Google books and some of it against the cited sources, although I don't see it as the primary responsibility of the copyeditor.


 * The problem is really rather overwhelming in terms of its frequency, although somewhat less so in terms of the severity of individual incidents. (It would be a very rare organisation that would take legal action over just a single isolated badly paraphrased sentence, for example). The positive aspect is that a lot of it is good faith errors; the people coming to GOCE to make a request for copy-editing are already asking for others to look over their work for mistakes, so will almost always be open to other forms of helpful feedback. Thus the problem can be fixed "one editor at a time"... once they know what's needed, there should hopefully never be a problem from that editor again. On the other hand, there's always someone like this guy, where good faith may or may not be present but in fact it doesn't help much even if it is.


 * Another aspect is that the vast bulk of the good faith close paraphrasing includes the reference of the paraphrased source right alongside it. This would lend itself to a certain amount of automation. Let's say, a script that will take an article name as an argument. It reads the article, and firstly ignores everything that is within quotation marks or might be. Then it breaks what's left into sentences or comma-separated phrases. For each sentence or phrase, it looks for a reference (either before or after the punctuation). It then runs the article against duplication detector for the referenced source (only once for each unique source, of course). For each duplication detector report (remember a big article might have hundreds) it does a basic assessment to try to establish whether the overlap is significant. For all of the significant overlaps, it uses the article blamer tool to establish when the overlapping content was added to the article; and maybe makes some attempts to find an "earliest known" publication of the original source. The output would still need a human to interpret it, but it would make things a little easier. If only I had time to dust off my coding skills and have a go...


 * I wonder if we could be doing more to make new users understand the idea. The standard welcome templates say "respect copyright", and not too far away there's a policy page that mentions text is included, but I think part of the problem is that the simple basic understanding that if the exact words are used then they must be quoted, not just referenced, doesn't get through. I'll have a think about ways to deal with that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there is the "Please note" below the edit window, though I suspect it may be better placed a little higher up and have "or any other source," added - it does say "Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites – only public domain resources can be copied without permission."
 * Though I am sure not many people actually pay attention or see it, the note directly under wikitoolbar beneath the save button says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted".
 * All in all it is a big problem, I recently did a GA review that had a lot of copyvio text in it, I think 9 instances in all. TO be fair that seems less common than some other articles I have edited where there were whole swathes of paragraphs of simple cut and paste copying, in fact one article was three sections of copyvio and the only thing original was the introductory line before the lead! Chaosdruid (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

YGM
► Wireless Keyboard ◄. 11:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep Calm And Drink Tea :-)
Thx  Chzz  ► 23:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wade Sanders CopyVio
Not my edits .. nosirey! I simply tried to trim down what was superfluous. The material was originally added by this guy with these edits. Please go yell at him :). ZHurlihee (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This guy too it looks like. ZHurlihee (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My mistake, sorry. It looks like there's even more copyvio in that article than I thought, then.


 * Can you comment on this edit? Appears to introduce unquoted copy-and-pasted material from this source, but again it's possible it's just material that was present earlier and you've merely moved around in the article? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I honestly cant recall. ZHurlihee (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Another one to look at ... these edits seem to introduce very close paraphrasing of this source, specifically of the phrasing it uses Stewart was a "movement" lawyer -- she didn't just defend the legal rights of her clients; she also advocated their politics. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you suggest the best way to correct this? I am at a bit of a loss. I thought the citation was enough in many of these cases. ZHurlihee (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It really isn't, especially for the Jamie Leigh Jones problems, where most of a sentence is copy and pasted word-for-word with not even small changes in phrasing. I know it can sometimes be very hard to re-write an idea effectively while still retaining accuracy and readability. For the Lynne Stewart sentence I have gone with "who took a wider interest in promoting the general political interests of those she represented, rather than only dealing with the specific charges against them".


 * If there's a possibility that there is more outstanding material that's still copy and pasted or very closely paraphrased (in these articles or in others) then really you should review that material with a view to dealing with any problems. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I will, would you mind checking back on them in a day or two and letting me know what you think? ZHurlihee (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I'll try and remember to do that. Thanks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: ANI
Oops, I didn't know that, thanks. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Arun Prakash
I am the subject of the Wikipedia page titled Admiral Arun Prakash. The basic page originally contained authentic biographical information which is quite uneceptionable. However I find that some person(s) are from time to time editing this page to enter material which is false, concocted and libellious in nature and smears my personal and professional reputation in a subtle manner. The subtelity lies in the ploy that they quote references from a particular Indian magazine which, a few years ago, launched a vicious defematory campaign against me. It is possible that this is in continuation of the magazine's long, persistent and vicious campaign. I have edited this article twice so far, but find that the same kind of insidious material is re-introduced over & over again. On one occasion I note that your "watchdog" has reprimanded the person. But it does not seem to have made a difference. Although retired, I am a fairly well-known figure in military and security circles, and a lot of people world-wide access this page. The repeated infusion of malign (and irrelevant) material is causing damage to my good name. It is deeply disturbing to me and my family to find references to unsubstantiated allegations made by a scurrilous journal. A close reading of the deleted material will convince you that it does not have to figure in a biographical sketch of this nature. My request is that either you keep this page under close watch. Or just DELETE the complete page. I would at least have some peace of mind because no one needs this kind of publicity. Thank you,I need your help. Funnyrat (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Arun Prakash.


 * I'm a bit puzzled by this, because the version of the article that you objected to this time was one in which I'd put a fair amount of effort into removing poorly sourced implications and other questionable material. It merely had one short section mentioning the Navy War Room "scandal", which also made clear that the CBI found you were not implicated, and a single sentence in the lead mentioning the scandal, but cautiously worded.


 * What is your issue with that approach? Do you believe that the Navy War Room scandal (and your relation to a person involved) did not attract significant coverage in reliable sources, and thus should not be mentioned in the article at all? Or do you believe that the facts as listed in that version are solely derived from the Outlook Magazine piece and cannot be trusted? A wide variety of reliable sources, including the Times of India, mentioned your relation to Shankaran in coverage of the case.


 * Finally, and rather a side note, would you be prepared to assist in arranging a freely licensed image of yourself to go in the Wikipedia article about you? I don't think Wikipedia can use currently available official photos because they are not covered by an appropriate license. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In fact, I wonder if you might own the copyright to any photographs of the INS Vikrant (R11) taken during service? Right now the only properly free image seems to be of the Vikrant as a museum ship. We do have a free image of the INS Vindhyagiri, though, and I've added that to the article about you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge 1000. Thank you for your response and help; so far. My objection is just this. Someone (you?)has taken considerable time & trouble to research and put together this authentic article. I cannot deny my wife's relationship with Ravi Shankaran. But what my wife's sister's son did or didn't do is not relevant to my life or career. The agencies which investigated this man's misdemeanours, and the government of India did not think that I was, in any way, involved. It did not "mar my tenure" in the eyes of the navy or, my friends or indeed the Indian media - with the exception of Outlook magazine which undertook a vilification campaign. I will not comment on the motives of this magazine. So its a judgment call whether this issue is absolutely essential for this biographical sketch. As I said, I would be quite content NOT to figure on Wikipedia, rather than have people jumping to the wrong conclusions. If you decide to retain this article I can certainly help out with whatever pictures I can find. Thank you, 120.56.222.176 (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Arun Prakash.


 * I've been reading over news reports from 2006, and I have come to the conclusion that you are correct about this. Although all of the news reports about Shankaran also mention you, there are also a large number of news reports about you, that don't mention Shankaran or the incidents with which he was involved. In addition, Wikipedia considers proper historical studies to carry more weight than newspaper reports and magazine articles. So for example, the few histories of the Indian Navy that I've looked at, mention you, but not in connection with the "Navy War room scandal". There are also various histories of the 1971 war, including even a history of 20th Squadron, and although I don't have access to these, we can be fairly certain some of them mention you as well. So, overall, I think any mention of the "scandal" should be confined to a sentence or two in the "Career as a flag officer" section, rather than being a separate section. This would also mean it would not need to be mentioned in the lead of the article, and certainly not with the previous phrasing of "marred".


 * Deleting the article is very unlikely to be an option - Wikipedia does provide for deletion of articles about people who are not sufficiently "notable", but, from a military perspective, you most definitely meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. (The details are at WP:MILPEOPLE - you appear to meet at least three of the nine criteria, and people are "almost always" considered notable if they meet any single one of the criteria.)


 * Thank you very much for your willingness to help in providing photographs - I will email you separately about that, hopefully within 24 hours. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Potcake dog
Thanks for copyediting potcake dog -- the tweaks and extra eyes are very helpful, as I tend to go a bit haywire after staring at the same thing for such a long time and can't always see what seems off. Cheers, Anna  talk 06:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem - it was very nearly perfect already :-) As for British English, "program" was the one extra Americanism that I changed, even though, coming from a computing background, that spelling looks right to me anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Photo request
Dear Demiurge 1000, As discussed, I have a few photographs to offer. Please let me know how I can forward them to you. Funnyrat (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Arun Prakash.


 * Replied by email. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Can a Title of a work of art be copyrighted material ?
Can a Title of a work of art be copyrighted material ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanMcGarigle (talk • contribs) 00:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting question. In theory I believe it could be. However, that would still not prevent us from using the title of a work of art as the title of a Wikipedia article. Consider the parallel with the use of organisations' logos under fair use rules in the article about the organisation. The fair use rationale may state something like the following; "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing ORGANIZATION_NAME, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey ... The logo is not used in such a way that a reader would be confused into believing that the article is written or authorised by the owner of the logo." Much of this is also applicable to the title of a work of art. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * pd-text -- Σ  talk contribs   22:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Good idea, but not quite, I think. It's possible that a title could meet the benchmark for creativity, in my opinion at least. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

'Sourcing' and 'verifying'
I happened to be reading the entry for the actor, writer and comedian Rhys Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhys_Thomas_(comedian)) and realised that absolutely none of it is either 'sourced' or 'verified'. More to the point, it seems so far to have escaped your admirable zeal for excising 'unsourced' and 'unverified' entries. Having now been alerted by me, will you exercise your Wiki editor's powers and get rid of any parts of the entry which is 'unsourced' and 'unverified'? For not doing so might lay you open to the charge that when you were previously rapping me over the knuckles of wanting to included 'unsourced' and 'unverified' material in the OS entry, you were simply talking cobblers. I look forward to your response to the Rhys Thomas entry.

BTW Why have my previous contributions to your talk page disappeared? Pfgpowell (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk page stalker comment I suggest that you Be bold and remove or source the information that you are concerned about as this will be much quicker than asking someone to do it for you, after all that is the point of "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit".


 * Also your "previous contributions" have been archived User_talk:Demiurge1000/Archive_3, though an editor has no obligation to keep any of the comments made on their talk page. --Mrmatiko (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You're being disingenuous - I'm not in the slightest concerned that the Rhys Thomas entry fails completely on the alleged criteria of 'sourcing' and 'verifiability', and it is mischievous of you to pretend I am concerned. In fact, your suggestion that I shoult edit the Rhys Thomas entry makes me suspect that you are rather wilfully missing the point I am making. What I think is happening here is that you are worried that, given the evidence, others might also agree with me that all this talk of 'sourcing' and 'verifiability' is high-falutin' nonsense merely designed to keep occupied those who are happiest when counting paperclips and ensuring that the rules governing paperclip counting are scrupulously observed. Pfgpowell (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * By referring to Verifiability as "high-falutin'" nonsense, it appears that it is you who has willfully missed the point of Wikipedia since verifiability is a core content policy. Having unsourced material doesn't improve the encyclopedia and therefore isn't covered by Ignore all rules. To suggest that those upholding the verifiability policy are somehow overly Bureaucratic in such an Uncivil manner isn't going to get you anywhere. If you really want to have the policy removed or changed to suit your own ideas on content inclusion then the Verifiability talk page would be the place to try and garner consensus, rather than trying to start an unproductive argument on another editor's talk page by insulting them.  --Mrmatiko (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Again you're wilfully missing the point, and you know full well I am not interested in getting the Wiki policies change. I would like to see you just be a little more honest with yourselves, that's all. You guys get on your high horse on some matters and ignore others - two examples would be the Rhys Thomas entry and the Wiki entry on the card game Spoons. And all that tells me is that it IS the process you are interested in, not the results. Oh I'm sure there will be a lot of harrumphing about what I say from all manner of Wiki types the world over, and many more references to 'the rules, my dear, the rules'. But it doesn't alter one jot my suspicion that you are all bureaucrats at heart, whose idea of heaven would be running a parish council, however 'uncivil' it is of me to say so. Put your money where your mouth is, sunshine, and start by clearing up the Rhys Thomas and Spoons entries. Either that of admit to yourself you are kidding no one but yourself and your peers. Pfgpowell (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The point has been simply made, let us be clear:
 * Demiurge has not edited that page.
 * There is no tag on it to alert editors that the article needs references and that it is nearly completely unsourced. The tag states that it is missing citations or footnotes, not that it is almost entirely unreferenced.
 * How would Demiurge know that this article exists, and that it had swathes of unsourced and so unverified material?
 * Contentious material on a BLP should be removed - that includes both text and references.
 * Unsourced material does not have to be removed immediately, only if it appears to be contentious, otherwise it can have the citation needed tag put where references are needed.
 * All editors have to follow policy.
 * @Pfgpowell - I do not think that pursuing this is going to help either of those articles. Perhaps you yourself should have marked them with the appropriate tags? If you do not know how to do that, or which tags, then fair enough - you can get them from here or here.
 * The onus is on you really, you discovered the flaw, you have taken the ten or more minutes to post this here which could have been spent looking up which tags to put, why didn't you?, or you could have started with "hey, how do I do that on this article?", why didn't you?
 * That you and Demiurge have had dealings in the past means to me that you are probably seeking some sort of revenge rather than helping keep the encyclopaedia in a good state. I have, however, done your work for you :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

'Revenge'? Oh, Lord, you're way off beam. The only thing I could be thought guilty of is being irritated by jobsworths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfgpowell (talk • contribs) 20:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that the standard Wiki warning about verifiabilty and the need for citations has appeared at the top of the Oratory School entry, I have now re-instated the section on terminology and slang. Pfgpowell (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I notice the section on Terminology and Slang on the Oratory School page has again been removed even though the page is headed by the standard warning: This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2009) Ironically, the Rhys Thomas page carries the same warning, yet information about the chap, which, as far as I can see, is unsourced and inverified is allowed to remain. So can you explain why the section in the OS entry had to be removed, even though readers are made aware of the nature of the info by the standard warning. Why one rule for some and another rule for others? pfgpowell 10:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfgpowell (talk • contribs)

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II
Hi Demiurge, I'm here to tell you that McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is at MilHist ACR. If you have any interest, just pop in at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II and voice your thoughts. See you there  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 05:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Mentor
Hi I was wondering if you were doing mentoring as im new to wikipedia and would like to learn how to edit and how to help stop vandalism The.aviation.expert (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert Zoellick
Please discuss my request for WPREVDEL of your decision to revert my edits. I have cited an additional source which verifies that these facts are relevant to Zoellick's career, and two additional sources which substantiate the end of the Gentlemen's Agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US alone. Currency1 (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not aware of any current request for WP:REVDEL of any of my edits. Revision deletion is intended to remove material from the wider view of the community, and should only be used for edits that meet one of the criteria listed at WP:CFRD. I think what you may be requesting is, instead, reverting of my edit. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I wanted to request you to give your reasoning for which of the criteria listed at WP:CFRD has been met before requesting WP:REVDEL. Which of the sources that I cited fail to support my edits?  How do my edits violate BLP policies?  If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes are supposed to be dealt with in the talk page or other appropriate forum. Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Issues with inappropriate content are supposed to be resolved through discussion with the user. Currency1 (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There still seems to be some confusion here. No-one has requested WP:REVDEL, and, as far as I am aware, no-one has Revdel'd any of your edits. This is a diff showing my edit; the previous revision is on the left, and the new revision is on the right. By contrast, Revdel looks more like the left hand side of this diff I prepared earlier. In addition, no-one has deleted the page, nor proposed nor nominated the page for deletion.


 * I will reply to your other questions separately on the article talk page. Note also that there has been another reply to your query at WP:BLPN which may be of use to you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response on the article talk page. Would you agree to seek help in resolving outstanding differences on the Robert Zoellick bio through the Mediation cabal?  Otherwise, I plan on contacting both the reliable Sources noticeboard and the COI noticeboard.  I have removed the standard Wikipedia welcome template that you posted on my talk page.  New user accounts already receive this information. Currency1 (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's absolutely fine. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's Mediation cabal's template which needs your signature:

Where is the dispute?
talk page of Robert Zoellick bio, section entitled Transparency at the World Bank and WP:BLPN, section 19 on Robert Zoellick

Who is involved?
The list of the users involved. For example:

Demiurge1000 Currency1

Acceptance of Mediation
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it: Currency1 (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the dispute?
Is Robert Zoellick's bio improved by Currency1's edits, or were they contentious, unsubstantiated, and patently biased?

What would you like to change about this?
The conversation needs mediation.

How do you think we can help?
We are here to help you, but we need to know how. Sometimes mediators will look at a dispute and have no idea where to start, so please help us out. Do note that we will not "take sides" in any dispute.

Mediator notes
From what I can see, Currency1's edits weren't bias. I think it does add something to the article although I do agree that it could do with some independant sources. Oddbodz (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have suggested two additional sources at the Zoellick talk page. Can we consolidate this discussion there and link to that page from Mediation Cabal?  I would also prefer that this mediation effort is referred to as "Robert Zoellick" on Mediation Cabal rather than "User talk:Demiurge1000" as is currently the case.Currency1 (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to a message from Currency1 on my talk page, I have tried to close this mediation on my talk page. Please have a look. If you are happy with this, let me know on my talk page. If you are not, also let me know and I'll see what I can do. Oddbodz (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * No problem! First one of this particular barnstar I've had. I'm finding aircraft articles interest me more and more, largely thanks to the enthusiastic improvement of them by yourself and others. Keep up the great work! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked User:Arfaz for copyvio
I've indefinitely blocked for continued copyvio. He's edited/created a lot of articles which may need review. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Good job! I see the CCI has been opened. Unfortunately a very very large one :( --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
I was going to leave you a little note but, after I saw the "you have messages", I decided to turn it into this lovely shiny bstar :¬)


 * Thanks! Yes, it's a bit disappointing that, despite my hopes that educating and/or identifying copyvio-problem editors would reduce the amount of cleanup work to be done long-term, the reality is that when a single longer-term copyvio contributor is identified, it immediately adds a mountain of cleanup work to the already Himalayan backlog. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination
Hi, I'm going to blunder my way through my first DYK,that you commented on. If you could alert to me to major errors, that would be great Ncsjfreed (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)ncsjfreed


 * I've ticked off some of the "easy parts", and done a little to improve the prose in the article itself. I think the move involved parts of the review are still outstanding (unless I missed some updates on my watchlist), but I'll try and do a quick double-check once you've done that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Chinacat7/User talk:NTLwr12
I opened up a sockpuppet investigation and both have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Sockpuppet investigations/Chinacat7. Marcus  Qwertyus   21:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Aha! Thanks, that's perfect. I see I'd left a question about sockpuppetry on both their talk pages, but then forgot to follow it up. Too much going on at once - I kept wondering why that BLP they'd been fighting over, was repeatedly popping up on my watchlist :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ina Garten
revision of ina garten was a paraphrasing/directly linked to msnbc wording/article and therefore was not editorializing but including reporting of a reputable source, therefore not in violation of policy and should not be reverted. Such undoing would in fact be, editorializing by the person changing it and a violation that would be reportable and notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.119.116 (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There has been a lengthy discussion on the talk page of the article as to whether to include this material. The concensus is that it should not be included. You've repeatedly reverted other editors to re-introduce it, while also adding an irrelevant and misplaced "Example" image at the same time. Please stop doing so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE awards July 2011 drive

 * Thanks - 'twas fun! Might even sign up for the next one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The First Domino


Re. photo of pub/bags (IRC),

Yes - I thought that too; I couldn't find another photo we could use. The bin-bags are awful. I did consider trying to edit them out of the pic, but that'd be quite difficult; on balance, I decided to leave the pic in because it gives a good idea of what the pub looks like, which I guess helps understanding.

Hmm; maybe it could be partly cropped out, partly edited out? Not sure; I'll try and have a look some time.  Chzz  ► 09:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it's definitely a possibility - cropping out the bags would mostly just lose the pavement, apart from one little section. Sometimes cropping causes problems because it messes up the framing of the image, but in this case the framing is unusual anyway (it needs to show the first floor in order to include the flag, I guess) so it wouldn't matter so much.


 * Of course, we could always try taking a new one instead! I'm not in that part of town often, but it might happen. The problem in Soho is that there's always either throngs of people in front of pubs, or rubbish bags in the mornings, or both. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've tried cropping, a bit of rotation, a bit of cloning - but I'm not happy with the results. So, yes, I think some poor soul will have to take a field-trip to the pub! I'm in Manc now, so unlikely to be in Soho for some time; but, perhaps, one day.  Chzz  ► 16:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Floppy disk hardware emulator
While I normally don't approve of removing sections from a talk page, that section has nothing to do with the article in question, and everything to do with User:Blackvisionit making wild claims and supporting them with IPs which are almost certainly socks (i'll look into that issue in a minute). Blackvisionit, who has been told by me that he may not edit the article due to NPOV and OR problems related to having a COI, is saying that the COI investigation itself is a problem for Guymacon. If Blackvisionit wants to open some sort of sanctioning proceedings against Guymacon, xe can do that, but not on the article's talk page. I will tell Guymacon, though, that xe should not be the one to remove the info. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I had given Blackvisionit links (off-wiki) to the appropriate places (on-wiki) to pursue dispute resolution regarding Guymacon, and was going to leave it at that. Guymacon was very polite in reverting me, so it's not a problem at all. Blackvisionit was also "seeking the advice" of an admin off-wiki about (I assume) the same topic, so I gave the admin a link to your comment here as a quick summary of the approximate state of the situation. I see the whole thing is something of a mess, so I'm going to stay well clear - and I was thinking contentious BLPs were bad! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice of improper deletion
Today I received this notice:

The Wikipedia page "User talk:Jkolak" has been changed on 9 August 2011 by Demiurge1000, with the edit summary: General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Karl Denninger. (TW)

This of course is nonsense because I referenced directly to the living person's own video containing the referenced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkolak (talk • contribs) 10:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The living person I had in mind was the current President of the United States of America. I affix his seal to this message (and also another seal, for comparison purposes). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Malleus
What was that about? --John (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I hoped it was self-explanatory. (Well, you'd need to read Malleus' talk page also.) However, in short, a new(ish) editor created an article, asked for a copyedit before it reached DYK, submitted it to DYK, then submitted it to GA. Malleus took on the GA review, and did a fantastic job of expanding the article (which, to be frank, wasn't GA-ready beforehand.) While this was happening, the new(ish) editor thanked Malleus for his work, and apologised for being new to the whole process. Malleus awarded the article (his article, by this point?) GA status, then addressed the new(ish) editor by name on his talk page, implying he had been ungrateful ("No need for any kind of thanks for almost completely rewriting your article Warburton1368"). Malleus followed this with some preteen-style rant about how he doesn't like Jimbo. The new(ish) editor then put a barnstar on Malleus' talk page, in an obviously sincere attempt to show genuine gratitude, to which Malleus replied "So you think I just copyedited your article?" I felt this was rubbing salt in the wound too much, and said so, at length. Malleus duly took his usual way out - juvenile insults in the hope of some support from the peanut gallery. A kiddie admin ("semi-retired", no less), reverted at least one of my replies, to make sure Malleus got his say uninterrupted. I don't like seeing people who could contribute more to Wikipedia, being made pawns in this sort of pathetic nonsense. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I saw this. It's clear that Malleus is pissed off, is there any chance I can persuade you not to make the situation any worse? It's clear to me that you aren't going to make him a better person by chiding him in this way. Please? --John (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm doing what I can - certainly staying away from his talk page for now. Are you making similar overtures to him, though? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I will. Thanks. --John (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, it's appreciated. I see his friends are having some fun with a "Demiurge10" account or something. . I am really hoping they actually will grow up one day. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That account is blocked and there's no evidence it was one of Malleus's friends. Please, just step away from this. --John (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm standing right here. This is, after all, my talk page. Bit of a coincidence after this threat right before, wouldn't you say? You were rather misleading in meeting this undertaking; you came here demanding answers, I didn't begin by asking you to go to Malleus' page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No idea what you mean about coincidence. I am sorry you think I have been misleading. You asked if I was making similar overtures to Malleus, which was reasonable, so I asked him to step away from the argument the two of you have been having, as I have asked you. I don't see what was misleading about that. --John (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I will be specific. Malleus made this threat, and I dared to defy his wrath (gosh). Right afterwards, alongside a kiddie admin deciding to revert my comments, the "Demiurge10" account popped up to do some things that have now been revdel'd. Personally, I don't think it's a coincidence. The childish nastiness that Malleus displayed in this incident, leaves me not surprised in the least.


 * I do appreciate your efforts in asking Malleus not to bully new contributors in that way again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ahem. What happened here then? I thought you were going to leave Malleus alone for a while? You really aren't helping things by this type of thing. Can I respectfully request that if you have any more problems with this user you run it past me or another admin rather than posting on his talk? --John (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if I did, would you be likely to take action? Seems like he's much too important for you to even consider criticising him for a personal attack of that nature and then edit-warring the same page up to 3RR. And indeed the concensus at ANI is that he's too important to receive such warnings, so I won't give him one again. But it does concern me that certain administrators are so quick to come running here (or anywhere) if something happens that upsets Malleus; but are nowhere to be found while Malleus is busy with his edit warring and personal attacks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I seriously urge you to ask me or another admin to help you rather than take action yourself the next time. I really hope there won't be a next time. You and Malleus are two of the editors on here that I really respect and it pains me to see you squabbling unproductively like this. But unproductive it is, and toxic to the spirit of collaboration that powers this project. Please let someone else handle it next time. I have history with Malleus myself; I once threatened to block him when he was being unpleasant to somebody. I later promised never to block him, a promise I intend to keep. So the best thing you could do for me would be to avoid getting into any more conversations with him if possible and certainly not to post on his talk for at least a month or so. I will be saying the same to him. Please. --John (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a very strange arrangement you have with him there. And it seems like you're not alone in such arrangements, just more honest about it. But, flattery will get you everywhere :P All right. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, I really think that is for the best. As regards the strangeness of the arrangement, I am all about getting the job done, which friction between users works against. Thanks for acknowledging my honesty, I certainly try. --John (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Nathan2055talk-review 16:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You?
I presume, I am "newbie" and I am not sure! You fixed one thing, the duplicate message, I am not sure what the other one was, I am certain you did the right thing!

Please be kind and keep an eye on me as I may be targeted by the Greek admins and their collaborators. If Greek admins clean up their act, I will go on contributing to the Greek version, which assistance is desperately needed. But some of them must be made an example for the rest.

For sure, this is not Facebook. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greek Mitch (talk • contribs) 00:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Help!!!!
I've been working on AFC, and when I decline a submission I try to link to exact policies, but they still clutter my talk page with messages like "What is wrong with my submission?" or "I'm just trying to write an article for my company, why did you decline it?". Could you please help me with one of those "If I declined your submission, look here before posting" pages that I see a lot of editors have? --Nathan2055talk-review 16:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * AfC is a real nightmare, I wouldn't last ten minutes in that place :-) One useful link, where appropriate, is WP:PSCOI. I'm not sure where the generic "look here first" ones are. Really if you are going to do AfC work regularly, you will get a lot of these sort of queries (if you later do New Page Patrol work, you will get even more!) and you have to look at each one and think carefully about what the problem is, and give them as full an answer as you can.


 * Often the problem is that the page author just doesn't realise that Wikipedia articles have to be a certain way (or that Wikipedia is not for certain things), and needs that explained to them slowly, gently, politely, and in detail. (Much though it's tempting to say "This is no good, see WP:NOTADVERTISING", one can't really do that.)


 * Once you see a pattern of similar incoming requests, you can maybe have some pre-prepared text to hand for the most common queries... but until then it may be best to reduce the number of articles you review, to such a point that the rate of incoming queries on your help page, can be dealt with.


 * There's also a "live chat help" IRC channel which deals with quite a large proportion of the new contributors that are trying to create articles through AfC. This is linked from somewhere at Questions. It can be useful to hang around there to see what sort of responses are given to all the above sorts of questions (which we get a lot), or indeed to ask for opinions when a truly bizarre or intractable query pops up on your talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, both NPP (which I'm doing a few simple pages in) and AfC (which I completely emptied the backlog of once) cause a ridiculous amount of talk page comments I've seen. My major problem is the fact that people won't read the comments I leave them in AfC, they just bombard my talk page. Well, I guess that's life. --Nathan2055talk-review 19:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, exactly... the big red rejection notices state exactly how to resubmit their article after being rejected, so what's the first question they ask when they see them? "How do I resubmit my article after being rejected?" --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Take this for example. I leave a comment on an article saying it needed to be copyedited with a link to WP:COPYEDIT. I get a reply saying Hi Nathan,

Thank you for your work on my article Jean-Philippe de Lespinay but you are too succinct in your instructions. I'm not a professional editor or an expert of Wikipedia, you probably guessed... If I'm not mistaken, copyedit means "Make the copy clear, correct, concise, complete, and consistent". Which of these five aspects I need to improve, please ? Thank you.
 * Why don't people read the policy I link to when I deny a request? Well, thanks for your help! --Nathan2055talk-review 16:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Secure from battle stations ...
Ouch! You've used a template to send a to an experienced editor. Please review Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What experienced editor? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC) P.S. you just woke up my neighbours. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Lol, sorry about the noise! Please apologise to them for me, maybe shout it out of the window :¬)
 * Well, he has more than 100,000 edits, has been around Wikiworld for over five years, and is an FAR regular. Should be plenty there for you to work it out ... Chaosdruid (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, my mistake, I was wrongly assuming that experience confers maturity. There's an essay under construction on that topic too, incidentally. Anyway, if you're talking about who I think you're talking about, then the essay you linked doesn't seem very relevant to them, whereas this one does. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

follow up =
not sure if i should post here my follow up. not sure if you saw my response on the bio page. please take a look. if not resolved, let me know what i need to do to close my profile. a search about me on the web will show you that i avoid participating in anything i consider anti-first amendment. i shall base my decision on my opinion, i may be wrong. but i believe the article has no place on Wikipedia or it must contain a caveat.

feel free to delete this and any of my comments. thanks.

Greek Mitch (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Your protege UserQGreek Mitch known to our department as (redacted) is threatening users around WP. Are you going to ask him about that?--77.49.232.150 (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure he's my protege - is he looking for mentoring? :) I've redacted the name you mention, just in case it should be someone's real name. Anyway, User:Greek Mitch is indefinitely blocked for violations of WP:BLP, and the latest IP address that he used is also blocked, so I don't see that there is much to ask him about at this point. Feel free to let me know if he pops up somewhere again. In particular, if he is sending any threats by Wikipedia email (as he did to me) then it will be necessary to remove his ability to do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your attention. I' ll leave you a message in case of threatening through email.--77.49.232.150 (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rick Perry
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rick Perry. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anders Behring Breivik
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anders Behring Breivik. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anders Breivik
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anders Breivik. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Postal Address
Demiurge1000,it appears you are wrong about postal counties.around here in Bolton and Bury the postal addresses are Bolton,Lancashire and Bury,Lancashire.if you wrote Bolton,Yorkshire and Bury,Yorkshire as you said the letters would not get throught to you.


 * Tested it, have you? With a postcode? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ferdinand von Prondzynski - reliable sources
You claim that the source of a Vote of No confidence in von Prondzynski is weak needs to be revisited. I think you will find that the record clearly shows such a vote of NO confidence was passed in him and his management team by staff at the college. You should undo the edit you made in a timely manner.

(cur | prev) 02:31, 19 August 2011 Demiurge1000 (talk | contribs) (18,531 bytes) (→Controversy: rmv disputed information supported only by a weak source, per WP:BLP)

Here are further sources;

1. The two UNION (SIPTU) emails informing all staff at DCU of the Motions and the result.

(redaced material that probably shouldn't be on my talk page or anywhere else on Wikipedia --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC) )

2. Phoenix Magazine - December issue, 2009. 'Affairs of the Nation - DCU's President Ferdinand von Prondzynski'

........." Such is the level of antagonism between von Prondzynski and the staff on this issue that last year SIPTU held a secret ballot which resulted in a motion of No confidence in the president being passed by 55% to 45%. Essentially SIPTU claims that the contentious statute allows the university to fire staff at minimal notice and this is an abuse of natural justice. Ironically, in his early years as an industrial relations lecturer in Trinity College in the 1980’s, VP was considered somewhere to the left of Karl Marx on trade union matters and earned himself the moniker ‘the Red Baron’ "........

3.  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6689569.ece

....defending the decision to appeal the Cahill case to the Supreme Court, he added: “The university took the view that the High Court case raised issues appropriate for an appeal to the Supreme Court, which is not particularly costly, while being important in order to present us with legal clarity.” Other university sources, however, are unhappy at the amount of money spent. Last November, Siptu staff voted no confidence in DCU management over an alleged failure to develop suitable dismissal procedures....

4. The DCU Award winning Student newspaper - The College View -

http://www.thecollegeview.com/2008/12/14/no-confidence-motion-passed-on-college-bosses/

5. Reputable Irish Education Blog site - Ninth level Ireland, edited by Steve Hedley, UCC

http://9thlevel.ie/2008/12/03/ballot-of-staff-at-dublin-city-university-vote-no-confidence-in-the-president-of-the-university/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.110.14 (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I will reply on the talk page for the article, as it makes little sense to be having this discussion on my talk page, since it's already in at least three other venues. I've blanked the internal university email, because it's not a good idea to be pasting emails complete with people's email addresses on Wikipedia talk pages. (And a copy-paste of an email is not an independent reliable source anyway.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

State Committee for Construction
Don't forget to copyedit this. Thanks, -- Σ  talk  contribs  03:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Akhmetov
I suggest you to stop censoring, especially regarding issues that you're not competent in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.7.105 (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker) Removing unsupported negative statements about a living person is not censorship, it is protecting Wikipedia against legal issues relating to defamation and libel. --Mrmatiko (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Thanks for keeping an eye on things here. In addition, there's this; User:Demiurge1000/Thoughts on WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey man, I know that I took an EXTREMELY long time to do this, but I wanted to say thanks for the great help you gave me. Forgive me for taking so long, but I have been busy with work this summer. Sorry. --Ryder 00:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC) talk


 * No problem! Good to see you back in action. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Talk:Alex Day
The page Talk:Alex Day is a talk page of the deleted article Alex Day. It is currently protected as a deleted page. This talk page needs to be deleted per WP:CSD. You may object to this on the page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Alex Day. Nominal (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Alex Day
Talk:Alex Day, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Alex Day and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Alex Day during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Nominal (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. 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) 11:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit request
Hi I have started a GA review for Affair of Katia, if your not to busy would you mind looking it over. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks appreciate whatever you can do.Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving pages
Thanks for the Welcome message,

I have ceated a new article in my sandbox, but I cannot for the life of me see how to move it into Wikipedia. I see other people have been puzzled, but the responses do not make sense to me.

Can you help please?

johnny Cyprus 24 August 2011  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Cyprus (talk • contribs) 18:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Go to WP:MOVE and look for the graphical guide to this, about a third of the way down the page on the right.


 * With regard to signing your posts, the four tildes have to be all together - putting your name in the middle of them, stops it working. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, looks like you worked out both items already. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but thanks anyway --Johnny Cyprus (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi, Thanks very much for your copyedit of the Affair of Katia article. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. It was fun, and certainly a very interesting part of this campaign. Thanks for all your work improving Wikipedia's coverage of this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Alex Day
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alex Day. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nominal (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for letting me know. This guy seems to generate more deletion debates than a... well I don't know what, but he does seem to take way too many sections on my talk page :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

WindSeeker Copy Edit Request
Hello, just wondering if you will be willing to take a look at the WindSeeker article and tell me what can be changed / fixed. The review is mostly done but the reviewer has requested that a more experienced and person less involved in the article take a look at it. Once the review is complete, i plan on nominating it for FA status. Let me know if you are willing to do the review on my Talk Page. Thanks!!!--Dom497 (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for thinking of me. I'm not sure I can commit to helping with this. For one thing, I already have one copyedit booked for the WP:GOCE, and they don't like double bookings. (I also have a couple of articles that I've been asked to work on after that.) For another, the prose standards for FA are very demanding, and although I've copyedited articles up to FA standards before, increasingly I find that it's best to focus on improving the overall quality of articles (to A-class, for example) than to spend months agonising over making tiny tweaks to a single article to meet the exact requirements of a reviewer who might have their own particular stylistic bias, and perhaps their own variant of English. Your article is still listed at the GOCE requests page, so hopefully someone will pick it up, but you may find that improving other articles, is more rewarding than worrying about that one single article and its exact place in some artificial overall hierarchy of articles. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for your advise!!!--Dom497 (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring Someone35
I'm also generally regarded as pro-Palestinian, and I don't have any experience with mentoring, so I offered myself as a last resort. If you're willing to mentor Someone35, I'd be happy to help in any way I can. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Malik. It's slow going, but I'm making at least a little progress, sort of :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

infobox
Hi I was wondering where to get the code for an iphone application infobox  AviationExpert    &#32;(talk) 18:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably at Template:Infobox Software.  Rcsprinter  (talk)  18:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi both. I expect that the avaition expert hasn't considered all the possibilities regarding adminship - I'm not 100% it's the right decision at the moment. Demiurge, if you happen to agree with me, give me a nudge and I can delete it for you. WormTT  · &#32;(talk) 08:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, this was unexpected. It's a very nice thought, and I appreciate The.aviation.expert's kind words, but at the moment I am mainly doing copyediting (with some occasional work on BLP problems) so administrator tools aren't really needed. Also I heard somewhere :-) that RfA currently really needs one's full attention and a large dollop of patience, neither of which I'm able to muster at very short notice. So yes, it's probably best that you remove this one please, Worm. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kablooey.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 17:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hehe, thanks! I notice, on clicking the redlink to check that all was in order, that it now gives a recently updated and excitingly very large bright red gobbet of personalised advice! I'm sure this is a good thing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is that bright red gobbet of advice that has caused me to edit Template talk:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. -- Σ  talk  contribs  01:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome
Thank you for your kind message. Yes, I joined Wikipedia some years ago, but never really edited anything. I am active in the user experience community and have had an opportunity to meet many of the thought leaders currently shaping the internet.

Today I came across the biography of Eric Reiss, whom I have met on several occasions and greatly admire for his contributions to the development of usable, useful interactive communications. In fact, I think my very first Wikipedia edit was on this very same biography. Anyway I was slightly offended by one of the recent edits to the page (Reiss thinks he is one of the most influential...). As the heading was looking for references, I thought I would help out. My HTML isn't great, but I have tried to do a good job. Hopefully I can also work on some other bios over the next month or so.

If you have some tips, let me know.

Sincerely, Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua R Smith (talk • contribs) 19:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Josh, thanks for the reply. Here on Wikipedia we have a large dose of what we call "systemic bias" against a whole host of things. Most commonly, concern is expressed about bias as a result of under-represented groups (women are an alarmingly small minority of editors, editors with interest in matters outside the USA and Western Europe are relatively few, and so on). However, because of Wikipedia's immense popularity, there is also a natural reactionary bias against both people who seem to be part of an effort to promote aspects of the business world, and people who are "popular on the internet".


 * (So for example, this page seems to receive regular notifications about a guy aged about 20 in the UK who has been repeatedly covered by the BBC and other respectable outlets for his YouTube and charity activities, but despite such levels of coverage in such outlets normally being more than enough to achieve enough notability for a Wikipedia article, he currently doesn't have one partly because, I feel, of a knee-jerk reaction that we don't need "yet another YouTube celebrity pushed by his legions of fans".)


 * It's likely that the article on Reiss, and others, has suffered from him being, to some extent, in both of those categories.


 * The wording you highlight ("thinks he is one of the") is indeed entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Even if it's not intentionally sarcastic, what a person (allegedly) thinks about themselves is almost never a key fact to include in the lead of a biographical article.


 * On the other hand, the statement itself (as you have it now) is still rather problematic. Is there such a thing as the "European information architecture/usability/user experience scene"? If such a thing existed ten years ago, I was part of it - or at least working with one of its leading lights. It's a dangerous phrase to give prominence in the lead of a biography. Wikipedia should only summarise what existing, respected, published sources say about a topic. Now, what counts as such a source on such a topic?


 * Again, the systemic bias rears its head here - earthshaking experts in user interaction are supposedly immortalised in the pages of Wired (magazine). But equally, would someone who was notable in Europe have hit a small editorial or interview in Computing (magazine) or Computer Weekly, or the websites of one of those, or the equivalent in a more specialised trade journal? The BJ blog that you use as a source is perhaps useable, but it doesn't really have the weight to support an extravagant claim in the way that it's used at the moment.


 * Likewise, avoid those weasel words! The link is right there. Was someone pivotal... well, which reliable source said so? Perhaps they were just important. "he developed a unique on-line communications concept" - so he designed a website? Maybe it was something rather more than that, but it needs an independent reliable source that describes it as unique. "demonstrated his ability to explain technical things in everyday language" - ideally, we need an independent reliable source that says so, not just a link to a source associated with the book.


 * Those are some things to think on for that article. And now for something a bit different. Someone else who is, seemingly, in the European user experience scene... Ian Hughes (epredator) - what do you make of the Wikipedia article on him? And should there be one? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

valerie sinason
The article on sinason is unbalanced. Can you help? as per my post on the BLP noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.200.188 (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I tried to improve it a little, but it is a real minefield - especially if there is a claim that she is only really notable as someone who made disputed statements about satanic abuse. I would recommend you find as many reliable secondary sources as possible that discuss her and/or her work outside that area, and list them on the talk page. Extra sources or evidence that "support her position" concerning satanic abuse, would only serve to increase the tendency for the article to be a battleground for that topic, which of course is inappropriate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)