User talk:Demiurge1000/Archive 5

I'm late and I know it.
You mean Wielvakia? We were ALL doing good 'til THIS happened. Tihs is a response to your message on DS's page. Here's what I want you to do.

Make my talk nonexistent. Keep my user page and watchlist. All the rest can go. I'm gonna apply on Acepedia instead. Can you do that? Respond to me here.

Bye. From the Republic of Wielvakia's President, Hector Neeleman. I am kicking the tires and setting the fires.


 * Ah, hello Your Excellency, nice to hear from you. I see you've blanked the relevant talkpage. The watchlist will remain fully operational for whenever you choose to sign in, although I should mention that if any of your accounts are blocked, you are not permitted to edit Wikipedia at all (whether signed in or signed out or via another account.)


 * If there is anything on the userpage or talk pages or any other page (or their histories) that is private information and needs to be removed (for example your full name from before you were elected as President of the Republic, or any names of schools etc), then feel free to drop me an email and I'll do my best to get it removed. (Or you can follow the instructions somewhere near WP:RFO).


 * I hope the tire-kicking and fire-setting is enjoyable and not too disruptive, and I wish longevity and success to you and the Republic. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hard to get through this, man. I had no idea that Wikipedia was like a school. "How?" you may ask. Well, not so much socializing, and more productivity. That's all I got blocked out for? For disinformation? Have you ever been blocked? See ya. Oh yeah, don't call me Your Excellency, Neeleman will do just fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.190.254 (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is, Wikipedia is here to write an encyclopedia. Writing an encyclopedia is more about research and being serious and dusty old books than it is about socializing. More like the picture on the right, than like recess at middle school. Sure, people do some socializing, but people are expected to contribute to the work that needs doing as well.


 * I'm a bit puzzled as to why anyone would choose Wikipedia as a place to socialise, though. It's not even that pretty. Acepedia looks much better, but you need to remember they probably have their own rules on how people behave there. (I think Wikia also allows you to create your own separate Wikia community, where you would set most of the rules yourself, but I've never tried it.)


 * No I've never been blocked, although who knows what the future may bring :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah well, ok, see ya. 67.1.93.124 (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC) (tilde tilde tilde tilde lol)

Mithraic Mysteries


Hello Demiurge. Remembering your past contributions to working thru of the conflicts regarding the Mithraic Mysteries page, I thought it might be appropriate to let you know that it's not quite over yet... A few days ago I felt compelled to put in a new SPI regarding Roger Pearse, which is currently open. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I had spotted this, and have been keeping an eye on it, but I didn't think I could really contribute much of value. Roger seems a splendid fellow, but it's disappointing and somewhat surprising (if 'tis really him) that he would find it so important to correct these relatively minor details, that he would continue a saga of edit-warring and blanking and such over so many months. Sadly the length and verbosity of the mediation, and its essentially unsuccessful conclusion, drained my willpower to police Mithras wars even if the prize were a steak dinner with that nice Sol guy.


 * The whole sorry tale (with names changed to protect guilty and innocent alike) might end up in my someday essay Adults and Wikipedia - how is it possible that someone with a better education than 90% of editors, sterling contributions to advancing free knowledge elsewhere, and double the life experience of the average Wikipedian, ends up on this apparently hypocritical rampage to squish ideas that he disagrees with, indeed to squish editors that he disagrees with? It's far from the only time that wisdom and experience has gone hand in hand with displays of inexplicable impetuosity here on Wikipedia, and its a contradictory pattern whose frequency seems not yet to be recognised. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Pathlight School
Thanks for the copyedit of Pathlight School! The vandalism you just reverted is a copyright violation. Should we request that an admin remove the revision from the article history? I intend to file a GA nomination for the article tomorrow, so I hope you and others could comment at its ongoing peer review. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that was a series of clumsy good-faith mistakes, rather than being vandalism. Of the two edits, the first was the funniest - they obviously have big hopes for the future! I don't think revdel is necessary on this occasion. I'll try to look in on the peer review tomorrow. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The first was copied from our article about Raffles Institution, the most prestigious school in Singapore, hence the big hopes. It did give me a good laugh, though. Looking forward to reading your review of the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have heard of it from almost the far side of the world, so it's quite well known. Slightly more the style of schooling I'm used to, in fact they seem to take tradition to considerable extremes! :) I thought the first edit might have been intended to use that article as a basis to model a re-write upon, which isn't a bad idea sometimes, but some of the content wasn't quite search-and-replaceable. Oh yes, peer review... tomorrow! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Demiurge1000, A personal note of thanks for your assistance in updating our company logo. Regards, David 218.185.37.138 (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. I still have no idea how the anonymous upload process works, I shall have to put it on my long list of things to find out about. But stealing it off your website worked just as well :-)


 * Hmmm can I persuade you to look into Why create an account? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Backup Editor Award

 * Thanks! And a great choice freely-licensed US government image! It even distracted me into watching the original. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You almost have a squad of these now

 * THANKS once again really appreciate it.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks... once I have a squad, I'll need half a Hotspur Glider to transport them in :)


 * I couldn't resist adding a little to the 6th Airlanding Brigade article, as well, since I'm reading Max Hastings' book Armageddon. He is most scathing about Operation Varsity and the losses occurred; "The airborne divisions existed and consumed rations, therefore they had to be used".


 * Are there more under preparation? I see Battle of Merville Gun Battery is already done, although I don't regret missing it since it definitely wasn't the airborne forces' finest hour. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Janet Fielding Edit
I read a long time ago in an old issue of Doctor Who Magazine that she was born in 1957 and therefore only 24 when she joined Doctor Who's regular cast as assistant / companion Tegan Jovanka. I will go and have a look for it even though a lot of the magazines I had, have now been long lost due to moving house and stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonm25870 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be good if you can find the old magazine, because the source in the article right now is only a blog (although seemingly a rather well maintained one) and thus is unlikely to qualify as a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. I've left the updated date of birth in there, though, since the other date was completely unreferenced. I'm surprised that Wikipedia's coverage of old Doctor Who actors is so thin. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Robert Zoellick bio


Before referring this to the new Dispute Resolution section I wanted to get your comments:

Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Demiurge1000 reverted edits. Mediator from Mediation Cabal agreed that independent reliable sources justified reversion. Demiurge disagreed with mediator and mediator was removed from serving as mediator for Mediation Cabal. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Currency1 (talk · contribs) Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs) Oddbodz (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Zoellick Bio". Thank you. --Currency1 (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC) on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Both users agreed to submit our dispute concerning content on Zoellick bio to Mediation Cabal. Mediation Cabal's mediator was removed from Mediation Cabal after having given a reasoned decision and the issue remains unresolved. How do you think we can help? either revert the edits, or determine that the independent reliable sources are not independent reliable sources. Currency1 (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Zoellick Bio discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Currency1 (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My view on this is as previously stated at User talk:Oddbodz as part of the mediation. Incidentally, I don't know if Oddbodz was removed from the Mediation Cabal, as you suggest, or simply left it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll put this discussion on Oddbodz' talk page and ask for corrections before submitting the discussion to Dispute Resolution.Currency1 (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Zoellick bio". Thank you. --Currency1 (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 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. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! I really developed a strong suspicion that the random singer in question might actually be notable... which makes a refreshing change :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Genbukan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genbukan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Genbukan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. jmcw (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yet another barnstar for you!
Really, Demiurge, your comments were immensely helpful and are much appreciated. Regards, Swarm  u


 * Thanks! Glad to do anything to help along the much-needed, and somewhat in decline, Adopt-a-User program. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * No problem, and thanks very much! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again thanks

 * Thanks Jim - a new one for my collection! I wouldn't say poor edits, more a case of a few commas that needed moving around, and some bigger image captions :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Adriana Ferreyr
sir / madam Could you please protect this page from continuing deletions. 1 user has already been warned, another, william de mille has surpassed 3 deletions this evening alone. faithfully William de Berg (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker) Biographies of living people are held to higher standards of Neutrality than other pages due to the sensitive subject nature. If you are going to include negative information about a living person then ensure that it doesn't massively alter the tone of the article, avoids making judgements and that it doesn't relate to an ongoing event without being very heavily sourced and carefully edited to maintain neutrality. --Mrmatiko (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me why you have just given me a warning. If this is regarding the last post, concerning the court case with Mr G Soros then I entered the text after consultation with Bbb23. They told me what was acceptable to post. I followed their advice. So should you be warning me with regards to that last post, I will accept you apology now. OK? William de Berg (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The edit that prompted the warning was linked in the diff that I attached to the end of the warning. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced negative information about living people, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
I'm really thankful for you warning me about WP:ANI --ChristianandJericho 17:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. I see the ANI thread has now been closed, but I hope you'll take on board some of the advice offered there and on your talk page, to try and avoid (or reduce) problems in the future. I'm glad that you're changing your approach to Wikipedia to be more constructive, but you do need to edit slowly and carefully to avoid the sort of mistakes that people find disruptive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Article for Creation
Hi Demi. Sorry, but we zapped the link in favour of more China-specific ones. Hope that's okay. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep that's fine, just make sure you have enough potential articles for all of them to try a few each :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The list is pretty big. Probably a few hundred all together. Articles for creation looks big, but when you start to dig, you realize why the links are red. It's slim pickins. If you can add more of those Chinese lists, or such, please do. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

DongGuan Street--Help request from NNU student
I have some problems with my artice,but I don't know how to solve it.Please help me. NNU-11-22100506 (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

asking for help,a student from Nanjing Normal University
Dear sir Can you take a look at my article and give some advice? Thank you! NNU-11-22100521 (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 05:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

DongGuan Street ---A student from Nanjing Normal University
Dear Demiurge 1000: Thank you for your reply,and I can find my article now,Thank you very much08:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)NNU-11-22100506 (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The Huilong High School, questions from a NNU student
Hello! I have written an article,and I accepted the suggestions from one of you. Now, I have altered it. Can you help me to check it again? I'm glad to get advice from you, and I want to be better. Thank you very much! I'm looking forward to hearing from you! Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by NNU-11-22100509 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Jamie from Nanjing Normal University
Hello :）It's my first time to write Wikipedia and I'm a little confused.+_+ Whould you like to tell me how to add a picture in my page? It was taken by myself.Should I add it first into the datebase? Here is my pageTongzi Opera Waiting for your reply.↖(^ω^)↗ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnu-10-24100132 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Jamie from NNU
The picture was taken by myself with my own camera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnu-10-24100132 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
I really appreciate your help. Wikipedia is really interesting and i will try to improve my page and write something more. Thanks a lot! O(∩_∩)O — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnu-10-24100132 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

5th Parachute Brigade

 * Thanks once again, you will probably be relieved that was the last of the British airborne brigades. Only the 6th Division article to tidy up. Once again appreciate you taking the time to do a copy edit please accept this.


 * Thanks Jim. Yes I noticed the 6th Airborne Division article was being improved as well, I will watch out for that one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Help
Hey, do you remember me? I was wondering, could you help me with something when you get this? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha, one of my sometimes-missing adoptees! Yes of course I remember, I'd noticed you were editing again. Sure, what's up? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm working on getting a timeline for the 1980 Atlantic hurricane season and some others. However, I have found a problem. I'm having trouble figuring out dates for when the storms became tropical depressions, storms, hurricanes, and so on. The article on Hurricane Allen says it became a storm one time, while this article, which is used for timelines in the 1980s, say a different time. Its all a bit confusing, and I was wondering if you could help me make the timelines? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For example, Hurricane Allen's article says it reached hurricane status at 1600 UTC on August 3, while the storm wallet says it reached hurricane status at 0000 UTC August 3, and so does best track. So...does this mean the storm article is wrong? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the article doesn't exactly say that. It says that the NHC upgraded Allen to hurricane status at 1600 UTC (and gives a source for that - check the source). It then goes on to say (in the next sentence) that later analysis discovered it had been a hurricane since 0000 UTC. This matches with what's in the other sources.


 * In a sense, there are three different things being discussed here; (1) the reality of whether the storm's winds were at hurricane force at a particular time, (2) the statements made by NHC at the time about that, and (3) the later ("current") analysis by NHC about that. So in effect, NHC are saying in (3) that their statement in (2) was wrong and needs revising. Since verifiability trumps truth, we generally consider (3) and (1) to be the same thing, and you would use (3) in the timeline.


 * Of course, it's still possible that, twenty years from now, NHC (or someone else) could revise the analysis again. So the article (and timeline) would then need updating again. None of the statements are wrong as such - just outdated. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"Schmuck"
Sorry, didn't know it was regarded as a disparaging remark. However, I wasn't referring to anyone on wikipedia a "schmuck", but it was in directed I believe at an NY Times columnist who wrote a point blank statement about the King Cobra that it can "kill a human in 15 minutes" and this was being used as a source for the king cobra article. I was just saying that that isn't a scientific source and it means nothing. I referred the other editor of a University of San Diego first aid treatment guide by herpetologist Terence Davidson which stated that "symptoms of a bite don't manifest until at least 15 minutes after a bite" (for a King cobra). That is a scientific source, not some NY times article written by a columnist. Bastian (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, WP:BLP covers anything said anywhere on Wikipedia about living people, not necessarily about people who are themselves on Wikipedia. I would agree that an NYT columnist is not the best source for an article about a herpetology topic. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I won't use the word again. I hope you can kind of chime in the King cobra article talk page. Look at my version (just the "Venom" section), which is well-written, well-sourced and objective/factual vs Fearingpredators' version. He's already been blocked by Admin EdJohnston, but as soon as his block was up he reverted it back to his version. That same Admin that blocked him asked him hours ago to revert his edits back to my version, but he has now "disappeared". Another user Jasper Deng has also claimed that my version is the better one. I would love it if you can look at my version and sources vs his (many of his references don't claim what he claims they claim - that is the biggest issue). It would be real nice if you can chime in and give your 2 cents. Bastian (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will try and drop by when I have time. Incidentally, it's not a good idea to try to force administrators into being moderators of content disputes - that's really not their role. So for example, using "permission given by Admin" as the reason for a revert, may not be enough if you're openly edit-warring, and especially breaking WP:3RR. (Although it looks like you're nowhere near 3RR right at this moment.) I know it's frustrating when it appears that someone is adding material in complete defiance of what reliable sources say, but it's always best to be patient, since these things tend to have a fairly inevitable outcome, it just takes time. In general, the greater the number of rational people that are aware of the issue, the less time it will take. The existing discussion at WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles may produce some useful input, and after that you may need to follow some of the subsequent steps in Dispute resolution (and the whole of that page is worth reading too.)


 * Skimming some of the discussions quickly, just a note that you should be careful of condemning sources as "unverifiable" if author, publisher, ISBN, title etc have been given for them. They may or may not be good sources, they may even, as you say, be children's books, but you can't demand another editor scan them for you or anything like that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and St Edwards School
Thanks for that vector graphics thing.

I noticed you commented on the article's quality, I totally agree but am unable to do much really. Do you have any ideas who would be good for overhauling it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.250.202.241 (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good job getting the logo sorted out.


 * As for the rest of the article, it suffers from the problem that there are tens of thousands of schools on Wikipedia, and only a few dozen uninvolved people interested in improving them. The ideal thing (apart from the conflict of interest and neutrality issues) would be a parent, pupil or alumnus with a genuine interest in improving the article in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and standards. (Pupil might be best, since teenagers are slightly more inclined to adapt to existing rules and guidelines, whereas adults have a tendency to be stubborn in insisting on their view of what they want.) Possibly with another editor helping them along with guidance on that. Given the school's size, it is 100% certain that there will be pupils who are highly skilled with computers and looking for things to do. How do you find them? Well, maybe that person is you, or maybe the school's IT staff will know who they are.


 * A lot of what can be done is really very simple and not even that time-consuming. Right now, the article doesn't even have a photo of the school - someone just needs to take a photo and upload it; if they take the photo themselves then they own the copyright and can just pick a license acceptable to Wikipedia. Ten minute job. For adding references, just obtain a reliable source (surely there must be at least one history of the school, and surely it'll be in the school library; the article itself mentions a recently published book on sport at the school, but doesn't use it as a source), find a fact confirmed in the source, then use that reference to support an existing statement in the article, or to add the fact as new material. One fact at a time. Web searches for books and newspapers will also bring up material that can be added, or verify material that's already there.


 * Some of the work requires rather more care. Material in the current article that can't be sourced, or is just downright unencyclopedic, needs to be removed. This might cause difficulties; lists of jargon, for example, are normally very difficult to source, but also seen as very important by pupils and alumni. Having said that, "The S. Edward's School Chronicle, Issue 1", which Google Books thinks is from 1873, has an entire section on school slang - though perhaps somewhat different to the modern usages. So the sources do exist, it's just a question of getting hold of them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Your message "Copyright issues"


Hello Demiurge. I've received your message on my talk page under the heading "Copyright issues"

>Don't crow too quickly over apparent mistakes made by Roger; it does indeed appear that he took a few too many liberties with the work of a third party, but it's a common mistake and the details are so simple as not to merit much indignation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what this is about. Assume it refers to Roger Pearse, with whom I've certainly had a number of issues this year. But the most recent issue was several weeks back, and it was about sock-puppetry and "good-hand, bad-hand" tactics, and not about any copyright issues. Would you like to clarify what you think I may be inclined to crow too quickly about? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I guess you may have moved on to other things. Anyway, there was a notification of a copyright problem on his talk page. However, as that account seems not to be in use any more, there's probably nothing to be done in terms of discussion there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining. I suppose I've moved on, in the sense that I'm not that interested in Roger's past or present activities, except those that relate to the Mithraism page, which he seems to have left alone for the past few weeks. I've heard he is working on a statement about Mithraism in his own blog, which I actually think is an excellent idea.


 * Regarding those copyright issues with the George Kedrenos page, this is something I knew nothing about before today. If I did have anything to say about that, I assure you that I would sign my contribution as Kalidasa 777 – I do not use multiple accounts. If you feel the notice about the George Kedrenos thing should not have been put on Roger's talk page, perhaps you should discuss with the account-holder who put it there – User: the Man in Question. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I was not suggesting either of those things. I may merely have been pre-emptively damping down a possible conflagration that was actually never going to happen in the first place. I probably need to be a bit less imaginatively pre-emptive in future :-)


 * I wonder if the Mithraic mysteries article might make it to GA status one day. There's certainly plentiful coverage of the topic in there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you see merit in it, Demiurge. :-) I don't know much about the GA process, but have just been glancing at pages about GA nomination, criteria and reviewing. A GA review at some point might provide interesting feedback, anyway. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I've now read what you wrote on Sept 9 about the Mithraism content dispute, after I wrote to you about the SPI, which I had unfortunately overlooked before.

I can relate to what you wrote then. I agree that Roger is a very intelligent person, who has made serious contributions to providing knowledge through the net. He is also a campaigner. This is not in itself a bad thing, except that it seems to me that in relation to the Mithras article, he mixed up the roles of campaigner and information-provider, and eventually fell into what you've termed "inexplicable impetuosity"...

Anyway, I look forward to one day reading the planned essay you mentioned about situations like this. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

1st Airborne Division


Thanks for you help the 1st Airborne Division Good Topic has now been been completed. The nomination is here Featured topic candidates/1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom)/archive1 if you want to participate. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Fantastic, I'd read about featured topics but I'd forgotten that good topics were possible too. I guess there might one day be a similar one related to 6th Airborne Division? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

September barnstars

 * Ooh, thanks Dianna! I didn't realise there were awards based on copyediting longer articles, that's great. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!
Barnstar of Diligence


 * Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Tapani CSD


Hi Demiurge - I removed the A7 from Tapani Koivuniemi. He definitely has the level of coverage necessary to meet the GNG. There are two sources from Helsingin Sanomat (the largest newspaper in Finland) already in the article, and there are plenty more available. Kevin (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Article is a WP:COATRACK, he does not even come close to meeting WP:GNG. Taken to AfD, Articles for deletion/Tapani Koivuniemi. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Please look at
 Rcsprinter  (talk)  17:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 04:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Zoom Interface to help coordinate article improvement
Hi Demi! Will you make a link to planning so others can find it? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ (oops, this was a while ago.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
FYI :)  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfect, problem solved :) Thanks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Dragosh
I don't think he has an account on Ro.Wikipedia. From what I talked to him, he edited only on En.Wikipedia. I personally explained to him what he did wrong, but he didn't understood. I even tried to help him, but with no use. I think he is yet too young to be an editor. And yes, I will translate the explanation, but Andrei already put one on his talk page, in Romanian. Alexynho (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the translation. Stay hopeful for the future outcome in a year's time! And I suppose you'd better keep an eye on ro.wiki in case he does follow the advice, and just ends up creating chaos there :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Harriet Harman


Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Harriet Harman. 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) 07:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Help
Can you create my vector.js and vector.css page? I want to put up a message box to convince the boneheads here to stop messing around. I will have to talk with the IT director to find the source of these edits, kids shouldn't be making these edits instead of doing their work.

Also, an English teacher found a number of errors on a few articles, mabye I can get him to highlight them.

I'm so sorry for the conduct of my classmates. I have an account which I will not state for privacy reasons. I thank you for your help.--207.99.40.142 (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm! If IP addresses are unable to create vector.js and vector.css pages for themselves, there's probably a fairly good reason for that. Let me know what you want to be in the message box (on your IP's talk page, presumably?) and I'll put it there.


 * Encouraging teachers (or others) to make constructive edits, such as spelling or grammar corrections, would be a good way to avoid the IP address getting blocked permanently. Or, I suppose you could encourage them to make accounts instead. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that is a coincidence
Hello Demiurge 1000. Having just seen your edit summary here I thought you might like to see this one  that I posted a mere matter of minutes before yours. The design change in keyboards is one reason that I like this User:Mufka/Userboxes/typewriter userbox. Thanks for being part of a fun, for me anyway, coincidence and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ha, I've used a "real" typewriter as well... but only just! I doubt I'd manage very well with one now - apart from anything else, I'd forgotten the very considerable changes in the height of keys they had, from the front to the back of the keyboard. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

NNU student
Hello, i wrote an article, can you give me some suggestions? Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Yu_Yu Nnu-12-22100562 (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Demiurge 1000! Olympe 404 (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I notice that this article is about Peggy Yu. The present article is only a one-liner, though. Should the student move her content there? Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 10:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I think that's probably the best idea. I've suggested this on the student's talk page, along with a couple of other ideas. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

breaking into wikipedia
hi demiurge

thanks for help. i finally think i got to your user talk page. i want to break into editing but, as discussed, not sure where and how to begin.

now when you respond to this post, will it show up on my user talk page? If not, is there any way you can respond to me by email so that i know what you have said (either msiris@solomonsiris.com or mikesiris@gmail.com). i am assuming that isnt allowed but i just want to insure that i see your response

as i said before, it seems like there is a lot to learn.

are there gradations of editors?

for instance, i guess i am an "editor" in the sense that anyone can edit an article? but how is the hierachry set up? obviously, you have gradations. not anyone can post a tag of, say, a COI at the top of an article. who decides who those people are? how do they get to those positions?

thanks--hope i am doing this right. i am going to use four 17:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC) but my name is mike siris Mikesiris (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

breaking into wikipedia
demiurge, here is a question, that relates on how to break into wikipedia, i am an attorney so i have many colleagues/friends who i believe should be in there but are not (conversely, i have seen some attys who are in who i dont think should be in). i might consider doing a bio on one of these colleagues/friends (and would ask the person beforehand) but then I run into the COI problem that is at the forefront (literally) of the article about me. i think, frankly, this is ridiculous. i know i am in a position to know if an atty is deserving enough to be in there (at least in the area in which i specialize). there has to be a way around this. for instance, let's say i got permission from a colleague i know and posted his bio, i could simply say as part of the post that i know the person but i dont think my neutrality has been compromised. i mean it is totally impossible to be competely objective and, indeed, an argument can be made that it is only because of your knowledge about that person and familarity with him/her that you are in a position to know about that person. That is, the person might be extremely worthy but, if i did not know him/her, he/she might never make into wiki--a disservice to wiki that makes no sense.75.99.90.234 (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Demiurge

I am back, as they said in Poltergeist--or similar words. Anyway, did you see my question regarding my creating a wiki entry for a friend/attorney who is a colleague and who i know is worthy? It seems ridiculous that I should be barred from doing so if the person truly is worthy and not included in wiki? What if I dislclose, in creating the entry, that I know the person. I have some friends in mind who I know deserver inclusion (and indeed who may not care one way or the other if they are in). It would seem like a good place/way for me to break in?? What say you? Thanks Mikesiris (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ( talk page stalker comment: ) Mike, if you have a potential conflict of interest then it isn't a good idea to create an article straight away. If you think that this person is notable enough then there are three possible things you can do:
 * write a userspace draft User:Mikesiris/sandbox
 * use the article wizard
 * request that the article be created


 * My suggestion is that you click that red link above & write the article that you want to write and then ask someone (Me, Demiurge1000 or someone else) to review it. Then we'll let you know how to improve it, or whether the subject meets the notability guidelines.


 * --Mrmatiko (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

demiurge
i had a message from your talkpage but it was from a "talk page stalker"---mr. natico or something like that. i take it from the link on tps that these are simply people monitoring your/my talk messages, making constructive suggestons sometimes? in any case, did you see his/her comment and do you agree? i would like to get started on editing (or creating) but dont want to make this more complicated than need be. i still havent gotten around to reading the various articles you suggested. thanks Mikesiris (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike, sorry for the long delay; I've replied in detail to various of the above points, back on your talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Help needed for a student class project
Please see WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project and consider adding your name.

According to the teacher's instructions, this group of students may not create a lot of new articles, but may instead focus more on improving existing articles. The scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project is mainly concerned with new articles. So, there may be little for us to do in the way the WikiProject_China/NNU Class Project required. The students, however, may call on us for guidance in other areas. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Anna, thanks for letting me know. I'm very short of time at the moment, but I'll try and look in when I get a chance. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

breaking into wikipedia
demiurge

wow!! that was a very thoughtful message. and, yes, i see your point about bios of living person--atty/colleagues (I wasnt actually thinking of anyone in my firm, as that would be an obvious conflict, but of colleagues who are friends but who I know are considered to be a "lawyer's lawyer"--that is, a lawyer who another lawyer would go to for advice.) i will think about what you wrote and certainly not rush into writing a bio of a colleague (whose permission i would seek in the first place). you certainly gave me plenty of other law-related topics to think about.

realizing all the wiki help that is available, including the live chattig (where i met you), what i feel i really need would be a wiki expert to sit down w me at the computer and help me get through some of this stuff by showing me. i wonder if there are such people out there. i went on google and type in "wiki expert" but didnt get anything. i might try "wiki lessons" which is what i am talking about.

getting back to law related material, the US Supreme Court Citizens Union case was a very significant development in the field of campaing finance law. i may take a look to see if there is an entry for that and, if not, i wonder if that is the type of case you are talking about. of course, there are many many cases coming down all the time from different courts so it is hard to decide why one particular one would be worth writing up but, for some reason, that case comes to mind (it is not in an area in which i practice but i have read about the case in the newspapers).

Ol Yeller (who put up the COI tag on the article posted about me) wrote on my talk page that he would take it down. i dont know if he has, but, if he hasnt and if you think it appropriate to do so at this point, that would be much appreciated.

btw, i hear what you are saying about talkpages and stalkers but i sure wouldnt mind talking to someone to help walk me through some of this stuff (as indicated above by my reference to "wiki lessons"). i take it that your schedule is such, and/or the rules of wiki are such, that that wouldnt be permitted? i dont feel in am yet in a position to be tutored (i need to read more background material) but, once i get a better handle on things, a one on one tutorial is something that i think could help me (make a contribution to wiki).

i had no idea that wiki was supported by donations and that so many volunteers like yourself are what makes it go. that is really mind blowing. i doubt that most of the public is even aware of that.

anyway, i can see i have a long way to go here.

thanks for your help, suggestions and encourage.

Mikesiris (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

breaking into wikipedia
demiurge

two specific questions:

1. let's say i decide to take a stab at a bio of living person i know and i want to disclose that i know that person. how would i indicate that so the the community would be aware of a potential conflict of interest?

2. w/r to questions such as above, am i better of posting them on my own "talkpage"--with a view towards inviting more responses--or writing directly to you in response to your message to me?

thanks ps in the event you are available to talk one on one to me, pls send me phone number.

21:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikesiris (talk • contribs)

breaking in
demiurge

at the risk of overburdening you w questions, here is one more:

i wrote to you a response about writing on the law and, on my talk page, there seems to be a response from someone beginning "heyo" (and he is a "fellow jurist"). but unlike the messages from you, there didnt appear to be a way to "talk" back to him--no link. if he is an atty and a wiki editor, he is someone i might want to speak to. indeed, he implied that i might be able to assist him w something.

if you see his message (i guess on my talk page?), could you let me know how i write back to him

thanks

Mikesiris (talk) 03:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike. I see Ironholds has now signed his post on your talk page. However, to check who wrote what and when, whether on a talk page or indeed on an actual article, you can click View History at the top of the page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ani-Matilda Serebrakian and notability tag
Isn't she notable for just participating in the Olympics per WP:ATH? Regards, --Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No, WP:ATH actually says "...the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind..."


 * However, in this specific case, some searches reveal that there is indeed significant coverage of this person (as one might expect, I suppose) so I've removed the notability template. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of the notability guidelines have that kind of language, but I imagine the more specific language about the Olympics would be cited to if the article was AfD'd and there was no other coverage. In any event, given your research, the issue is moot for this article. I'm happy to leave the article in your capable hands. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Your DYK nom for Tim Guthrie
Hi Demiurge, I've reviewed your nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Tim Guthrie and there are some issues with referencing and an image. Please reply at the nomination page when you get a chance. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Crisco, will try to get back to it soon. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

NNU
Hello, Demiurge 1000. I have moved my article to Peggy Yu. Thank you fou you advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnu-12-22100562 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! Good job! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

breaking in
demiurge

can you give me some guidance on communicating as i am attempting to do here?

for instance, am i supposed to post something on my own talk page for the public at large to see/answer? or am i supposed to post/reply on your talk page a i am now doing? or does my reply to you show up on my own talk page?

in any case, i would like to start a draft of a friend, Louis J Schepp, who is a well known trial attorney in the NY metropolitan area. i understand this should be done in draft form on my own talk page?

thanks for any assistance here

75.99.90.234 (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike, you forgot to log in to your account when posting this :) Talk pages can work either way. If someone posts on your talk page, you can reply in the same place (but use a : before each line of your reply, so that it indents it, like I'm doing). Alternatively, you can reply by posting on the other person's talk page. You can also use your watchlist to see what changes are made, either to other people's talk pages, or to articles that you're interested in. Just click the star at the top of the page to add it to your watchlist; then click My watchlist (right at the top) to see what recent changes have been made to pages on your watchlist. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Mikesiris messages
demiurge

i just wrote to you but using "edit"--was that not correct? I am now writing to you on your talkpage? anyway, i think i followed your instructions, uploaded a photo to wikiepdia commons, and then inserted the link to the photo in the article. hope i did it right. i will be quite proud of myself if i did as i sometimes am technologically challenged or impatient!!! ):

thanks

Mikesiris (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

(copied from userpage by  HurricaneFan 25 , hope you don't mind)

demiurge

i think i followed the instuctions on uploading photo and inserted the link to the photo in the article. you said you will be watching to make sure i did it right--thanks. so i am writing to you on your talk page??

thanks agaiin

Mikesiris (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike, I think the first time you got my userpage instead of my talk page (note that one says User:Demiurge1000 at the top, and one says User talk:Demiurge1000), but HurricaneFan25 has kindly moved it to the right place.


 * Yes, the photo looks perfect! You forgot to put a Description in, but I've fixed that; and Chzz has cropped the top off the photo so that we get more of you and less of the plant :) It's now on the article (Michael Siris). If you Edit the article, you should be able to see the Infobox template that I put it in. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Reyes
i disagree with you. but in any event, how about you fix it yourself instead of bitching about alleged copyright violations? fix it so it shows all that information but in a way that u think is correct so u can show me how it is done.
 * Sure, I'll do that sometime over the next couple of days. However, there are three things we have to keep in mind here. First, we can't copy and paste entire sentences (or even parts of sentences) from other people's websites - that's the copyright thing. Second, we have to be neutral - so if one source carries a story relating her side of things, and another source carries a story only giving the police's allegations, we can't just ignore one of them. Third, we have to take into consideration due weight - in thirty years time, would someone writing a biography of Reby Sky have an entire section (an entire chapter?) about her getting arrested after a traffic stop? Or is it just something that was in the news this week, and isn't really central to her career? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification about a stray word
demi i note that in 4th par from bottom of bio on me the word "the" appears 2 x in a row. as o am not allowed to correvt do u mind174.254.194.20 (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

pologize for typos. i am on handheld   174.254.194.20 (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

did u see my message about typo in 4th par from bottom? on han.dheld so pls excuse typos   174.254.194.20 (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the spurious extra word has been fixed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

derek goldby
Yes, I am director of Autumn and Winter at the Orange Tree Theatre, as reviewed by Michael Billington in the Guardian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.59.123 (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the piece you referred to is quite false and I didnt realise wikipedia was so open to abuse. Since someone is clearly tampering with my bio, I dont want to have to check it every day, so I would strongly request that you remove me. 86.179.59.123 (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Given your recent history of edits to the abovementioned entry, I would like to point out that using WP for (self-)promotional purposes goes against WP:BLP.Neil pye (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to edit in a full list of my recent credits but it was blocked. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.59.123 (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Derek. Thanks for the details of the piece in the Guardian, that's been useful to me in understanding the situation. I'm not sure which edit (and when) added the details of the additional credits (productions you've worked on), but most likely it was removed because information in Wikipedia articles needs to be referenced in a reliable independent source. In any case, it's best to avoid editing your own article, as you have a conflict of interest. I've posted about the issues you've raised at some length at Talk:Derek Goldby. It's probably best to continue the discussion either there or at WP:BLPN. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Differences between user pages and talk pages. And more!
Hi Demiurge

Still struggling away here. You say one on one WK help feasible? How do I go about getting some?

Did you see (on my talkpage?) the analogy Ssilvers put up, saying think of the front and back pages of a book (the front being the article the back being the talk page?)) Could you explain a little further what he meant--and the differences between a talkpage and userpage?

Thanks

Mikesiris (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * With regard to one on one help, read the details at The Musical, obtain the library card if you don't already have one, turn up on the day? It's this Saturday!


 * With regard to the differences between talk pages and user pages, let's go through some examples;


 * Richard H. Stern is Wikipedia's article about the attorney and law professor of that name. If I go to www.google.com and type in "Richard H. Stern", then this is the Wikipedia page that is the first search result. This is an article, it's a part of the encyclopedia, it's the end product of what Wikipedia produces.
 * Talk:Richard H. Stern is the article talk page for that article. It's used for discussion of that article - although there doesn't seem to be any just yet. For the time being, it just has some general information about which projects the article is in, the fact that the article is about a living person, et cetera.


 * User:PraeceptorIP is a Wikipedia user page for the Wikipedia editor PraeceptorIP. This editor just so happens to be one and the same as Richard H. Stern. He uses this user page to put things about himself that other editors may find of interest. These things are supposed to be vaguely relevant to improving the encyclopedia; but this is not an encyclopedia article.
 * User talk:PraeceptorIP is the Wikipedia user talk page for the Wikipedia editor PraeceptorIP. This is where we post messages for that editor. He might reply on his own talk page, or he might reply on our talk page, or he might decide it would be more appropriate to reply on the article talk page of whatever article we're talking about.


 * Michael Siris is Wikipedia's article about the attorney of that name. If I go to www.google.com and type in "Michael Siris", then this is the Wikipedia page that is the second search result. This is an article, it's a part of the encyclopedia, it's the end product of what Wikipedia produces.
 * Talk:Michael Siris is the article talk page for that article. It's used for discussion of that article, and there has been some.


 * User:Mikesiris is a Wikipedia user page for the Wikipedia editor Mikesiris. This editor just so happens to be one and the same as Michael Siris. He would use this user page to put things about himself that other editors may find of interest; but because he hasn't put anything there yet, the page doesn't yet exist (that's why it's red). Things put on the page are supposed to be vaguely relevant to improving the encyclopedia; but this is not an encyclopedia article.
 * User talk:Mikesiris is the Wikipedia user talk page for the Wikipedia editor Mikesiris. This is where we post messages for that editor. He might reply on his own talk page, or he might reply on our talk page, or he might decide it would be more appropriate to reply on the article talk page of whatever article we're talking about.


 * User:Demiurge1000 is the Wikipedia user page for the Wikipedia editor Demiurge1000. Like most Wikipedia editors, there is no Wikipedia article about this editor (or at least, not that he's made public). He uses this user page to put things about himself that other editors may find of interest. These things are supposed to be vaguely relevant to improving the encyclopedia; but this is not an encyclopedia article.
 * User talk:Demiurge1000 is the Wikipedia user talk page for the Wikipedia editor Demiurge1000. (YOU ARE HERE - that's why it's not a link.) This is where we post messages for that editor. He might reply here on his (my) own talk page, or he might reply on our talk page, or he might decide it would be more appropriate to reply on the article talk page of whatever article we're talking about. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

KF


This was about a disgusting an edit summay violating NPA as it gets. Regretfully I'm not able to take action. Apologies for that. Pedro : Chat  20:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly as he said.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 20:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. I'm apparently a jerk that must be removed, as well. Or at least, that's one of the options.


 * It's all increasingly puzzling. I had realised there was something strange about the KW-Lihaas connection when I saw that Lihaas was the one single editor, out of all the ones he contacted, that KW very carefully sought to bring in without openly mentioning that it was the RfC/U that he wanted comments on. It stood out like a sore thumb. And of course I knew that KW had gone to some lengths to defend Lihaas in the past. (Needs a fair bit of defending - AE block for violating sanctions on a political topic, a block for soapboxing at WP:ITN/C, and two other blocks for edit warring.) But I definitely wasn't expecting a huge explosion like this, over a simple and easily provable statement of fact. There's something very odd here.


 * As for the joke/not joke thing, that's even more bizarre. I respect people's right to be open about their political views, but it really doesn't reflect well on the editor whether it's a "joke" or sincere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

edits


Demiruge

Noting that I am not supposed to edit an article of which I am a subject, I see two requests for citations in the article about me:

1. reference to mailings giving incumbents unfair advantage:  I believe the "[John] Feerick Commission" (or some other governmental bodies wrote extensively on how the mailing privilege was abused by incumbents (who statistically, at least in NYS, were returned to office at a rate of over 98%).  I can look for the cite and send it to you if you like.

2. regarding my nomination to the NYS Supreme Court dying in Committee, all I can say is that, if it had not died in Committee, I would probably be on the bench now (the term is for 14 years but judges are routinely re-elected). Perhaps there is some way to access the records of the NYS Senate Judiciary Committee--I will take a look if you like.

I hope the above is helpful.

I am enjoying this immensely. And I am anxious to start making a contribution to WK

Thanks again

75.99.90.234 (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike... yes, details of these would be quite interesting. I've made a variety of replies to a variety of questions you asked above - you may need to scroll up and down a bit to find everything. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Some advice


Hi Demiurge

I'm looking for some advice how would you write the following sentence?


 * During their searches of Jewish and Arab settlements, men from the division had located ninety-two mortars, thirty-four machine guns, 174 sub machine guns, 375 rifles, 391 pistols, ninety-seven land mines, 2,582 hand grenades and 302,530 rounds of ammunition


 * or


 * During their searches of Jewish and Arab settlements, men from the division had located 92 mortars, 34 machine guns, 174 sub machine guns, 375 rifles, 391 pistols, 97 land mines, 2,582 hand grenades and 302,530 rounds of ammunition.

I'm leaning towards the second but following you recent discussion about WP:ORDINAL the numbers in the rest of the article are written as: nine and seventy-five for example. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim, this is a tricky one. I noticed a sentence in Max Hastings' Armegeddon with similar contents where he uses almost exactly the first format. It's a very striking example (because a very long list with quite a few different sizes of numbers in it), I should've kept the page number. However, unless this particular sentence is really near another similar sentence that will have spelled-out numbers, I think it's fine to use the second format. All of the numbers here are in the range of several dozens at least, and none of them can be spelled out as a single word, which, to me, does make a difference.


 * I know an argument could be made for being absolutely 100% consistent within the article, but I think it's more important to be consistent within the sentence and to keep things readable rather than jarring - after all, the ordinary reader is very unlikely to notice that seventy-five is spelled out in words a few paragraphs away. So I think the second format is ok, even despite a few other parts of the article being different. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I just noticed the image was copied over as well LOL. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)