User talk:Demiurge1000/Archive 6

New pages
Thanks for your willingness to help me through this... What's your advice for the best, fastest way to get information up about an organization that doesn't currently have a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmetz (talk • contribs) 21:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'll do, is to see if I can turn it into a viable article, over the next week or so.


 * What you can do to help, is to keep adding reliable independent sources to the draft article (like the ones you already have at the end). Newspapers, books, magazines and reputable online news sites are all good. Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, most blogs, and websites run by or associated with the organisation itself, are all bad. The more the better, regardless of whether they're online or offline, national press or local press is all fine.


 * If "a week or so" is too long, then a suggested starting point is WP:PSCOI. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wmetz (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC) THANK YOU for your help! I'll see if I can add some more reliable, independent sources.

Talkback
v/r - TP 23:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Creating new article about eminently important Artist of our times
Hello Demiurge 1000 ! It would be important to create an article about an eminently relevant artist, who is leading a movement as artist and philosopher after a brilliant career of academics. There are books by him and newspaper articles about him, as well as homepage. I am looking for a wikipedia user and person who is interested in helping to create this page on wikipedia. The complete text for wikipedia has been already composed. It just so happened that there was a false positive report after the initial creation of this wikipage. To avoid it to be repeated, I am asking for support. We would appreciate your support and advise. Kusum Bhagavat (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Misclicked on my phone and didnt notice! WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 06:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh, now I see it, now I don't! Or, umm, the other way round. Initially I thought that you'd misinterpreted the above section (which of course was about peace and disarmament), and assumed it was at odds with Kusum Bhagavat's message of "idealism and courage as well as peace and non-violence". Now I see that all is well! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's just me being an idiot. Luckily I checked my watchlist a second time before heading off, and saw that I'd made a change!  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 07:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Kusum Bhagavat, sorry for the slow reply. Your article seems to be progressing, but one thing you need to do is to add inline citations to show how your sources back up the statements that you make in the article. Check the links in the template at the top of the article, to see how to do that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

editing "off line"
demiurge,

realizing that i am not supposed to edit my own bio, I see that, in the last footnote (which references real estate casses i have handled), it might be appropriate to add one other: "Meckler v Schnell, http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/CaseDecisionNY.jsp?id=1202471675866&slreturn=1." I assume it would be frowned upon if I made that edit? is there any way I could propose the edit "off line"? And, if so, how do i go about doing.

also, i confess i still am confused about talk pages, user pages, etc., and their respective functions. i obviously need to read more on this.

i am now commenting on your "user page"? does this comment really belong on your talk page and if so, how do i access it?

thanks

Mikesiris (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike, this is actually my "talk page" - that's why it says User talk:Demiurge1000 and "This is Demiurge1000's talk page" at the top. I suggest you re-read the section User talk:Demiurge1000, above, to get a clearer idea of the difference.


 * Yes, it is generally frowned upon to edit your own biography (i.e., the article about you). The best way to propose the edit would be to suggest it on the talk page for the article. You could also add when making the request, to draw attention to it and hopefully get it dealt with sooner. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sedimentary rock
Hi Demiurge1000, I definitely don't want to start any drama over this, but your summary, that the article appears to be in US English, doesn't seem quite right. The section on 'colour' was added nearly 2 years ago and was spelt that way. An IP changed it a some point, although I know that I reverted at least one change to the US spelling based on WP:ENGVAR before that happened. As to the article, it's mixed unfortunately - it uses centimetres and meters (although there are more of the former) and 'sedimentary dyke' and both 'palaeogeography' and 'paleontology'. Overall I would score it as slightly more British than US, but I may have missed some. As I say, it's no big deal, but I wondered why you had a different view. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, right. I'm not very familiar with the article, so when an IP address wandered in and made an ENGVAR change, I just looked over it quickly, saw multiple uses of "-ized" spelling, and... assumed. I don't mind either way (I use British English myself), but it'd be nice to pick one or the other and then make the article consistent. Otherwise we could end up with change to "colour" just as the UK school day starts (which is what happened this time), and then "color" when the US school day starts, until eternity. What do the main contributors to the article normally use? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice rocks! This is a real minefield isn't it? The 'Colour' section was added in November 2009, then changed to 'color' by an IP in September 2010, which no-one picked up at the time - it had been reverted four times at that point. I'm not sure that anyone minds deeply, the slight preponderance of British English (-ize is a difficult one, what with Oxford spellings) dates from a major expansion by User:Woudloper two years ago. I'll take another long hard look at this at some point - I don't have the time right now, and there's certainly no rush required. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

messages from skateboarder Caswell Berry


Thanks for your help on the Caswell Berry page, i was under (the real) Caswell Berry before only to try and fix the same problem, but couldn't remember the password. I'm new to all this, I just don't like the dramatics it brings. Now what happens when i confirm that it's really me because i don't really want to be on here having to check stuff, I just wanted to fix the problem. Thanks again. Hailsatan666 (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC).

My girlfriend is mentioned on The Tiltmode Army website on this page, http://tiltmodearmy.com/?m=201004,You scroll down until you see Kings Court. If this can help that would be great. Thanks. Hailsatan666 (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The main advantage with being "identified" to the volunteer email address, is that we can then deal with anyone else who edits the article claiming to be you. It can also (sometimes) be useful if there's any dispute over what the article should or shouldn't contain.


 * Hopefully you shouldn't have to be checking the article all the time - Wikipedia is quite strict about biographies of living people, and if people carry on fooling about with the article after the semi-protection expires this time, then it will probably get semi-protected for much longer, or permanently. Which stops people adding silly things.


 * Unfortunately I don't think the tiltmode army piece will be accepted as a reliable source, but I've gone ahead and asked here: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. That's one awkward thing about Wikipedia; even when something's obviously true, it can't be included unless it can be verified in a reliable source.


 * One extra thing I wanted to ask, is if you have a photo of you (or could get one taken) that could be licensed freely, and we could then add it to the article about you. Wikipedia's requirements for free images are quite unusual, so it's best not to use an image that your sponsors wouldn't want freely splattered all over the internet and used by other people. If you might be able to provide one, please let me know and I'll talk you through what's needed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a photograph. Can that too be tampered with?Hailsatan666 (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)






 * Well, that depends what you mean by "tampered". A Wikipedia article about you, is not "your" page in the same way that your Facebook page would be "your" page. This is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", and sometimes, unfortunately, that includes idiots and troublemakers. But, Wikipedia does everything possible to try to make sure troublesome edits to articles about living people, are kept to a minimum.


 * However, as far as images are concerned, this is a bit involved, so please bear with me while I go through a few examples.


 * One thing that sometimes happens to Wikipedia articles, is that someone tries to add a photo of the person that isn't actually the right person. I've seen this happen a few times - it usually gets fixed as soon as someone notices. It's not likely to happen to the article about you right now, because that article is currently semi-protected (new editors can't edit it). However, in general, having a free photo of the right person on the page, discourages passing idiots from putting in a picture of the wrong person.


 * Another side to it is this. The Wikipedia article about Edward Furlong (notable for starring in Terminator 2 and American History X) is currently illustrated by the very unflattering photo of him on the left. Why? Well, it's supposedly the only freely licensed image of him that exists. We can't use promo images or shots from movies because of Wikipedia's copyright rules, and neither him nor his agent have provided us with a freely licensed image. So, although I and other people have said we shouldn't be using that image, we don't have any choice. This is one reason why it can be an advantage for you to provide a freely licensed photo; in a sense it means that you'll be choosing what photo gets used.


 * Now, as for who can do what with a photo that you freely license; that is decided by the license. So for example - and this is quite important for someone in your line of work - the license says that other people are not allowed to use the photo to imply that you endorse a product that you don't endorse. However, the license does allow other people to make money from the photo. So for example, if someone wants to make big glossy posters out of the photo, and sell them for $10 each, they can, and they don't even have to tell you about it. (If that's a problem, the easiest way to deal with it is to make the photo fairly low resolution; so it'll look fine on a web page, but not on a poster.)


 * Extreme option - deletion of article
 * One thing some people request, is the deletion of the article about themselves on Wikipedia. This isn't usually possible, however if someone's notability is "borderline" by Wikipedia's standards, then normally their personal preference will be taken into consideration when deciding whether the article about them can be deleted. Requesting deletion of the article about oneself seems like a bad idea to me (it's not exactly good publicity!), but it is an option that might be possible, so I thought I'd mention it.


 * Veronica
 * No-one has replied to my question as to whether tiltmode army is a reliable enough source to use it to put Veronica's name into the article. However, someone did suggest, on the talk page of the article, that one factor that affects this is that while you're "somewhat of a public figure", Veronica (presumably) is not, which means there's additional protection for her privacy. It may be easier just not to mention her in the article, for the time being, until there are other sources - but at least the incorrect information will be kept out. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this, I appreciate it. LK (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. I didn't know "mainstream" was an insult these days :) If the angry IP address should return, please give them some punctuation, as they seem badly in need of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Spire Federal Credit Union
Hey Demiurge,

I was wondering if you could share your thoughts at the AfD for Spire Federal Credit Union - I despammified and decopyvioed and rewrote the article; though I decided to send it to AfD as I wasn't sure if it met WP:ORG. Thanks,

 HurricaneFan 25  16:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, interesting, I'll try and get chance to type out a proper comment there later. Tempted towards a second Weak Keep at the moment.


 * Good job sorting out the messy article issues! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Caswell Berry page...
Question (and answer) moved further up the page with the other section. Sorry for the slow reply. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What is your problem
Why the heck do you keep changing the things I type, what is your problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeyheyMJ (talk • contribs) 04:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I sent you a message but have no idea how to track if you have replied. lte me know when you want to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeyheyMJ (talk • contribs) 06:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You should be posting messages at Talk:Lisa Marie Presley in order to explain why you believe your edits should not be reverted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks John. HeyheyMJ, I see you have now posted over at the article talk page, thank you for that, I'll try and add a comment there later today (and I imagine others will get there before I do). However, just briefly, and being rather blunt, I think there is a problem here that either you have extremely strong negative opinions about Lisa Marie Presley, or you're copy and pasting in material from elsewhere. Either way, it's going to cause problems; we need to work towards the article having a neutral point of view. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

something something Brutus Magnus something something eh what?
someone protected The Mickie james Brutus Magnus Wikipedia We Can't Edit It now there is some wrong info on there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickiefan2005 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well no-one has changed the Mickie James article since I took out the disputed statement about the relationship. Is there something else wrong? (If so, Talk:Mickie James is probably the best place to discuss it.)


 * The disputed statement is still in the article Nick Aldis, so perhaps that's what you mean. I'll go and make the same change over there too, unless there is a consensus against removing it over there.


 * Is the other fellow named after Brutus of Troy or Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger or Brutus Greenshield or none of the above? Actually, never mind old Roman statues, there's always a need for more pictures of female wrestlers on this page, so here we go. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pulled the bit out of the Nick Aldis article for you. Tabercil (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

regarding the Caswell Berry page...
How do i go about getting the picture up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hailsatan666 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The quickest way is probably if the photographer (or whoever owns the copyright to the pic) emails me at demiurge1000.wikipedia@gmail.com and I will then reply with the license information; they can then reply agreeing to the license and attaching the pic, and then I'll upload it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!
--Sp33dyphil © • © 05:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
I look forward to making a positive contribution to the Wikipedia community.--Namk48 (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

caswell berry
What if it's just a picture we have that we took ourselves? Can i send you that? Hailsatan666 (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes that's fine.


 * But, the complicated part is this. Normally, whoever took the photo, owns the copyright to it, so it's that person that needs to agree to the license. So, unless you took the photo in a mirror or with a time-delay or something, that person probably isn't you.


 * Anyway, if whoever-it-is sends me an email at the address above, I'll send you the license text and we can take it from there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

 * 1) Have you read that book? If you did, why did you revert me here? Word for word, that's not what the book says, hence WP:SYN.
 * It does not have to be "word for word", for obvious reasons. &mdash; Joseph Fox 10:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The fact that I've templated the guy with a level 1 is a good indication of my AGF, only the stern warning was added to make sure people like you and me will verify facts before reverting others (per WP:Verifiability). So, had I been over-reacted by issuing a level 4 template to him, you could tell me off for not adopting AGF.
 * He added no new facts in the link you warned him with, merely subtle rewording. &mdash; Joseph Fox 10:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Please look at the big picture before you jump the gun next time, and yes we all make mistake sometimes. Mine was just a little quick on the finger to apply rollback when I was meaning to click undo, you do know that rollback once clicked cannot be undone, right? And that's why I applied the level 1 template there, so that nothing else can be mis-construed as me not adopting AGF from the start. Hope this note finds you well, best. -- Dave  ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Added my comments here. &mdash; Joseph Fox 10:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Any reasonable person would've AGF because the user was trying to copy-edit, not introduce original research. I don't think anyone would support you if you did drop a L4 warning on the user's talk page because 1) the user has not vandalised before and 2) the edits in question do not warrant such actions. --Sp33dyphil © • © 06:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales
I edited the User:Jimbo Wales page (user page for Jimmy Wales) to add the "co-" to the claim that he is the "founder" of Wikipedia (so it states that he's a "co-founder"). You reverted this using an automated tool, leaving the (intentionally vague? so as not to indicate what the reversion was about unless one investigates?) note that "He's asked for it not to be changed to that." Where, exactly, did you he ask this? I'd be most interested in seeing this for myself because I don't see it anywhere on the page, and the "co-" bit is noncontroversial according to all the credible sources I've been reading. Clearly this is a matter of some importance to you, as you've actually set up a JavaScript tool to automatically remove this "troublesome" (and apparently persistent, if you'd bother automating it) fact. -- Glynth (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (Talk page stalker) The page you edited was a user page. This means that if he so wished, Jimbo Wales could claim he was the first man on the moon and nobody should remove it because an editor's User page is their own. It is therefore considered rude to alter it unless there is something that goes against the guidelines on userpage content or they have invited you to do so. If in doubt about whether to add something to a userpage, ask on the relevant editor's talk page.--Mrmatiko (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed it was a user page, but that's irrelevant: Mr. Wales has apparently invited all users to edit the page. I did so. Have you visited it recently? Either someone has inappropriately placed that invitation on the page, or it is a valid invitation; therefore, I kindly ask that you either remove that inappropriate invitation or kindly not lecture others for doing what they were invited to do. I was not "in doubt" of what to add as there was no reason for me to believe that he personally requested any such omission. So, once again, will someone please tell me: Where did he ask us not to insert the "co-" bit? I want to see it for myself. -- Glynth (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The relevant discussion is User talk:Jimbo Wales where he quite clearly says:

"This issue highlights for me some of the problems that Wikipedia has in achieving neutrality. Wikipedia is not supposed to take a stand on controversial issues, but in this case it does... against me, of course.  This is mostly due to trolling, in my opinion."
 * Showing that he disagrees with the classification of co-founder.--Mrmatiko (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the effort, but the link doesn't work. Sure, the page exists, but that text does not, likely due to edits. Do you perhaps have a working link, perhaps to a place in the wiki history, or perhaps even better, some other credible source? Or can you give some idea as to when that discussion occurred so I can check? Thanks. (I could also be a stickler and also point out that he doesn't actually ask us not to make that edit in the quote you offer; you can infer that he'd prefer us not to, but he does not ask it.) -- Glynth (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, User talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive 36 should work. --Mrmatiko (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. -- Glynth (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

A few additional points;


 * Until very recently, User:Jimbo Wales had a comment in the wikicode asking people not to change "Founder" to "Co-Founder". I believe this was added by Jimbo himself; you can check the page history if you want to be sure.


 * I've not set up any automated tool to revert things on User:Jimbo Wales - Twinkle (TW) is a semi-automated tool only.


 * My edit summary was sufficiently detailed to inform anyone interested of the reason for the edit. It's only two more clicks to see what the edit actually changed. You can read more about recommendations for edit summaries at Help:Edit summary.


 * There are one, or at most two, people in the world to whom the Founder versus Co-Founder dispute is of "some importance". To me, like most other people, it's merely a source of mild amusement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't take this as an accusation, but I must say that you, like everyone, are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. This applies to, among many other things, the enumerating of just who finds the matter to be of "some importance" - but it all depends on what is considered "some importance," doesn't it? (I'll assume, then, that your phrasing was more figure of speech than attempted statement of fact.) To me, it's just an anecdote, but it's a rather interesting, and telling, one. It feeds straight into the criticism of Wikipedia as a whole. (Though, maybe it comes to mind sooner for me since I just recently saw a PBS piece on the issue. No, not on the "founder"/"co-founder" thing; that's separate. It was about endemic and systemic bias brought about by vague (if not outright ignored or badly interpreted) policies and the biases of the most active editors and admins.)


 * It's not proof of much, if anything, especially since we're talking about a userpage (where opinions can go) and thus what's there is not part of the encyclopedia proper (where facts should go)... but it's not just any userpage, and not just any random user's opinion, now is it? Mr. Wales's own comment on the problem with achieving neutrality (quoted above) is pretty ironic, given his defense against such charges to PBS and given the fact that the "controversy" is not considered controversial by credible sources - in fact, explicitly stating the exact opposite - who simply side against Mr. Wales and his characterization of history. (In short, it's "controversial" mostly to Mr. Wales, yet that seems to be good enough to qualify as "controversy" even on the encyclopedia-side, where editors avoid "taking sides," yet I can point to numerous real controversies where Wikipedia has no problem taking sides, and it's rather predictable which side they'll take, of course.) I'd love to see PBS do a followup with Mr. Wales and other parties that incorporates this little bit of drama, but I doubt they will. -- Glynth (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Present

 * Hmm, a second WMF barnstar... maybe I need a separate cabinet to keep these ones in :) Thank you for your thoughtful and reasonable approach in handling the aftermath, too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz
. Just so you are aware. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Elen. Yes, I don't imagine he's going to desist from this sort of thing anytime soon. But we can always hope for the best, I suppose. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You want to have a go at the lotto numbers next :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

O......kay
No idea what this was all about, but I found it absolutely hilarious. :P  Swarm   X 11|11|11 18:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. The worrying thing was that it took me about eight attempts to work out what the problem was... hence the temporary removal of the image to prevent a state of craze while trying to understand it :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

James Haskell's Wikipedia page
Dear Sir/Madam,

I am not experienced at editing Wikipedia articles and have tried to follow procedures as best to my understanding. I will try an explain the situation:

Under the Personal Life section of James Haskell's page it describes an incident at Wellington College. This is not true and did not happen. The newspapers that are cited in the article have written retractions and there is an injunction against publishing this story.

Please can you explain to me as to how I can remove this libellous and defamatory text. I don't understand why it keeps on being reverted to when it is not true - surely people can't just write whatever they like on Wikipedia, espeically as there is an injunction against it.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Oli Ball — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.185.177.226 (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If James Haskell believes the above to be the case, then he or his duly designated representative should contact Wikipedia's volunteers by email using the instructions at Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). Those volunteers can provide further advice or information, or arrange contact with the Wikimedia Foundation's legal staff.


 * If you make any further comments about libel, defamation, or legal injunctions, anywhere on Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. I have already pointed you to our policy of no legal threats previously.


 * You, or someone else who also hasn't created a Wikipedia account, have been removing material from the article James Haskell repeatedly over a period of several months now, each time making claims of injunctions and of retractions by newspapers. Throughout this period, the original newspaper accounts are still available online. Newspapers do not keep material on their websites if they have been presented with an injunction not to publish the material. I am therefore led to the conclusion that your claims are inaccurate.


 * Regardless of this, I am going to remove the material from the James Haskell article, and also from the Paul Doran-Jones article where it has recently been added, based not on your apparently wildly inaccurate claims, but on the previous discussion now archived at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive137. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have twice posted my father to the Cheshire Acedemy website as a noted alumnus - only to have you remove it
To whom it may concern:

My father is the author of 75 international business articles, solely owns 22 private corporations in 15 countries, most recently adopted 2 main thoroughfares in Sarasota county FL (in the last week alone) and was about to donate upwards of $1 million dollars to the Cheshire Academy General Fund in 2013. His net worth is approximately a quarter of a billion (with a B) dollars after successfully anticipating the 2008 financial crisis and retiring. I decided to add him to the noted alumni page by citing one of his corporations, a news article from Malaysia, and a few simple citations. Regardless, you keep removing him despite him being the co-founder of AGBA, the Academy to Advance Global Business. Is there something that I am missing? I would think that any one of these would be a more valid citation than a wkipedia reference. I am not about to cite corporate ownership data links to get approval. Rather, I thought that the world press, a decade of academic publications, and over $10 million, thus far, donated to charities would qualify him as a "noted alumnus."

Please add him to the list of noted alumni and respond with whatever other citations that you would like since he is a noted alumnus in both spirit and in his deeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pencilpapereraser (talk • contribs) 18:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like the sources you gave were not reliable. A reliable source, basically, is any major news agency that is not self-published; books, journals, etc.  HurricaneFan 25  19:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sure your father is a very successful and astute businessman, and a generous supporter of charities. However, the Cheshire Academy is sure to have many hundreds, perhaps thousands of alumni who are also successful and are also, I'm sure, pillars of their communities. We can't list every single one of them in the article - it would be ridiculous. The usual criterion for inclusion is whether a person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article to exist about them. That's not because Wikipedia is considered a highly reliable source; it's because the person's notability by Wikipedia standards (and the quantity of coverage in reliable independent sources, which is what decides that) can then be tested in a consistent manner.


 * The links you've provided appear to prove very little other than that the person is involved with various companies, and that something they helped to write was "highly commended" in a particular field (but didn't actually win the prize). This is just not sufficient to establish notability by Wikipedia's standards, and from doing brief searches I've not found anything more. If significant coverage in reliable independent sources can be found, then it should be possible to create a Wikipedia article about the person. Equally, if a reliable independent source confirms that your father has played a significant role in the development of the school itself (for example, a school building being named after him to commemorate his donations) then he can be mentioned in the article itself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:47, 11 November 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) 13:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Graham Brightwell
Hi Demiurge1000,

I ve had a look at a few other articles about Mathematicians of comparable standing, and I m not sure why you rejected my revised article. Looking at the pages of e.g. Fred Diamond, Damiano Brigo just to give two examples, it seems to me my article has more and better sources ?

Johnsopc (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your help, johnsopc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.132.160 (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi johnsopc, sorry for the very slow reply. I'm pleased to see the article has now been approved to be published in the mainspace - on the other hand, I'm not so pleased to see that its references are still almost entirely to sources associated with the subject of the article. While I realise that in the real world, the notability of academics is based largely on their published research, and in Wikipedia's special notability guidelines, their notability can be based on their position at a university, this doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia articles, especially biographical ones, need references to independent reliable sources. Unfortunately, the articles on Diamond and Brigo were not very good examples for comparison in this respect (or many others). Just because something exists on Wikipedia, doesn't mean it's the right thing to emulate or compare with. A place to find better examples would be Good articles. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

James Haskell
Demiurge, please discuss the disagreement you are having with Haskell at WP:BLPN or on the Haskell Talk page. I've commented at BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Gosh, I hope it's not a disagreement with Haskell, I think I'd come off worse in any such confrontation :-) I replied at WP:BLPN, although the response was not encouraging. More later, if I ever get time... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

His Excellency, the President of Wielvakia
...has a sockpuppetry case against him here. I see that you've interacted with him and I thought you may have input either for the case or perhaps toward turning His Excellency into a meaningful contributor with a clean start. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, hmm. Thanks for letting me know. It would be great if someone could try and turn this guy into a productive editor, but it may very well not be an easy task. (Incidentally, I don't think WP:CLEANSTART would actually be necessary.) I have to admit I didn't actually fully understand the message he left on your talkpage. I also have the problem that I'm supposed to be helping out with a not entirely dissimilar case, and haven't been doing enough on that due to lack of time; so taking on another one would be a bit irresponsible of me at the moment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Spam
Input requested: WT:New editor feedback. Thanks, Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   21:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, only just over a week away now, how time flies! That time should be fine for me, all things being equal, so I should be there. Thanks for the notice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Rietoog
There you go. Whats mu, micro?? Cheeky git.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's fantastic! And you even put in allochthonous units! Much appreciated. No, not micro, that was something else. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Royal Hospital School dispute


Really sorry to do this to you Demiurge, but are you able to offer an opinion on the latest discussion on the Royal Hospital School dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard? Many thanks. RHSAMember (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. I'll see you at the article's talk page as necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Help Updated Modern Warfare 3 Writer
Hi,

I have been trying to update the semi-protected CALL OF DUTY: MODERN WARAFARE 3 page to have Will Staples added as a writer along with Paul Haggis in the right hand column. In the actual credits of the game when you finish, it says "Written By Paul Haggis and Will Staples". In support of this edit, I have sent a video of the end of the game featuring the credits (http://www.youtube.com/user/RydarGames#p/c/14/fttHQ5PBl84 at the 13:43 mark), a link to IMDB where Paul and Will are both listed (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1937113/fullcredits#writers), and recently a link to an interview with the military advisor for the game talking about working with Will Staples (http://www.commandposts.com/2011/11/dalton-fury-on-call-of-duty-and-black-site/). However, this still hasn't been updated and my request to update the page was rejected twice because the sources were not reliable.

At this point, I am getting frustrated with the Wikipedia process and I don't know what to possibly do besides send someone a physical copy of the game to play to convince them that the page is incorrect and that Will Staples and Paul Haggis are the credited writers on the game.

If there is any way you can assist in this matter or have the page updated, I would greatly appreciate it. It won't take more than a couple clicks to verify the veracity of my request.

Thanks! CoDFan13 (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. If you have time, maybe you could go and enquire at the source's forum, as to exactly which edition of the printed magazine the interview appeared in, and preferably page number as well. I'd be much happier being able to give that as a source. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Radzymin (1920)
Thanks for your help with Battle of Radzymin (1920). Keep up the good work :)  // Halibutt 19:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, it's an interesting battle in a period of history I don't know much about. I see you've nominated it for GA already; that's fine, as I will be finished with the copy-editing fairly soon. I've also watchlisted its simultaneous Milhist review - you seem to have things a bit out of order here :-) - so I'll make the suggested copy-editing changes from there as well, unless they've been done already. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding your last batch of CE, I'm not challenging your choice of Polish-Soviet over Polish-Bolshevist, but the latter was there for a purpose. The problem with the term "Polish-Soviet War" is that there was no Soviet Union back then and the war was between Poland and a state called Bolshevist Russia (or more properly Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic). This is a detail and the article on the entire war is where it is so I have no problem with either version, just wanted to explain why it was there.


 * Also, to quote Piotrus' talk page notice, "You have new messages was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.". It was not until now I realised you replied to my earlier comment. I would've replied if you used the proper channels :)  // Halibutt 12:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note about the Soviet/Bolshevik thing. I think it makes it simpler for the reader, and isn't strictly speaking wrong, but I'm going to think about it a bit more as I finalise the copyedit.


 * Quotes from Piotrus' talk page are only reliable sources for what Piotrus says about himself :P Like most of Wikipedia, I don't like duplicated discussions, but do like to keep discussions together. The tropical cyclones guys are the other group that don't seem to share that view. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup, both versions are in the "kind of right, kind of wrong" category and none is technically better or more correct and both have flaws. That's why there is so many names for that war in many languages. I prefer PBW, some prefer Polish-Soviet or even Polish-Russian (which is probably the most accurate, but necessitates disambiguation, in the form of, say, Polish-Russian War, but then again which date to chose? 1918? 1919? did the war last until 1920, when hostilities ended or until 1921, when the peace was signed?). Anyway, keep up the good work and good luck with the last CE cyclone. I mean cycle.  // Halibutt 19:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Re this edit, the 81st Brigade was Russian, not Polish. The Russians pushed the Poles back with their (Russian) 81st Brigade spearheading the counter-assault against the Poles and reaching Słupno.  // Halibutt 02:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In all the vast plans of Eastern Europe, these two identically-numbered brigades have to squabble over this one little town? Thanks for fixing this, it's great that you're keeping a close eye on the changes. I've tweaked it slightly more.


 * With this, I have now completed (finally) the copyedit of this article; it should be in good shape, with regard to prose, for GA. The exceptions are the queries from me on the article's talk page; I'll tweak those issues after feedback there. Normally I will assist with any prose issues or questions that the GA reviewer has, as well, although at present my schedule is uncertain so it depends on when exactly the GA review happens. If at some later time you should take the article to FAC, then you should request a separate copyedit specifically for that, as FA will require a considerable amount more work on the prose.


 * Incidentally, you might be able to help me with something, but I'll drop you an email about that later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, just notify me here that I should look for an email from you.  // Halibutt 06:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Help needed


Hi there in the Good Article review for 6th Airborne Division advance to the River Seine, the reviewer is not happy with the prose. If you free would you mind looking it over for me ? Thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh, I should've copyedited all of these articles myself maybe :-) Looking now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As you probably noticed it has passed GA. Many thanks. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's great, another piece of the masterplan falls into place! By the way, one of your airborne forces articles may be useful for an exercise I have in mind for one of my mentees; I'll drop you a line about it separately, once I find time to get the details sorted out. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Questlove, Women and Wikipedia
Mr. Demiurge, It has been my understanding that wikipedia needs input from women. I am a woman. I tried to post about Questlove's use of "Lyin' Ass Bitch" to introduce a woman (M. Bachmann) on the Fallon show. You deleted it saying it was just my opinion. No wonder women are afraid to post on wikipedia. You must be an Obama supporter, I was Hillary supporter and I am a Democrat. But I think no woman should be treated and tweeted about in the snarky manner that Questlove did. He actually sent out a message to many people before he did this via Twitter. If we keep allowing men like Questlove to do things like he did and then to have you, Mr. wikipedia who won't even allow this truth to be told--well of course women will be discouraged.

--Grace T.


 * Hi Mrs T., it's great to hear from you - I've long been an admirer of your husband's acting talents. I'm sorry to say, you make a few incorrect assumptions - I live in the United Kingdom and I don't hold views on the merits of foreign politicians, so there's no sense in which I can describe myself as an "Obama supporter". There's no problem with Wikipedia reporting the facts (both the choice of song and the sending of the twitter message are now in the article), but we do not use loaded terms like "gloated" in Wikipedia's voice. That in itself, on an article falling under the WP:BLP policy, was enough for me to revert your change; in addition, your changes were so badly formatted as to be almost unreadable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Roman Religion
Hi Demiurge. Thanks for your note on my talk page. Looking at the comments you linked to, yes, I'd agree there was a combination of articulateness and tendentiousness that looked familiar... On the other hand, looking at the list of user contribs for Aldrasto, it is quite substantial, and begins 18 months ago back in May 2010, and they don't seem to be in the same pages as the other articulate tendentious person you may have in mind. This is probably why I don't recall hearing of Aldrasto before... Two unconnected WP contributors may have somewhat similar personalities and somewhat similar areas of interest... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indulge me my conspiracy theories! :) Apart from the more general aspects that you mention, I was particularly struck by the focus on claims that a specific article had suffered something described by a metaphor related to butchery. Just a coincidence? I suppose so, especially since the writing style otherwise has some significant differences. But I'm glad to have obtained a second opinion - and I'll be watchlisting a few things anyway. Thanks again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thankyou. Mugginsx (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. It looks like that little disagreement has now been archived (maybe I just bored everyone to death), which is probably just as well. I do have a great deal of respect for some of the people involved; I think the whole issue of "civility" is just so controversial (and so important) that occasionally people see something that they believe needs to be stamped on in order to show a strong approach to the issue, without perhaps realising how such an extreme reaction may be viewed, or that they may be unwittingly enforcing yet another "double standard". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! Kraŭs (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard upgrade
Hi Demiurge1000,

Thanks for signing up for the Feedback Dashboard response team! I wanted to let you know that the tool just got an important update (see here for details). I also wanted to invite you to the IRC office hours session that Steven and I are going to hold this Sunday, December 4. Hope you can make it and share your experience/questions with us! Thanks again, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Maryana, I'll hopefully be there! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Derek Goldby
Hi Demiurge1000, it looks like Derek Goldby it at it again, in the sense that his entry seems to have had a set of credits added to it that don't really merit the article, and which have all been contributed by user 83.205.82.245 who hasn't made any other contributions so I presume is Goldby himself. It messes up the article, but I want to hold off reverting/cleaning given the article's history of edit warring. Any thoughts? Ta!Martin Gray89 (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the restrained approach to reverting the edits. There's nothing to prove that it's Goldby himself, as opposed to a friend or fan of whose activities he might be unaware, but I've removed the additions as being completely unsourced (and also malformatted). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE November barnstar

 * Thanks Dianna! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sloan
How can I add a source that this guy is a nobody taxi driver in New York City? He is an unnotable nut, nothing more. Here is some more evidence for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAON2vgw1kc&feature=related

JunoBeach (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That link doesn't prove anything other than that some guy gave a talk at a meeting of Libertarians.


 * If you want to make statements on Wikipedia that someone is a "nut", a "nobody taxi driver", or anything else of that nature, then you will need to find a reliable independent source (for example, a newspaper) that says so. If you continue making derogatory statements about a living person without providing such sources, then you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge, it is not possible to find sources for "unnotable" people. This guy lives in the slums of New York City and drives a taxi cab for a living, that is it. It is against the rules to start/write a bio page about yourself, which this person has done. I am going to post a deletion +tag and let the consensus decide. JunoBeach (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Having carried out my own informal "investigation" on the Samuel Sloan (chess player) article it is quite clear that there are sufficient secondary sources that are independent of their subject which could be considered reliable in order to establish notability. One particular part of the notability policy on people that applies here is that people should be ""significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"", notability doesn't require fame, only sufficient verifiability. Furthermore there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that Sloan himself created the article, it is possible that he contributed (based on the name of one of the early contributors) however these contributions were early on, before the article was expanded significantly by other people without a conflict of interest. Finally your statements are absolutely unacceptable under the guidelines on living people which exist to prevent unsupported/ unsupportable/ poorly supported negative statements being made about living people on Wikipedia. This applies everywhere on Wikipedia.--Mrmatiko (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Another TPS. I watch the Sloan article, and concur  that Sloan is clearly notable. He is notable as a chess player, and notable for a number of lawsuits he has filed and otherwise been involved with.  Some of the info in the article may be excessive, but that can be solved by regular editing.  I also have to point out that in the past, Sloan did edit this article, and an account under the name of his wife (whom we strongly suspected to be Sloan) also edited the article.  User: Sam Sloan was blocked back in 2008 for NLT.  In addition, there have been associated problems with Sloan working on articles on people he has sued; this has caused significant enmity to the point where they have used wiki as a battleground for their real life problems.  Thus, any new user showing up wishing to delete or modify either article
 * Finally, JunoBeach, as Demiurge said, if you again make negative unsourced statements about a living person with terms like you are using, you will be blocked for violating WP:BLP. Feel free to work on the article, but don't vent hatred here, and also source everything you add to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sloan is also involved with Go (Wei chi, or baduk) publishing (Ishi Press), which has also involved litigation.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for very informative feedback on this and for dealing nicely with the polite query that I didn't get round to. What a fascinating fellow! If I was part of a libertarian committee (do anarchists have elections?) I'd vote him onto it in an instant :)


 * Can we get a freely licensed photo of him? I'm sure his publicity people exist, and might oblige? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

ACE2011 answered
Not sure if you're watching the page, but I got to your Q's: Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/AGK/Questions. Regards, AGK   [• ]  12:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note and for your replies there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I reverted more flying monkey related information today. Perhaps we ought prepare for an aerial invasion. Danger High voltage! 20:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * People say that school IPs produce the most vandalism, but golly, they produce the best humour too. However, not just school IPs! Recently blocked for several years was an IP belonging to HSBC bank, blocked for several months yesterday was an IP belonging to Dominos Pizza, and government departments are sometimes culprits too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael McGinn
Hello,

You've previously participated in discussions about the article on Michael McGinn, the mayor of Seattle. I've written a critique of the article on its talk page, and have also raised my concerns at WP:BLPN. Your input would be welcomed. Thank you.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. You have a very strong point here, which is sad because the main author of the article has clearly put a huge amount of work into it and quite possibly doesn't even see why people have negative impressions of what he's done. It's rather tricky to unravel really. I will try to comment on BLPN or the article's talk page, when/if I get a moment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You may be Interested in the Barefoot Contessa article
Those interested in the Ina Garten article may also be interested in the Barefoot Contessa article as well. Once there, click on the star icon to keep abreast of it. --Javaweb (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
 * Thanks for the note - yes, I watchlisted it a day or two ago. I guess we can avoid semi-protection of the article, if all three (?) of us are happy to continue this particular mouse-clicking contest :)


 * Although, on balance, I'd rather swim with dolphins than have dinner with her, too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

AGK
I saw the question that you've posed to AGK. I recommend that you read what I've posted on the discussion page and what I've posted on the WR. I've come to the conclusion that AGK is prone to having emotional outbursts and that he or she doesn't take the time to fully understanding the situation. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw AGK's replies there, and I've given a few paragraphs of response at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/AGK. In summary, his replies have done little to alleviate my concerns. In fact, they've done rather the opposite. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Mostly away
Increasingly, I'll only be editing Wikipedia sporadically. Comments on this talk page might take an even longer time than usual to get a reply. Also, from mid-December onwards I mostly won't have time to keep up with my watchlist at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So long, and thanks for all the fish. → Σ  τ  c . 08:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merry Christmas... Have a Nice Life. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:44, 11 December 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) 13:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Boeing 767 now at FAC
Dear Demiurge1000, as someone who provided copy-editing expertise during the earlier A-class review of Boeing 767, you might be interested in contributing to its current FA nomination. Cheers, SynergyStar (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Where do I ask for somebody to do an edit for me in PI articles?
I would like someone to revert Nableezy's edit here, which removes cited information. Where can I ask for somebody to do it?--  Someone35  16:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone35, you are topic banned from PI articles. This means you cannot discuss them in any way, shape or form. If I see you making another edit with regards to the topic, I will block you. For the next year, forget about PI articles completely, they are dead to you.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 16:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He can appeal the sanction but I don't think that his appeal will be accepted if he will continue to violate his ban.--Shrike (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Help needed to add logo
Thank you for your contribution in my artilce. plaese help to add logo. i dont know how to avoid copyright issues. this is for artilce Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals logo link - 'http://www.dishmangroup.com/images/Dishman-Logo.gif' Thank you!Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll deal with this next weekend if it's not been fixed by then. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright ThanksMukharjeeauthor (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Rita M. Gross
What's the best way to change the orientation of the photograph on this page? I've uploaded a new version but then of course it is not mine, it's someone elses? RegardsTheroadislong (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll deal with this next weekend if it's not been fixed by then. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

TV9 (Telugu)
Hi Demiurge1000,

Would you be able to "restorerevision"to my last edit on the article - because the content the IP claims to be a wp:copyvio isn't -as I went through it bit-by-bit yesterday, re-wording the sentences (even explained here. I have no idea, where this IP is pulling these CV accusations from - all the content is in non-violation. Thank you, -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 11:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the IP could rightly claim that a few fragments of the text that he removed, did indeed contain unquoted phrasing that was too close to the phrasing of the source (i.e. close paraphrasing). My last two edits to the article have re-inserted almost all of the text, but now tweaked some more to be even further away from the original wording. I don't think there's anything missing, now, that isn't repetitious or unnecessary. I'm going to be away for several days, so if there are further problems you may need to ask for help elsewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Just properly took a read of it. Your edits are perfect. Thank you, -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 01:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Xmas


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

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.  Rcsprinter  (whisper)  20:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Apologies, slight technical problem in the Christmas Cheer Distribution Network Automated Felicitations System (no electricity) meant a small delay in getting my greetings out this year ... Chaosdruid (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Harro!
Long time no speak — Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixG1995 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Radzymin (1920)
Hello there. Sadly, the article on the Battle of Radzymin failed at A-class assessment due to procedural reasons. All the issues were fixed but only two people actually voted for it. Since you helped to improve the article in the past, could I interest you in the new assessment? Thanks for any help.  // Halibutt 12:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have been forced to take a substantial break from most aspects of Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2012 (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) 15:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)