User talk:Demiurge1000/Archive 7

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Thanks!
Thanks for your hilarious note! My face seems to be be creating confusion for a few people... Invertzoo (talk) 12:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But at least you also got a reply from another snail person! Has to be worth it :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone35
Are you still his mentor? If so, could you please try to convince him to leave me alone? I dont particularly enjoy being annoyed by that child. Thanks,  nableezy  - 16:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the very late reply on this... I'm "semi retired" but can't resist looking in now and then. (And, still partly responsible for this mentoring task, although I've asked a couple of other people to get involved while I'm away.)


 * Someone35 ended up blocked for a month following some rather similar comments made to another editor. I'm hoping that these interaction issues can be sorted out. But perhaps I'm being overly optimistic.


 * I would prefer it if you would resist from using "child" as an epithet in that way. It's accurate technically speaking, of course, but I rather get the idea you use the word intending a negative meaning. I realise that there are one or two extremely disruptive editors in that topic area that just so happen to be minors, but equally there are, or were, several extremely disruptive editors in that topic area (email ring canvassers and sockpuppeteers and so on) who are emphatically not minors. I'm sure Someone35's relative youth contributes to his difficulties in avoiding non-constructive editing, but so does English not being his first language; there is no benefit in using either fact as a pejorative.


 * Having said that, I should emphasise that I'm aware Someone35's behaviour was unacceptable, and also I appreciate your patience with this at various earlier points. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, that's greatly appreciated, especially at a time when I find myself somewhat disillusioned with Wikipedia more generally. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct-Dec 2011

 * Thanks Buggie! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks very much for the copyediting of New England. Now that the niggling language issues have been dealt with, we can focus on the structure. Cheers. --TimothyDexter (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite finished yet, as I will be reworking some of the section titles and image captions, probably next weekend, as well as reading through the whole article to find anything I've missed. There's no problem with any other work on the article proceeding in parallel at the same time, of course. It's a very interesting article, I hope the GA process goes smoothly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks Philippe! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

NNU Class Project - Winter 2012
Please consider adding your name at: School and university projects/NNU Class Project/Winter 2012

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar
Absolutely, and done. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You're back?
Hi Dem, are you back from whatever you're doing ie you're no longer semi-retired? I hate to say this, but I've missed you. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Still somewhat busy, no longer semi-retired. It's good to be back. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you gonna start getting on IRC now? Would like to brief you on what I'm up to. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That would be great. I might be on IRC a bit this weekend. I won't be in -en, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Where will you be then? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Nvm, a reliable source has disclosed me your whereabouts. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Darien Angadi
Thank you for correcting the references to Darien Angadi's death. I apprectiate it.Darienangadi (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. Looking at the article a bit further, it seems the disputed information was added way back in 2006 by an editor who also explained on the article's talk page that his source for it was the BBC documentary. Now, in theory we could use a BBC documentary as a source for such statements, but it seems no-one editing the article has access to the documentary itself - so in my view we might as well leave it as it is.


 * Incidentally, your account name is somewhat confusing. If you do plan on editing much more, you could request a change of name, or create a different account name and abandon this existing one, or perhaps put a brief explanation on your userpage, of who you are not, if you see what I mean. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:42, 8 February 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) 02:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

RE:Verifiability
All right, it was The Mad Miscellany, by Terry Deary! Its ISBN-13 is 978-0439968034 and its ISBN-10 is 0439968038! Pdiddyjr (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, well done! OK, these details allow anyone to confirm that the book exists (and to read about it on Amazon and other places), and also to verify what is said in the book (if they choose to). Now, the Horrible Histories series is a bit questionable as to whether it really meets Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source - after all, they are "just" children's books. But, since there is so little material in terms of reliable sources on this topic, and since other reliable sources seem to have such a hugely positive view of the series, I think we can justify re-adding that statement, worded a bit more weakly, to the article, and cited to that book. Well done again! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

SWT train lengthening
Hi, Are you still mentoring Pdiddyjr? You asked him on his talk page to explain why he did not agree with me about British Rail Class 458 but he has not done so, still less provided any source for his view. After allowing him a couple of days I added some text to the article, citing several sources. This took me some time to research and write. He has now deleted some of it without further explanation. I don't want to be accused of starting an edit war. -- Alarics (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your help. -- Alarics (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You asked a fair question
You asked a fair question here, which I may not answer on that page, but owe you a response.

I try to maintain a high degree of civility myself, as I think it is conducive to interactions in general, and at WP in particular. That said, while I do not engage in the type of language used by MF and others like him, I don't get all that concerned about it. Consequently, I've spent almost no time at WQA, so have no idea whether statements of MF are addressed regularly there. ON the surface, it may seem hypocritical to propose using that venue, when I don;t myself, but there is a difference - I don't get all that bothered by coarse language, so if someone else does, they should go to the venue that addresses such language.

As for your implicit question, I'd predict that a finding by WQA wouldn't persuade MF to change, but I still think the process is valuable. If nothing else, it would document that concerns were raised, and possibly ignored.

Again, while I have no intention of spending much time at WQA, if I were seeing a complaint at ANI I'd be much more sympathetic if the complainant could document that WQA has been tried. The mere prediction that it would be unproductive is not, in my opinion, a sufficient rationale for skipping the process step.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  16:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm rather in agreement with your viewpoint here (I'm a process-obsessive partly by nature and partly by requirement of my rather unusual current job role), but I'm also rather concerned by what your viewpoint misses.


 * Clearly not concerned enough to actually reply before the events in question were distant trail dirt in the minds of all but those involved and some enthusiasts in such areas... but I will try to write out my thoughts properly before this gets scrolled off my talk page. (I'll leave you a talkback notice unless your page indicates a preference against such things.)


 * I'm still more than a little busy in real life, so apologies for the late and limited update. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

My talk page
Thanks. Ben  Mac  Dui  08:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome. Talk page insults always seem uniquely pointless to me, but I do retain a vague hope that by reverting them without the page owner even (theoretically) seeing them, the vandal/insulter might realise the pointlessness of it, and move on to more productive things either on or off Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
thank you for your suggestions on my talk page but, as it turns out, I study at the Doon School and hence am aware and fully confident that it is The Doon School and not just Doon school. The media does that for ease of writing, I suppose. See I missed the The up there :P DoscoinDoon (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm an alumnus of a similar institution that officially was not "The...", but by its own claims was "The...", and the press and Wikipedia have decided it deserves "The...". Remember, it's not down to you knowing for sure what is right, or even to some silly person phoning the school and asking what is right; it's down to agreeing a consensus on the talk page of the article (or by other means) on what the appropriate article title is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

feeder of lice
The article is in prep now, so I couldn't comment there. I just wanted to say that the person's photo attracted me to the article. As long as I thought it was about lice I kept passing it over, but that photo made me stop to find out who he was. I took the unusual title more seriously after that. Come to find out it was a pretty interesting subject.--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In the end this nomination didn't win out on the image lottery (remember only about one in five hooks can have their image shown), so it's moot. I do see your point of view - certainly the "icky image to draw views" being used consistently would be just as dull as a constant series of grayscale non-talking heads and pics of churches. I think it's good that so many people put such a lot of work into the article and the hook, so well done to everyone! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Pdiddyjr again
I don't believe this. He's just reverted your revert in which you restored my text at British Rail Class 458. This is beginning to try my patience. -- Alarics (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I now see from the article's talk page that you were already on the case. -- Alarics (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, how does it come about that he says that reverting his edits requires broad consensus, yet apparently he is allowed to revert my edits quite unilaterally? And also, I see that he has made an edit to Causing death by dangerous driving which may very well be correct but he put in his edit summary "says in a book on the highway code" without citing that source in the article at all, so we have no idea to which book he is referring. -- Alarics (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bring back the....
 * (pause)
 * ... days of steam?
 * ... days of steam?
 * ... days of steam?


 * My advice is that this sort of thing only ever goes one way, and there's no need at all to hurry it. I mean the content dispute, by the way. For clarity, I haven't offered any form of mentoring to pjdiddyjr, nor has he asked for any. He did provide an ISBN and title when I demanded it in a dispute on another article that's on your watchlist. (I have requested the book from my library so look out for that on your watchlist when it gets here!)


 * So I think he would like to do things properly, but he is confused as to his position in things at the moment. I really do hope that he will be able to scrape past this crisis and learn something along the way, as I do feel he has enthusiasm for Wikipedia and in topics where enthusiasm is greatly needed. Outside of Wikipedia, he might even be in a position (if he's who he has implied he is) to obtain records (if they exist) that could be of use in your own area of research. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC on SWT train lengthening
Will you be advertising the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport? -- Alarics (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because those are places frequented by editors who would understand the subject-matter of the dispute, whereas I don't see any reason why they would see "Economy, trade, and companies" or "Maths, science, and technology". Am I allowed to mention it in those places myself? -- Alarics (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the need because I think the existing RfC will draw in a quite adequate commentary on the contentious edits. (I didn't like the categories either, but do you really think that editors of articles in those categories will really take the view that replacing a sourced explanation with an unsourced explanation is a good move?) I would rather keep him as an editor, just change his approach to editing. This is going to take quite some time, so please continue with your patience.


 * (I have also replied to some items further up my talkpage, not sure if you saw those too.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, good luck with that. So far he appears to have taken no notice at all of anything anyone has said to him. Meanwhile I am going to advertise the RfC on the relevant project pages because it seems to me just silly not to mention it to the people most likely to be interested. -- Alarics (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hello Demiurge, remember me? I just want to thank you for the barnstar request on Philipe Beaudette's talk page. It means a lot to me. 67.1.81.68 (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC) or Solowing106 (talk) 01:34, March 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Solowing. Glad you're well, and yes you did deserve the barnstar, because you are full of heart. (Not quite full of wisdom, but there's no hurry on that.) I should caution you against too many discussions on here while you're blocked (strictly speaking, it's block evasion), but I do think it's great that you are such a big enthusiast for Wikipedia and its values. I think your block should be looked at again someday, but you need to have a coherent plan about contributing constructively (and a plan that you can stick to) before that happens. You had not activated your email last time I looked, but if you wanted to enable it then I might be willing to offer a limited amount of advice on that process. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I semi-agree on the wisdom thing. I did not know about the block evasion, so I'll try to keep that at a minimum. I am learning to edit better on [|the Ace Combat wikia] (where Iam still Solowing106), so mabye one day, I can come back. No thank you, I don't want to activate the email.

Yep, that covers most of that. 67.1.81.68 (talk) 13:56, 8 March 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) 05:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

if you have time
Would you mind casting your eye over North Pier, Blackpool which is currently running through a GAN. Malleus mentioned it could with a good solid copyedit (as is my wont at WP!)... Only if you have time, of course! WormTT &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All done - and congratulations on the GA! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hafizullah Amin
Hi Demiurge1000. TIAYN is asking about Hafizullah Amin, noting on the requests page that you haven't worked on it since March 1. Howzitgoing? --Stfg (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Slowly, but it hasn't been forgotten about. I will add an update on the Requests page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ian Molyneux
The DYK project (nominate) 10:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 *  Rcsprinter  (talk)  19:33, 26 March 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) 13:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Belittling another editor
Demiurge, I couldn't help noticing you belittling User:92.13.76.159 when you edited Manchester Grammar School here, saying "That's quite enough editing tests from you, young man." I don't think it's appropriate to tell off other editors like naughty children. Who's to say the editor is young anyway? There are templates warning against "biting" newcomers and abusing people in edit summaries, although I don't think they're necessary, given you're not a new user. I don't think this is a big deal, but please try to be more courteous. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC))


 * I am sure that Demiurge1000 was not biting the young man in anyway but playful.
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * When a school article is edited to state that a pupil is the most clever in it, I don't think it's inappropriate to assume that the editor is said pupil, or one of his friends. I think the edit summary was reasonable, especially since it was followed up with an appropriate template here. I'm sure Demiurge1000 will keep in mind your comments, but I don't see the problem. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To declare oneself the cleverest pupil of the largest independent school in England, one must be fairly young, yes. (I take the liberty of assuming that the edit was not made by a teacher, nor by the school's archivist, who also has a Wikipedia account and with whom I've had some brief correspondence.) My quite wide experience - for what it's worth, I was offered a place at the school, and later taught at a competing one in the same area - tells me that such young and clever people are interested in the opportunity to express themselves, not so much in worrying about the exact tone of jocular comments made by others in response to their getting carried away in expressing themselves. A school pupil whom I first encountered on Wikipedia when they were engaged in a similar act of self-aggrandisement, rapidly developed into one of the most promising young editors that myself and Worm have ever seen on Wikipedia. And he was not in the least discouraged by my tone. Nor, I think, is anyone else.


 * So I don't agree with your comments. However, I do applaud the sentiment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I now notice a suggestion on the talk page of "WP Editor 2011" that they have been banned previously under another account. Wouldn't be entirely surprising, although I'm curious to know which account. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks Misconceptions2, it's appreciated. The more we can do to help new (and not so new) editors stay on the positive side of contributing, the better for Wikipedia! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

My List
I have created a list and i have included ur name in it. I hope u dont mind that. You can view it over Here!  Yash t  101  :)  04:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply to March 2012
Hi there, I didn't think I was adding 'unreferenced or poorly referenced information' to Joyce's page - the current entry is untrue and inaccurate: "The Daily Record on 1 March 2012 reported that in an interview Joyce admitted a relationship..." is incorrect, in fact the Record broke the story without his knowledge. And why would you deem the very relevant comment from the Scottish Labour leader irrelevant, when *after* her statement he said he would step down? At the moment the entry reads very pro-Joyce, as opposed to objective, which was my intention. Here is the link to the initial story: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics-news/2012/03/01/revealed-house-of-commons-assault-rap-mp-eric-joyce-had-secret-affair-with-teenage-researcher-age-17-86908-23770566/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrvyklly (talk • contribs) 10:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't agree that your additions had the effect of making the article adhere more closely to our biographies of living persons policy. And Daily Record (Scotland) is very far indeed from being the sort of source that would be most suitable to substantiate controversial content in a BLP.


 * However, the place that you should have discussed these issues was on the talk page of the article, where I notice there were several ongoing discussions, and you participated in none of them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

GOCE March barnstar

 * Thanks Dianna! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

 * I tried this, and it doesn't take five minutes, and thus I didn't finish. Although I decided to attempt the survey this time anyway, for future reference I think you should consider removing the question about age, unless you believe it is essential to the survey in some important way.


 * I think the survey could have been made shorter by not repeating some of the questions with minor variations in them.


 * I may still try and finish and submit the whole thing if I get time! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/iostat at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks DYKhousekeepingbot! Now fixed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Visual Reading article and libelous comments posted on it by a new page controller
Hello Demiurge1000,

I have asked for advice... and for your protection from the new page controller who feels it is fine to call other people's work "pseudoscience garbage" and openly laughs at it. And now I receive your comment, which makes me completely confused and frustrated. I clearly indicated that I search for advice and help as I do not know what to do. I provided evidence. And now it looks like it is me who is wrong. I have nothing to say.... It is fine for somebody to tag other people's work whichever way they like it, but not fine for someone to seek protection from being openly laughed at.

I would greatly appreciate your advice on how to deal with this issue.

Kind regards, Azbukva — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azbukva (talk • contribs) 00:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it your work that is being ridiculed? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No, not exactly. It is the work by Hyo Sang Shin of visual reading method and sped reading teaching instruction that he has developed. The article is about his method and the way it is related to other speed reading methods. The editor first tagged the article as being unbalanced or biased - not providing a balanced discussion of the issue. I agree to some extent with the criticism and still working and adding more content to the article. However, the editor (new page controller)then also added a comment saying that the article has science wrong and directing me to some unsubstantiated discussion on speed reading (outside Wikipedia). After I pointed out to the new page controller that his critique of the article is not supported by any evidence and is not constructive, the controller added a tag "suggested for deletion" to my article and called Hyo Sang Shin's method described in the article as "pseudoscience garbage". I welcome healthy criticism that would help me improve the article. However, I have never expected to become a subject of such ruthless criticism. It is obviously a libelous comment. I am not planning to take any legal action against that new controller, though. All I am hoping for is objectivity and constructive feedback, not name calling. Thank you very much for asking and expressing your concern. I would appreciate any advice on how to handle such issues.

Kind regards, Azbukva Azbukva (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

RE: Message
i may be presuming, but re-reading it seems you replied to his threats. In that case, thanks and sorry for the message here ;)
 * Per this (im not restoring content, just trying to clarify (which would help understanding the above comment i just made too)):
 * Not sure what your message on my talk page was about? This allegedly disparaging comment ("not a very constructive way of starting a dialogue. Please re-phrase it. Thank you.") could have gone both waysLihaas (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're asking. What do you mean by "could have gone both ways"? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Marlowe Academy
I've reviewed the nomination and there are a couple issues. Could you reply there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All fnixed I think. Thanks for your review and help! --Demiurge1000 (talk)

DYK for Iostat
The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

RE: Suggestion - mentoring
Well, I would like to try. Pdiddyjr (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's great! Please see my reply on your talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please remember to give the mentoring course a try sometime, preferably soon! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A beer (and a hug) for you!

 * Thanks! Can never have too many of those :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.


 * Thanks Ocaasi! What a great initiative! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair
I deleted the page and its talk page, per your statement at Requests for page protection that you intend to have it deleted. Additionally, this seems to be the consensus of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair. Not sure why it stayed un-deleted. Let me know if you have any questions. - Running On Brains (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for dealing with this thorny and (apparently...) controversial issue. Incidentally, your deletion rationale and comment here does not seem entirely correct, because the consensus at DRV was that the page should be kept. That, however, is probably irrelevant now, since I think this entire page and controversy is now long past all possible usefulness or appropriateness.


 * I note that another administrator, User:Nikkimaria, has partially undone your deletion by copying 14,203 characters of the most recent revision of one of the pages back onto Wikipedia in this edit. I do wonder if this is rather against the spirit of User pages, which says about userpages (and, by extension, user talk pages), "...Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used". (my emphasis)


 * The "laundry list of wrongs" aspect is particularly concerning given that the content in question has now twice been used to attack User:Coren in the context of arbcom elections, and that the content as pasted by Nikkimaria does not indicate that the paragraph beginning "Giano, your paranoid delusions" was in fact immediately retracted by Coren, and that its presence in the copy-pasted text was only because Giano chose to restore it (in defiance of accepted standards for refactoring others' comments on talk pages.)


 * I am uncertain why User:Nikkimaria did not make that clear when partially undoing your deletion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Ready for the test. Leave a note on my talk page please. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 22:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied there. Great job with your answers so far; I've seen your latest replies to my replies about lesson 1, I will get back to you about these as soon as I can. (I guess you have the page watchlisted.) Good progress so far! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

really?
Since when is a standard wikipedia tag "content"? ? -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If a template makes a claim that a living person "may not be notable enough", then that statement is content about that living person, and thus falls under WP:BLP. Attempting to force such content to remain prominently on the article for years at a time, is unacceptable. Not to worry, though; notability is simple to determine, one way or the other. See Articles for deletion/Khurshid Ahmad (Professor of Computer Science). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Marlowe Academy
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

AGF
You're accusing me of lying? Truthkeeper (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you lie? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me be clear. I don't like liars. Not at all. Excuses and pretences are not going to cut it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * TCO - two different threads. I've never interacted directly with him & I'm not bothering to waste any more of my time proving it. You've now accused me three times of being a liar. Until I saw 28bytes' comment I had not idea there was history between the two of you. I'll got back to writing an encyclopedia now. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * By god, I hope you will. Do not ever post on my talk page again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Test
Answered. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Want a break from drama?
Hi Demiurge, if you want a break from the drama that has been swirling around for the past couple days, I saw on your talk page that you do copyediting from time to time and I have an article that I hope to get copyedited. The article is Lynching of Jesse Washington, it contains some disturbing content, so I've been reluctant to ask people to copyedit it. I'd like to push it up to FA eventually, but I have a little more research to do before I can say it's a comprehensive look at the literature--although I probably won't have to change too much. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Mark, thanks for the suggestion! Interesting article, in fact I think I had read it a year or two ago. I'm going to have to decline your request for now, as I don't normally copyedit articles for FA. You should probably submit it at the WP:GOCE requests page while noting that the requested copyedit is for FAC. You may have a long wait, but I'll see if I can get involved if it isn't taken up reasonably soon. However, from looking quickly over the lead and a few segments of the article, I do have a few thoughts.


 * First, parts of the article are quite heavy on emdashes. For example, one paragraph has five. Emdashes indicate a rather emphatic or abrupt break in a sentence, so over-use of them can be distracting for the reader. (I guess whoever eventually copyedits it will tweak this somewhat anyway).


 * Second, a couple of things in the lead. "...city leaders later suppressed racial violence" doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the article, so probably shouldn't be in the lead (it may have been an attempt to add some balance in order to make the article more acceptable to modern audiences).


 * Also, "many children left school to witness it" - this put me in mind of some modern British schoolchildren taking entire days off school without official permission (but perhaps with parental encouragement) in order to travel significant distances to attend protests against the government; but actually all that happened here (according to what's sourced in the article) is that local children used their lunch hour to attend. Possibly just needs re-phrasing a little to clarify or remove the implications of "left".


 * Finally; "A group of children snapped the teeth out of Washington's head to sell as souvenirs. By the time that the fire was extinguished, parts of Washington's arms and legs had been burnt off" - events seem slightly out of order here, as the children presumably waited until the body wasn't still being burnt before collecting their souvenirs. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts, I'll make changes to the passages you mentioned--definitely things I overlooked. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Finished your userboxes, left you a message  Wheres  T  ristan  14:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! They look great, I will be adding them to my userpage momentarily. Thank you very much. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took me so a while to respond. I was actually waiting for your response on my talk page. Thanks, If you need any adjustments, feel free to ask! Also, if you are thinking about asking me in the future to make you a userbox, this is my "love" userbox, please display if you choose .  	  Wheres  T  ristan  22:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring
Hio! I've added answers to User:Demiurge1000/Mentoring/Tomtomn00. Thanks! Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:32, 3 May 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) 16:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Khurshid Ahmad
Hey, I felt bad about the comment I made at WP:BLPN when you took this fellow to AfD. Then, on top of that, I missed your two follow-up comments (if only we could watchlist topics). Whenever I make a comment that is even remotely negative about an editor I respect, I get a bit upset. Then, compounding matters, my comment often comes out as convoluted in my attempt to say what I want and be nice at the same time. Hopefully, your second follow-up comment means you didn't take offense. So far, your AfD hasn't resulted in any backlash against you, anyway - you must be made out of teflon. BTW, is there really such a thing as a "procedural nomination"? Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the long delay in replying. It's no problem at all - it's my opinion that you talk complete hogwash occasionally, but it's also very obvious that you do so in good faith and that you're doing an awful lot more good in managing how WP treats BLPs than most people are.


 * Now, as regards the hogwash (I forget the details and don't have time to look them up :) ), the notability tag is something that one puts on articles when one plans to either establish that sufficient sources exist to establish notability, or AfD the article. I use it occasionally, and that is exactly what I mean by it. It's a warning, "I am seriously considering AfDing this article, and you have a few months to improve it." (Sometimes, I even really do go out and add proper sources to a BLP that is lacking them totally or partially.)


 * One cannot put the notability tag at the top of a BLP and intend it to mean "I challenge you to prove notability before removing this tag, and if you don't then the tag will stay forever". Think about it a little. If I went to a random BLP and added, completely unsourced, "Some people think he's not very important" right at the start of the second sentence of the lead, would that be acceptable? Could it be edit-warred back in, if I had nothing else to justify it than "I think it's an issue"?


 * As for the particular case, I think it's a pity that a bunch of clearly ill-intentioned unregistered editors basically got what they wanted by templating and edit-warring and !voting on some fairly shady grounds against an article about someone they don't like. A borderline case as far as the rather hard standards of WP:PROF are concerned, but a bad outcome as far as basic decency is concerned. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your response raises more questions for me than anything else. In no particular order:
 * Why would you support my becoming an admin if you think I "talk complete hogwash occasionally"? (Okay, maybe I put this one first because it rankled.)
 * On the issue of the notability tag, I don't agree that those are the only two options. I also think that a notability tag, just like many tags, can remain in an article until it's resolved, no matter how long that takes. Thus, if an article on its face doesn't establish notablity of the subject, the tag can be added. If nothing happens to change that fact, the tag can remain. Is that a good idea? Probably not, but neither is retaining incredibly low-quality articles just because, theoretically, the subject is notable.
 * As for AfD, I still question the existence of a "procedural nomination". I thought you were very lucky to get through that AfD with little damage. It doesn't matter whether an article doesn't establish notability or whether an article has been tagged and then after some time elapses still doesn't establish notability. It is - unfortunately, in my view - the nominator's burden to justify his claim that the subject is not notable, which is why we have so many barriers to deleting articles, i.e., WP:BEFORE, and so few barriers to creating them.
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There are admins who don't occasionally talk complete hogwash?
 * You have it back to front. We remove articles because the subject is not notable (as far as we can tell). The solution to low-quality articles is to improve their quality. (Anything beyond that is an exclusionist/inclusionist/eventualist debate for which I don't have enough time and am not even totally sure of my own opinion on.)
 * Sorry, was going to reply to that one. Articles for deletion/Nicholas Bridgestock is the only procedural nomination that springs to mind right now (I particularly liked "This Machiavellian genius appears to have been running the country during the late 1970's, controlling everthing! Yet he has only a single Wikipedia biography to his name"). There's a better example but I forgot what it is. "Little damage" ? - WP:IAR works. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I knew you would say that.
 * Sorry, but I don't get it. I guess we just disagree, although we may also be talking at cross purposes.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Example helps. I've left a message on GB Fan's Talk page. The truth is I want there to be such a thing as a procedural nomination - I just don't think there is. Hopefully, I'll be proved wrong. I hate WP:IAR, and that's without even getting into its inherent paradox.
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Mail
Tboii99   ✉    00:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Got your email, thank you and good job. I'll send a reply and some extra recommendations when I have a spare moment. (There's nothing urgent.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

An extra-special treat for you
I sincerely hope I haven't been getting on your nerves, at all! I'm sure we're both wise enough to be able to disagree agreeably about things. Have a freebie hug to go with the calorie-free meal and scenic journey. Pesky (talk ) 16:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Pesky, nice locomotive! (But where's the train???) No, it's quite all right. Although, I do think you rather lost perspective on this issue, and in fact, though you may not appreciate me pointing this out, I think your original behaviour on KW's talk page actually contributed to his getting his talk page access removed. More in response to your other post (below!) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

tomtom
Hi... Are you mentoring/adopting/guiding User:Tomtomn00? Honestly, I think he needs to seriously throttle down on his work here. As near as I can tell (and, yes, I watch most things he does), he's only interested in bling - lists of articles created, DYKs, etc, etc. In my opinion, he really needs to settle down. For the most part, I watched from the sidelines, but the DYK nom here and subsequent editing patterns says he has no interest in improving the encyclopedia and every interest in puffing up his stats.

The latest problem is, to me, the most serious,.. I think he's taking credit (or was, until I called him on it) for other editors' work. He's since walked that back a bit, but, really, someone needs to tighten the reins a bit. To me, he's not the least bit interested in the project as much as he's interested in bling. Anyway, ... just thought I'd give you a heads up as it appeared on Worm's page that you had adopted him.   Wikipelli Talk   22:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell me what I have to do, and I'll do it. In trying for 95% edits next month in the article namespace so I do some work. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 22:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have, tomtom.. I have told you what you need to do. Go to the Joe Rosentover article. Fix it. Research it. Make it right. That's the kind of work that needs to be done on the project. YOU put the article up there. You can't just do that and expect other editors to come and do the work for you.   Wikipelli Talk   22:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for giving Tom advice on not taking credit unduly, I think that's good advice and I'm glad that he has taken it on board. (Incidentally, I would argue that reviewing and accepting an AfC candidate, if done properly, is a lot more than "just moving a page", but that's rather tangential.)


 * I'd agree with that. Sometimes I compress concepts for the point.   Wikipelli Talk   23:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * However, most of the rest of your comment is rather missing the point. Bear with me while I try to explain why I think so.


 * A year or so ago, I acted as "online ambassador" (or somesuch title) for a group of middle school students whose teacher had asked them to improve a particular article as part of their Wikipedia-editing classroom work. From what I remember, the teacher's aims included the kids potentially getting the article up to GA standard(!). What actually transpired is that, after some months during which some (but not all) of the students just barely learned to use talk pages in a rather confused manner, the eventual output of their group project was merely that their group suggested two sentences, each with a supporting reference, that they proposed be added to the article. At least one of the proposed additions wasn't appropriate for the article; I explained this to them (gently) on their talk pages, but never got a reply. And that was it.


 * Now, there are secondary school class projects that have achieved far, far more than that, but the ones I'm aware of are with older students (15 to 18) who are more self-selecting and who have considerably greater support. The reality is that writing Wikipedia articles is, these days, actually quite difficult, and doing it properly is something that is beyond the vast majority of younger kids.


 * The other side of the problem is that all kids in the developed word will be exposed to Wikipedia, at increasingly young ages, and that WMF, while preferring to recruit older age groups as editors, will do their best to encourage all readers to edit. The brightest and most inquisitive of these young minds will be the ones that start editing, but at the increasingly young ages, they're not always ready. Now, what do we do with these editors when they mess up their first year or so of editing? Well, what I've seen so far (from contact with bright kids in the later stages of High School who would now be the right age to start editing properly) is that bright kids who start editing in their younger teenage years or before, end up getting indef blocked, usually in a fairly nasty way. Does that matter to the serious business of creating an encyclopedia, some might ask? Why, yes, it does, because the response I get from those brighter kids when they are a few years older and intellectually ready to start contributing, is "Wikipedia? Ha, no way, I've been banned from there so many times." (That's an actual quote from a 17 year old star student.) Our response to the good-faith blunders of our youngest editors, is destroying our future as an actively edited collaborative encyclopedia project.


 * Now, I'm telling you all this because I can see from your userpage that you think that schools should be doing more to make use of Wikipedia as an educational tool. But the problem is that you are transferring this hope onto Tom, in an unrealistic way. Like I said, not all editors are instantly ready to create a complete brand new article and take it all the way to DYK properly (my own first one took months). Remember there are plenty of editors who contribute very usefully to Wikipedia, but do tasks like vandal-fighting, categorising things, creating article talk pages, and so on. Some of them will be better at article creation work after they've spent some time doing other tasks, some will not, but you cannot force them into article creation just because that suits your mental picture of what they should be doing.


 * Do you see what I mean?
 * I do see what you mean and, actually, I agree wholeheartedly. My thing, though, is that if you are going to be part of the community, you need to recognize first how the community operates, what the expectations are, and spend (in my opinion) considerable time watching and learning before becoming a 'bull in a china shop'.  Contrary to what you might think, I have no animus towards tomtom (or any editor that I can think of), nor do I think that an editor should be forced to make an article.  I think that if they DO make an article, they should see it through at least to the point where it is viable and can be left for other editors. I absolutely do NOT feel that any editor should be forced to article creation.  Since you use the example below, I'll borrow from it. The Joe Rosentover article was one that Tomtom created. The subject was notable (in my opinion) but the article was an unholy mess (sorry, Tom). The links were bad, it was clear that Tom didn't know what sport the subject was involved with and, yet, it was proposed for DYK.  Why? Because, again, in my opinion, Tom's goal was ONLY to get a DYK. When it went bad, the article was dropped. Now, again, I don't care if an editor (new or old, young or not) makes articles. There are other ways to improve the project. My admonishment/suggestion/encouragement was that, if you're going to make an article, make it right. Do it well... or don't do it at all. The end result was an article that other editors need to come in to salvage it. Granted, that's how the project works (collaboration), but this was more a case of having a very poor article that really needed to be fixed.   Wikipelli  Talk   23:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and while we're at it, Tom has received some rather similar advice here that focusing on article work is not necessarily beneficial for him right now. (He does seem to have gone back to article work, but that's his choice and it's just fine.)


 * Just fine as long as creating articles - viable articles - is the goal. That's a fine point where I think Tomtom misses.   Wikipelli Talk   23:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Now, your subsequent comment was that Tom should have completed the Joe Rosentover article. Well, there's something to be said for that point of view, but the reality is that plenty of people start things that they don't get round to finishing. So for example Template:Did you know nominations/Tim Guthrie is one of mine; it was a good idea at the time, but it never got finished for what seemed (to me) to be good reasons.


 * Once again.. I don't care about whether Tom creates articles or not. I am of the personal opinion, though, that you should not start something (badly) and then just move on to other things. That's just me, and, you're right, my values, maybe not his. And, my goal there was to suggest that tomtom slow down with his quest to create as many articles as possible (11,000, I read a couple of times) and make sure that the articles that he DID create had at least the barest minimums of standards for a stub. (seriously, baseball? football? soccer? the article was all over the place) I really just wanted tom to realize that it was better to put up articles that had the minimum basic information correctly.   Wikipelli  Talk   23:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Now, the bling thing. For whatever reason, the entire culture at Wikipedia rather revolves around bling, from the little bronze stars on FAs downwards through the little green GA blobs and the barnstars and the gazillion other things that editors decorate their userpages with. Is there anything wrong with that? Well I'm not sure; there's no reason editors shouldn't keep track of what they've done, in fact my userpage has my own rather detailed collection, although it's all neatly hidden in collapse boxes. You say you most respect people who have nothing on their userpages, but then you don't follow your own advice! Tom has a bit of a recording-of-things enthusiasm going on, which may be an aspect of his personality or just a reflection of what he's seen others do on Wikipedia; I'm really somewhat lost as to why you see it as a big problem, especially since careful recording is actually useful in some situations (CSD logs and the like). And it's certainly no excuse for implying he has no interest in the project per se. That's really rather rude.


 * Of course I don't follow my own advice! (though, it wasn't really advice). I smoke, drink more than I should, etc, etc... But, to address your point. I agree wholeheartedly that the culture does involve 'bling'.  I like it. I loved putting the GA symbols on my page and the DYK things.  But the difference is that they were byproducts of things that I did. I wanted to create really nice articles about things and, hey, turns out they were good enough for a GA - bonus!  I believe, and I could absolutely be wrong, is that tom's goal is to get the badges, stars, whatever... and that creating, editing, developing is a means to an end, not the end in itself. My thing is that I'd rather have an editor go out and fight vandals, copyedit articles, develop stubs because that's what's important.. and then they get the badges after and, yes, that's cool. I don't like editors who edit with the goal of getting a DYK at the expense of quality editing. And let's be perfectly honest here... can you read tom's messages and not come away with the idea that the mindset is, "I have no interest in this topic whatsoever, I just want to get another DYK"?


 * And, sitting here thinking about it, what's the difference? If the result is an article or two, who cares why an editor does it? And that's a perfectly valid argument, except that, along the way, too many mistakes are made and there's too much disruptive editing. New editors are slapped down, experienced editors are wasting time at AfD on articles that shouldn't have been made in the first place.   Wikipelli  Talk   23:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You've summed up these various problems (not all of which are actually problems, as far as I can see) by saying that "someone needs to tighten the reins a bit". I don't see how this makes sense. Yes, he does need to slow down and think more carefully about what he does, but he already has one adopter, plus me, plus a variety of people hanging round his talk page, all telling him that (quite often in contradictory or incoherent ways); plus a mentoring course which hopefully can give him a broader insight into things over time. The only thing that would be more restrictive would be formal editing restrictions, which would be completely nonsensical at this point. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe my metaphor is bad but if you agree that he needs to slow down and think more carefully, then we're on the same page.


 * I might be relentless, I'll cop to that, but I've not been (to this point) abusive (I hope). No AN, no warnings (to speak of). My only message is, and has always been, to say, "you have a great interest in Wikipedia and that's great, but here's where I think you went wrong, here's how you could do better". I'm not an expert by any means and I've said on more than one occasion that tom can do whatever he wants but here's how I feel about it. Take or leave it. Tom started himself off in a bad light, I think, with requests for every right under the sun (admin, crat, rollback, etc), the church image problem (claimed it was his and then changed), claims off-wiki that he was an admin and crat on WP... it's a bad start and makes people suspicious. (there are still claims on his userpage at simple.wikipedia about GAs and FAs) (now removed). You start off that way and you're often under a microscope for awhile. I'm willing to let the mentoring/adoption run its course and give tom the benefit of the doubt for now.   Wikipelli  <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   23:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I keep an article creation log, because the toolserver thingy doesn't load on my current computer, wierdly. Keeping things like Logs are useful in later times, example, with RfA, I haven't looked at a passing RfA where the user has not got a CSD log.
 * Bling: My userpage doesn't really 'revolve s around bling', I tried to make it simple, with enhanced elements. Simple.
 * Logs and Rubbish: Yeah, I did like to keep a log of things, like my UAAs, AIVs and SPIs – I ended up later deleting a long list of them due to the fact they were mostly offensive.
 * Quote: "no excuse for implying he has no interest in the project" – I am intrested in the project, and want it to be at it's very best.
 * CSD: I might have had a few issues/minor slip-ups, but my success rate is still around 93%, which is quite good. My other mentor's RfA passed with a CSD rate of 89-90%, and not that many CSDs.
 * DYK: I see on your talk page, Wikipelli, that you say you wasted an hour of your time just because I wanted to expand something fivefold. Technically speaking, that can be any number in the five-times-table (heh...). I want fivefold for the article because I want all of my articles to be 15kb, which turned out to be fivefold, in that case. Suggesting I want DYK without asking is kind of annoying, but I don't mind that much.
 * CSD notices: I don't like them on my talk page, as they create too much lag, around 2kb a piece. I still watch all of the pages I edit, after Feb. 2012.
 * Rights (I thought I'd bring this up): I've had issues with requesting too many userrights before, which was just me being an idiot-kind-of-thing. I had restrictions put upon me not to request any rights on any Wikimedia project for a whole year, around a month ago. If I wanted to, I would have to reach concensus at WT:PERM or WP:AN (not AN/I).
 * Articles: Yes, I said I wouldn't make any more rubbish articles, which I seem to have done. CBTA ( class) is in DYK Prep 2, and pending a GA nomination after good feedback, hopefully to become an FA. Going back to the quote above, I wanted that to be one of the best articles I will ever create.
 * Yeah, that's my speech-kind-of-thing. Thanks! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Read, appreciated, enjoyed... will respond with an absurdly long reply later. (the boys are cooking dinner for Mother's Day and I fear for the kitchen!)   Wikipelli <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   21:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, please don't mind any typos' in my absurd speech. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions)