User talk:Demiurge1000/Archive 8

Pretty please?


Demi dearest, have some snuggly granny-hugz, beers, and all that stuff, for starters. Then, could you possibly do me a huge favour? I'm really trying to work hard with KW, and he has improved, though (once we're adults!) this kind of thing takes time. Could you possibly, for at least a few months, try to bite your thumbs, or whatever, and quietly walk away from both KW and any mention of him, and not join in? I'm sure that, in the long run, there's a good chance you'll both end up OK with each other (though I appreciate that neither of you is likely to believe me right now!) But, just for now, it would make my life so much easier if you could tiptoe away from the temptation to comment, or to join in any discussions. You and KW both feel very spiky and defensive and wossname with each other, and some breathing space would be good for both of you. I'm very fond of you both; I will always be grateful for the way you so totally understood me and stuck up for me back in December; yours was one of the voices that kept me hanging on. You're probably not really aware of the huge beneficial impact you had on my mood levels back then, but you did. Things would have been much tougher without your support and input; this is one of those times where I'd like to call on your support again. Not for KW, but for me. Is that OK? I hope we're cool here, I'd hate to "lose" you, as it were, when I'm so fond of you. Hugz and cuddles'n'stuff. Pesky (talk ) 21:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Pesky Pesky Pesky, whatever were you doing? The last thread about KW in which I'd participated had died down quite some days (best part of a week?) before you popped this little reminder on his talk page. It really does KW no favours to prompt him into calling someone a cur and likening them to a mass murderer and giving away that one of the things he enjoys on Wikipedia is "the prospect of violence expressed with some verbal wit".


 * You're also more than a bit off-base here when muttering about "pretend that there's already a formal interaction ban". There's not going to be a formal interaction ban. I am not the cause of KW's problems on Wikipedia. Worm is not the cause of KW's problems on Wikipedia. TFD is not the cause of KW's problems on Wikipedia. Neither Elen nor Salvio nor Good Ol’factory nor BrownHairedGirl nor SW nor Sarek, nor that Werner guy, nor that guy who edits lots of categories, are the cause of KW's problems on Wikipedia. None of these people, nor anyone else with whom KW has had blazing rows or demanded interaction bans, are the cause of KW's problems on Wikipedia.


 * Just to throw out an example, as regards KW's third block, I didn't participate in any of the ANI discussions involved, nor any discussion after it, and I don't think I participated in any of the various discussions and disputes leading up to it either. I would suppose that his angry references to IRC are some attempt to convince himself that the reason all these problems occur are the determined scheming of some off-wiki cabal or agent provocateur. Again, this is fantasy - what occurs on IRC is a huge amount of mindless drivel, of which less than 0.00001% ever relates to KW. Far as I can remember, I've only ever once raised the subject of KW on IRC, and was immediately told that IRC was the wrong venue and I should head to ANI instead. I think you of all people know on what topics I spend most of the energies that I devote to IRC.


 * What KW needs to do to solve his problems, is to stay somewhere within sight of the basic social norms that those working on a collaborative project follow. He wouldn't get away with how he behaves towards others in real life - or at least, not without becoming an expert in just-not-quite-audible muttering - and there is no reason well-intentioned and very valuable contributors should have to put up with it here. And I'm not afraid to say so - here, ANI, or anywhere else. I know it wasn't your intention, but attempting to change that is a little too much like the censorship that you were recently (and I thought, rather over-dramatically) complaining about.


 * When you and I were both involved in a squabble about something said at ANI last December, we and others "kept on about it" even when key players suggested that our seeking of "justice" when nothing substantive could be changed, was wasting time that should be spent on more important things. That more-than-close similarity in thought to certain historical events (and dramatisations) was exactly why this got created. But the important thing there was that an injustice had clearly been done; the consensus was clearly not in favour of what was subsequently claimed. By contrast, the latest KW event(s) that you were up in arms about, saw a very clear consensus - on several issues! - and you just insisted on overturning it, not because any clear wrong had been committed, but because you were busy in your "well I must train him and you must all get out of my way" role.


 * I think, underneath, you do realise how silly that is.


 * On a positive note (I am going to really try here, tee hee)... First, I think a lot of what you said to KW really was accurate, and just fell on deaf ears. Second, and contrary to what some of what has been said elsewhere, I think KW really has improved since the RfC/U. Insulting category-tweakers and those who defend them and those who try to discourage personal attacks is not good, but fevered BLP violations in retaliation for perceived political slights, and what nearly amounted to harassment of individual teen contributors, was much much worse. That latter behaviour has (pretty much) stopped, so the RfC/U really did serve its original purpose even before all the recent drama.


 * I do think that you should suggest to KW that he try out posting on WR or Wikipediocracy. Not just that he might be able to share time with some similar souls (sad though that may be), but also at least he can have a few rants with much less chance of being penalised here for it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

About references
Thank you for sending the message i would have added the references but i had no idea and was orriginally just going to copy and paste the links lol but thanks for sending me that link to how to reference stuff have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.251.77 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem, you too! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Question
Could you take a look at the Compton-Belkovich Thorium Anomaly article I created. The DYK hook has been ticked and the GA review is pending. :D Also, I saw the mentoring page. :) --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania 2013 in Hong Kong
I'm a bit disappointed that you have such a misconception, and please be assured that the Great Firewall of China does not apply to Hong Kong! Indeed Hong Kong is so set to be on the outside of the GFW that most websites hosted in Hong Kong are inaccessible from mainland China! One of the items on the Wikimania 2013 agenda is how Wikimedians in Hong Kong and Southeast Asia can help with the situation of internet censorship just over the border. Deryck C. 16:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's certainly one thing that Wikipedians from different parts of the world can do: Go protest at Chinese government's liaison office in the colony when Wikimania takes place. 203.145.92.193 (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for clearing this up. In fact, I think clarifying it on the signpost page has probably been helpful as well, since certainly some other people perceived it the same way that I did. Personally, I would still have reservations, since one is still supporting the regime by going there regardless of whether the particular problematic restrictions apply to the exact place (still controlled by the regime) that one is visiting. (See Sun City (song)).


 * However, the WMF does not appear to take such things into account, judging by past experience, so my making a fuss is probably counter-productive. I hope all goes well for the event and for any demonstrations in support of the majority still suffering from the firewall. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's basically an occupied territory or a colony. You can help by supporting the local people to defend their shrinking autonomy and liberty. 203.145.92.214 (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Article Creations
I've fixed the outlined errors. Thanks! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

YGM
Read notice. Do not notify me when you reply (email always open). Thanks!--Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 2 more sent, please reply - I will reply almost instantly in the next hour. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅✅ LOL. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Rename
Could you vote at User:Tomtomn00/rename &mdash; I want to rename myself. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 20:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, could you? --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 09:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Rinpoche
Looks like Rinpoche is editing back under the IP Address 46.108.133.16.  Mr. Wikipediania Talk 04:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting me know. Since he is community banned, you were correct to revert his edit without discussing it further.


 * Based on WP:DENY, which you've hopefully read by now, it may be preferable to inform people of his activities - if necessary - by email instead of on talk pages.


 * I've also refactored the talk page section heading you used here - we don't need drama or personal commentary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Adminship?
Surely it's time. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I say it is for Demiurge1000 now. (I will be co-nominator). --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 15:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Gosh, with such a duumvirate as co-nominators, how could I possibly fail? (Actually I was hoping Malleus might nominate me, but he's taking a break.)


 * Sadly though, I will once again have to decline. Although I've got much more time to edit than I had earlier this year, what I'm finding is that it's not nearly enough to keep up with all the things I want to do. And not only that, but other things, like answering talk page messages in a timely manner. (Can you imagine an admin not replying to questions about their admin actions for nearly two weeks?)


 * There are occasional incidents where having admin tools would save me (and others) a little time, but not enough to outweigh all the time required in dealing with an RfA, and the fact that even after dealing with it, I still won't have enough editing time to function properly as an admin (unless I completely give up mentoring or dealing with BLP issues or copyediting, which I don't want to do.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought you said you were waiting for John to nominate you.  Rcsprinter  (chat)  20:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus and John aren't the same person? :) Well, I could have an RfA with six different nominators, that would be sure to make people think carefully... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

YGM again
--Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 20:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again... --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * More... --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 17:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hio
Check yo' mail, Demiurge! Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 01:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Pdiddyjr
Hopefully the warning will suffice. I really hope a WP:IDHT block will not be necessary. I don't like to block any editor if it can be avoided, but I will do so for the good of the project as a whole. It is really up to him now. Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. Yes, this one is a bit of a struggle. Slightly more confusing because he only edits sporadically. I am finding a certain small humour in it, but others are definitely not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

 * Well, "better" is a relative thing. Different people are better at different things. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar for May 2012 GOCE drive

 * Thanks Stgf! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Heh, I thought I might get moaned at for that one, given that it was quite a high tension discussion. Gotta love the Blofeld talkpage and userpage, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

 * I saw a comment you made there, and responded there. --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The Lowry
Sorry the IP edit was mine, I somehow lost connection. Children implies something completely different to me to youths in hoodies. J3Mrs (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries, I've replied at the article talk page. In fact, I was going to reply more there, but got distracted - will get back there when I have a bit more time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing of Biography of Ronn Torossian
Hi Demiurge 1000!

Thank you for your welcome. I am new to editing Wikipedia, and was moved to do so while reading the biography of Ron Torossian. The original piece used the phrase "occupied areas of East Jerusalem". I live in Jerusalem, and personally believe that Israel has legal sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. I know that there are differing opinions on this, and while I do not expect the world to just accept Israel's (or my) view on the matter, clearly the areas of East Jerusalem are "disputed" as to their sovereignty - not "occupied", which is the view of those opposed to Israel's position. I therefore edited the word "occupied" and changed it to "disputed". I believe that this is the proper "neutral" phrasing that is called for by Wikipedia rules. Even Wikipedia's discourse on East Jerusalem reviews the fact that the territories are disputed. Had I just deleted the word "occupied", or otherwise edited the phrase to indicate that Israel has legal sovereignty (which is actually my view) I would understand the edit not being accepted, but it seems to have been changed back to "occupied" twice. I would like to understand the reason for this.

BakaMentsch (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Norman


 * Hi BakaMentsch, thanks for your note, and sorry for not replying sooner.


 * I can see how, when one looks at the status of certain parts of Jerusalem, seeing that some people (and sources) describe them as "illegally occupied", and some people (and sources) describe them as "legally part of Israel", one naturally assumes that "disputed" is a sensible "neutral" compromise.


 * However, in a hotly disputed topic area like this, Wikipedia has to be "even more" neutral, and coldly consider how the balance of the available sources describe the situation. A very large number of reliable sources all over the world regularly write about this topic, and I would guess the problem is that the overwhelming majority of them refer to the territories as "occupied" rather than "disputed", presumably in line with what the UN says. (I'm far from an expert on the subject, incidentally.)


 * Wikipedia also needs consistency, in that if the main articles about the topic use those terms, then mentions in other articles (like Ronn's biography) should follow along.


 * Anyway I would guess that's what the links in the other editor's edit summary were pointing out - that there is supposedly a "consensus" on this terminology, somewhere else in Wikipedia.


 * Unfortunately, the Middle East and Israel is one of the areas where "consensus" on Wikipedia doesn't work very well. As you can imagine, lots of people with very strong views want to make Wikipedia reflect their views, and not the views of the bad guys. This leads to edit warring, which leads to fear, which leads to hate, which leads to suffering. There are therefore some quite strict sanctions about edit-warring on topics related to the dispute.


 * What this means is that if one makes an edit and is then reverted (as you were), it's better to discuss the disagreement on the talk/discussion page of the article, rather than reverting back (as you did).


 * Anyway, from what I remember, someone decided to remove the sentence from the article entirely, for other reasons, which makes the decision on what to do a bit simpler. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Toll
The Death Toll is rising! Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 15:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You've evil. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Mwahahahaha-. See email. ⇒ T A  P  22:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Armenia

 * Actually I do find Armenia rather interesting, but unfortunately that's more for reading, rather than for writing authoritatively about it or creating new content. Thank you for the invitation, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

AN
There's some stuff at the bottom of WP:AN, which I allowed Dipankan001 to post. I even fixed Dipankan's stub errors! :) Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 09:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fire starting at User talk:Keilana‎. Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 09:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I added some gasoline, did it help to quench the flames at all?


 * Incidentally, there's always an endless supply of people eager to propose things, so I suggest you experiment with not allowing them to do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
heather walls (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit
Could you please copyedit The Wedding Dance? Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 08:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Will take a look later if I have time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Admin
Have you ever considered becoming a sysop here? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, including in the section above :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright. I didn't see that. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you very much, it is nice to see that people appreciate my slightly, varied, shall we put it, work. Don't worry, there are more DYK's on the way. :) -- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 19:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
⇒ T A  P  21:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * More email. --⇒ T A  P  16:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted your edits as it increases the chance that the person making that legal threat will know that I told you! How am I a "minor"? And finally, legal threats are by absolutely no means illegal. I have to be a man and deal with this myself, right now I'd rather be writing that GA, but instead I am having to think of what to do next, without getting sued!--Deathlaser (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have never had, nor want, any contact with you off-wiki, so you didn't tell me anything - what you did do is post things on your own talk page. Quite why you'd post things there if you don't want this supposed person to know about it, I have no idea.


 * I didn't say you were a minor, I said you were a self-identified minor. Per Protecting children's privacy, I have no way of knowing (nor want to know) whether you are actually a minor or not.


 * If what you say is true, then I think discussing it with your parents would be a better idea than dealing with it yourself. If you do want advice from people on Wikipedia, then Brad is a good person to ask. If you don't want advice from people on Wikipedia, then don't discuss it here. Good luck. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok then, but make sure he doesn't take off-wiki action.--Deathlaser (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Four
Hi! Welcome to the fourth issue of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter for the Teahouse!


 * Teahouse pilot wraps up after 13 weeks After being piloted on English Wikipedia starting in February, the Teahouse wrapped up its pilot period on May 27, 2012. We expect this is just the beginning for the Teahouse and hope the project will continue to grow in the months to come!

Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!


 * What you've all been waiting for: Teahouse Pilot Report is released! We look forward to your feedback on the methodology and outcomes of this pilot project.
 * ....and if a pilot report wasn't enough, the Teahouse Pilot Metrics Report is out too! Dive into the numbers and survey results to learn about the impact the Teahouse has made on English Wikipedia.
 * Teahouse shows positive impact on new editor retention and engagement
 * 409 new editors participated during the entire pilot period, with about 40 new editors participating in the Teahouse per week.
 * Two weeks after participating, 33% of Teahouse guests are still active on Wikipedia, as opposed to 11% of a similar control group.
 * New editors who participated in the Teahouse edit 10x the number of articles, make 7x more global edits, and 2x as much of their content survives on Wikipedia compared to the control group.


 * Women participate in the Teahouse 28% of Teahouse participants were women, up from 9% of editors on Wikipedia in general, good news for this project which aimed to have impact on the gender gap too - but still lots to be done here!
 * New opportunities await for the Teahouse in phase two as the Teahouse team and Wikipedia community examine ways to improve, scale, and sustain the project. Opportunities for future work include:
 * Automating or semi-automating systems such as invites, metrics and archiving
 * Experimenting with more ways for new editors to discover the Teahouse
 * Building out the social and peer-to-peer aspects further, including exploring ways to make answering questions easier, creating more ways for new editors to help each other and for all participants to acknowledge each other's efforts
 * Growing volunteer capacity, continuing to transfer Teahouse administration tasks to volunteers whenever possible, and looking for new ways to make maintenance and participation easier for everyone.

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Want to know how you can lend a hand at the Teahouse? Become a host! Learn more about what makes the Teahouse different than other help spaces on Wikipedia and see how you can help new editors by visiting here.
 * Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is really encouraging to new Wikipedians.

Recall procedure
Hi there. I have chosen you as one of the editors who may request my resignation as part of my my recall procedure. Could you have a look, and confirm whether you're happy being on the list? Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's fine. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
⇒ T A  P  19:17, 15 June 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) 15:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
⇒ T A  P  11:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Singapore Sister
Hello. If you think this is good faith, you're mistaken. Check the contribs again. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Heh, had to look three times before I saw it. (First time around I was looking at the edit summaries, second time the edits themselves). Lucky no-one tries to troll me that way, they'd be wasting their time because I would never notice! Actually, maybe that means they already are ... oh dear. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions about Wikipedia & SuggestBot
Hi, we’ve been running a research experiment with SuggestBot and would like to ask you some questions about Wikipedia and SuggestBot. You can find more information and the questions on this page. It should take less than ten minutes to respond. We would greatly appreciate if you had the time to participate! Regards, Nettrom (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a one-time reminder that we would really like to hear from you! We've clarified the instructions and one of the questions.  Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Amy Cuddy
She is clearly notable (per awards and coverage) and passes GNG. If you want me to I'll create the article for you (attributing the writing to you) without using AFC.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for this extremely fast feedback. (You'd be surprised at the number of times I ask wikiprojects for help with things like this, and get no response at all.) Based on your recommendation, I've boldly created it at Amy Cuddy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

science desk
Please do not delete my question. I am not asking for treatment of a medical condition. I do not suffer from migraines. The article on that subject does not indicate where the pain from them occurs other than saying they are unilateral. I am looking for a description of the pain. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think what you posted on the reference desk should not have been posted there. I will continue to think that. However, your request here has been entirely polite, and I have no intention of edit-warring your comments off the reference desk just because I am personally certain they should not be there. I think that's the end of my involvement in it, so I wish you well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your very civil response. Please note I didn't start the thread, nor did I ask for a diagnosis or a treatment.  It's truly just a matter of curiosity on my point. μηδείς (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
⇒ T A  P  13:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Great Wagner Conductors
Demiurge 1000, you removed the bibliographic references I'd inserted to Jonathan Brown's new book on Great Wagner Conductors on the basis that this was advertising or soapboxing. I wholeheartedly support the Wikipedia policy on advertising, but my intention in inserting the references to this book was to enrich the pages concerned. It is a serious, scholarly book, with separate extensively researched chapters for 23 Wagner conductors and a discography for each one. I had wanted to insert a specific reference, for example in the case of Artur Bodanzky to say that "Chapter 14 is devoted to Bodanzky; includes discography", but found that the fields of the Wiki bibliography template did not include provision for such a comment to be added. Brown's book is precisely the sort of reference that a Wikipedia reader would like to find in the bibliography/references/further reading sections of the webpages of the 23 conductors and related pages, and I would respectfully ask you to reconsider, and also advise how to insert the specific chapter reference which would make it clear why the book is relevant on the various conductor pages. The structure of the webpages differs, in some cases (Wagner's own page being a case in point)the heading is 'other sources', and a new book is not strictly a source that has been used, but this occurs under a higher level heading 'Sources and further reading', and the insertion is certainly relevant as an item for further reading.Nosnibor (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry for not getting back to you sooner.


 * Unfortunately Wikipedia is not very friendly to this sort of addition - see for example WP:BOOKSPAM which seems to be against it. Really the best way of regarding the "Further reading" (and similar) sections is the equivalent of a university reading list. The best university reading lists do not include every single book (or academic journal entry) that happens to have a section relating to the topic, but instead have what the academic staff regard as the most significant published material on the topic and best overall treatments of the topic.


 * The guidelines of inclusion of material under "See also" say that it should be what "editors recommend". You are indeed an editor, and you probably know more about Wagnerian conductors than I do, but I think that editor recommendation should be wider than just one editor noting that a book contains a chapter that relates to the topic. So I don't see that your adding this book to more than twenty topics in one day, is appropriate.


 * Of course, it's possible that the book in question is the best work on a particular topic; or that it's the best book overall on the whole range of topics. But, as you say, it's a new book, so that's yet to be determined. Is it a notable book, by Wikipedia's standards? If so, and if you have no connection at all with the author, his family or the publisher, then you should consider creating an article about it on Wikipedia. Read WP:42 first, then go to WP:AFC. If it's not a notable book, and if you're the only editor that personally considers it's the best source on these topics - then I disagree, and it shouldn't be included. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your measured reply, and apologies for not replying sooner, I have been away. Some of the 23 conductors covered in the book (viz. Bodanzky, Coates) have no monograph written about them at all, so would surely be of interest to people wanting to know more. However, your advice is well taken and good suggestion about an article. But at this stage seems best to wait to see how this new book is received.80.229.167.4 (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank You

 * Thank you! Happy to help. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit
Hi Demiurge, just a head's up, but I just put up an article at the GOCE request page, if you're interested. It's about the leader of a UFO cult, you might find it interesting. No problem if you don't have time. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Mark, thanks for the note - another interesting one! Looks like Maryana has already taken it though, so I'll leave it for now. (Incidentally, might be worth noting at the GOCE Requests page that the request is being worked on.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You Have Mail!
--5 albert square (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not new to Wikipedia
Responding to your message to me. Even though I am 11, I am not new to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniandram01 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

 * ) Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here.  18:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

IRC boot tools used to suppress criticism?
Demiurge1000, what is your position on IRC boot tools being used to suppress valid criticism of Wikipedia? -- 2001:558:1400:A:DC07:3F1:E7BE:21B6 (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My "position" is that use of "IRC boot tools" to suppress valid criticism of Wikipedia would be about as effective as making a point by pasting sections of articles about pornographic movies into a discussion where people were asking for help on a completely unrelated topic. In other words, almost totally ineffective.


 * That's because there are better places for valid criticism of both Wikipedia and pornographic movies, and few or none of those places are susceptible to the effects of "IRC boot tools". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Another talkback! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the message from my talkpage and responded at WT: PERM. I think that this is resolved and I appreciate your constructive criticism of me. Best, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:56, 13 July 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) 11:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Theopolisme TALK 20:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Note sure why
A few things: 1) you know that 90% of your statements on Jimbo's page are patently false - a very quick glance through the logs show otherwise. 2) Have you read User_talk:Altetendekrabbe ... especially a post that sits there from yesterday (one of MANY apologies). 3) You know that your co-mentor agreed with my comments on that editor-review. I would have believed that such unfounded attacks and indeed lies were beneath you.  My apologies if my good faith has been in vain. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Which statements are false?
 * So you apologise for some of your unacceptable behaviour as an administrator, and you want to accuse me of lying because I don't follow every single incident all over the wiki to find that this is the case?
 * Representing others as sharing your views, is irrelevant to the fact that those others are capable of expressing such views (if they do indeed share them) in a professional and collegial manner. You were emphatically not capable of doing so.
 * Your attitude and approach will either change or it won't. That is down to you now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is an "error" suddenly "unacceptable"? Am I not human?  I apologize and correct my errors, more than once.  You made many false statements - calling the majority of my very few blocks "bad" when it's obviously not so?  You dare suggest you have any idea of my attitude, and raise conjecture to try and support it ... but you're so far from the truth in so many things.  Look, if I'm going to voluntarily request temporary desysop as per Jimbo's suggestion it's going to be based on truth, not lies.  Again, this will be voluntary desysop, so I'm not sure what your statements were trying to achieve. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think you've taken the time to actually read my comments at Jimbo's page properly. (Not the first time I've seen you jump in with both feet in a situation like this.) I did not say the majority of your blocks were bad. In fact, I said the exact opposite.


 * In ordinary circumstances I would demand you withdraw the accusation of lying. On this occasion I am just going to suggest you take a deep breath and focus on what you need to change, not what you need to accuse others of. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While I do that, consider whether your post there was relevant to a discussion my decision to perform a voluntary desysopping, or indeed something that would have been better shared with me directly as an acceptable critique that I typically welcome. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes it was entirely relevant to the discussion there.
 * My last two posts to your talk page were removed with rude edit summaries. Yes, that discouraged me from attempting further direct discussion with you. (Such discouragement is something an administrator should try to avoid, I think.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you were encouraging me to voluntarily desysop then? That seems like an odd place and manner to do it.  Your posts had been removed from my talkpage because I had asked you to stop posting there on that topic, and you continued - that's why the edit summaries showed the frustration.  As even my kids know, "stop" means "stop".  Using that against me somewhere without providing the full context as to why it happens is again one of those odd/cherry-picked things that when provided the full view of things don't look bad, but when only providing half the story like you did certainly sends a very different (and unappreciated) message.  Now, speaking of my kids, my wife is upstairs doing some oil-on-canvas, and my kids want their dad's time to watch the Lion King before they go to bed.  I'll simply end by saying I hope you review the purpose of your message, and then as to whether it was the right words and forum. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What was that about "conjecture"? No, I was commenting on Jimbo's talk page, not telling you to do one thing or another.


 * "Your posts had been removed from my talk page because I had asked you to stop posting there on that topic, and you continued" - look again, please. When you made that first rude removal, you had made no such request.


 * Your embarrassment is at having your own words quoted back to you - what would help you is if you could bring yourself to admit that writing in that manner was wrong for any editor, and grossly unbecoming of an administrator.


 * The "half of the story" where you repeatedly insult and belittle good faith editors, is the problematic half of the story, and the half that needs discussion. Don't you think?


 * Incidentally, for someone who claimed they didn't watchlist Thine Antique Pen, why is it that you came to show up at his editor review so very quickly after a bot posted on his talk page saying that it was due to be closed? The editor review had been there for weeks, it took you 74 minutes after that bot posted to put in your little nastygram, right? How did that happen, if you didn't watchlist the page or his talkpage? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Figured you've enjoyed your rant. Seeing as you seem to be continuing your conjecture, and you also seem to have forgotten the core WP:AGF concept, I'll leave you to enjoy yourself here.  Remember, people don't have to have people's talkpages watchlisted for them to stumble across things.  Note also: I understand you might be angry because I talked about the negative behaviours of someone you mentor(ed) - know that I have never transferred those negatives you you, and do not see his negatives as your failure (they existed before you became involved), but accept from me that your desire to assist him - and the great strides he has made (even up until my comments at his review) have always been something I respect highly.  Cheers. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF is not a suicide pact in this just as much as anything else - you had a hell of a nerve coming to my talk page to accuse me of "lies" when you had that nonsense in your recent edit history.
 * Attempting to re-write history (see "I did always say you had potential to be a good editor if you stayed on the right track" versus the totality of what you actually said originally) just makes you look silly. (You've tried this several times now.)
 * You either failed to read, or failed to comprehend, what I wrote on Jimbo's page, and thus made assertions both there and here, that you've shown yourself unable to substantiate.
 * It has been pointed out to me that reluctance to admit that one is wrong is something shared by just about everyone, but only noticed when we see it in those with whom we disagree. You were wrong to make your original post, you were wrong to ask it be restored after Worm blanked it, you were wrong to go to these ridiculous lengths to defend it when it is plainly indefensible. But...
 * Maybe what you originally wrote, was intended to mean what you later said it meant. And...
 * Endlessly demanding admittance of wrong-doing (or condemning attempts to avoid admitting it) where it's plainly not forthcoming, is not constructive. So I should, perhaps, find something better to do with my time.
 * This entire incident was related to a broader concern that I have about how we sometimes treat not-new but not-entirely-experienced and not-entirely-undisruptive editors; which I did (by coincidence) intend to raise at Jimbo's talk page eventually. Too soon? Perhaps. In my original framing, you were one of perhaps a dozen editors that had behaved less than ideally, so not central to the issue.
 * Apologies if I've made this point already somewhere, but - as others have said elsewhere - the issue was not limited to the one throw-away remark which Jimbo picked you up on. I can expand on that further if it would be useful.
 * I'm glad that you've made some steps to change your tone and your approach, and I wish you all the best. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Adventure: Request for feedback on Community Fellowship proposal
Hi! I'm contacting you because you have participated or discussed The Wikipedia Adventure learning tutorial/game idea. I think you should know about a current Community Fellowship proposal to create the game with some Wikimedia Foundation support. Your feedback on the proposal would be very much appreciated. I should note that the feedback is for the proposal, not the proposer, and even if the Fellowship goes forward it might be undertaken by presently not-mentioned editors. Thanks again for your consideration.

Proposal: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Project_Ideas/The_Wikipedia_Adventure

Cheers, User:Ocaasi 16:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * That wasn't intended to be solely (or even mainly) humourous; I don't follow the various PERM things closely enough to know in detail what hats and practice and such actually exist, so I was genuinely considering the policy that there was some arrangement of which I was unaware. But, thank you for the barnstar anyway, unintentional humour is also good :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

WT: PERM
You may be interested in my proposal there and the discussion. Cheers! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I never had time to get back to that, and it looks like both proposals received very little discussion. Maybe very few people watchlist that page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI
Our deletionist was back, so I added references, adjusted text, etc. Per WP:BLP concerns, I adjusted the text at that one section to be completely dispassionate and to show that the persons being discussed have moved on. What is there now is all the material I could find that is in any way sourced.Shearonink (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and good job sorting out the article. I see the problem account ended up getting blocked. It's very odd he should just keep blanking it without ever talking at all. Maybe he'll do the same again when the block expires. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Miss you, T
— Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixG1995 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What a fantastically enormous pie! Thank you!


 * Now the next lesson is "how to format images to be a sensible size" :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up
Resolved: Help_desk. BTW, when you said "You are not alone" i thought you meant i wasn't alone with the problem (i.e., you had it too), but re-reading the message i realize i was wrong though. Cheers, benzband  ( talk ) 22:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I really must work on my clarity of communication :) Glad it's resolved. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

CVUA

 * Thanks for the invite! Unfortunately I don't have spare time to take on more at the moment. Maybe sometime in the future. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your interest! Electric Catfish 22:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit
Hi, Demiurge1000, I'm wondering if you could spare some time to go over and tweak Samsung Galaxy S III. I urgently need a fresh perspective on the article, so I could take it to GA, and hopefully FA, within the next 2 months. If you are generous enough, I'll owe you one. Cheers --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting article! Will try if I get time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
For encouraging me to run for Admin, my Rfa went surprisingly well. I was worried about the horror stories I had heard, but in the end it worked out fine. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Horror stories in article space are useful and important, horror stories in project space less so. Glad it went well, and congratulations. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

About my Article
I'm typing here because of the speedy deletion request that you put up on my article page. Can you please explain why Chavis Carter, the man whose death is part of an ongoing investigation, is too irrelevant to be on Wikipedia? I know I am taking this personally and I'm being a bit anal about it, but I need your response.--Valadar917 (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PERP and WP:N/CA. Thine   Antique   Pen  19:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, should we rename the article to something like "Shooting of Chavis Carter" or something like that? Thanks for the input.--Valadar917 (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have declined the speedy. It may need a rename for 1event reasons, and may not survive an AFD if you wish to take it there, but the coverage clearly surpasses a7 survival. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:WikiLove
Thanks for the wikilove. YE Pacific  Hurricane  01:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A follow up on Bwilkins
Please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Since you inquired about my reply  Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  23:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 09:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Administrator
You could call me an administrator of sorts of the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy (CVUA), but me and Theopolisme are known in the academy as coordinators. ✅ing can be done by any CVUA instructor if they meet the requirements, but if they're close, but not there coordinators make the final call. For Irondomes any instructor could have ticked him. I was just the first one there and curious. Hope that helps Dan653 (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm really puzzled as to why you posted this about fifteen minutes after my removing my misplaced posting. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because your "misplaced" posting was directed to me. I was expecting something on my talk page after you removed it since you said it was "misplaced". "Misplaced" is very different than "wrong user" so I was surprised that you hadn't posted your question somewhere else since it was "misplaced". After not recieving anything I decided it would be best to explain to you what I did. Dan653 (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. I'm still a bit lost as to why it was necessary to explain anything, still less about you and someone else being "administrator[s] of sorts", but perhaps best to move on. Thank you for the feedback. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

right after I ec'ed with you. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 10:51, 9 August 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) 12:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)