User talk:Demong

Welcome
Thanks for coming. What's on your mind?

RfC
Thanks for your comments. You seem to be pretty knowledgable on the use of external links - maybe you could share your thoughts on another RfC I have also on external links here? Cheers, John Smith&#39;s 21:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the extent of my knowledge is no deeper than having read the policy. Although a link to geocities seems weak, on your RfC there are some very good defenses given for inclusion of an external link to the review itself, and I don't have the expertise to argue either way.  I don't think I can add anything, other than suggesting proponents find a better (primary?) source for the PDF/review. Demong 21:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks anyway. John Smith&#39;s 09:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow !
An objective observation in Matt Walker, the drummer. How refreshing! Thanks for being real and the notice about following the rules and guidelines. If anyone looks to the links given at the bottom of the talk page, it is quite obvious that there is reason to include the Nysted album in Matt's discography. Please be careful, when dealing with Walker, Sucherman,or any notable figures playing with Nysted these days, do to the fact that there are now more sightings of Nysted or accused puppets of Nysted than ELVIS ! (That is a quote I just read, I did not make it up.) There are people saying that Mr. Nysted has never even seen any of his Wikipedia adventures and everything about him, including his own user page. Everything here has been a fabrication and creation done by his minions, fans or friends. I read his google stuff and cannot figure much of it out but it looks interesting. I'm laughing because I live near some of his band "mates" including Walker and I might soon become the next "suspect." Good luck! 67.163.7.227 13:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

comment spamming by an IP
is spamming comments you made elsewhere onto my talkpage along with your sig. I'm guessing this isn't your IP unless you are writing to yourself above... just thought I'd let you know.--Isotope23 00:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just noticed they spammed it here too.--Isotope23 00:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ergh, thanks Isotope... 67.163.7.227, if you read this: I strongly recommend signing your comment when you quote other users; or if you don't, at least don't include their signature.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demong (talk • contribs), ironically... 23:34, April 28, 2007
 * No problem. The album being discussed in that RfC has a history of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and astroturfing associated with it here at Wikipedia.  I just want to make sure that your opinion, as probably the only actual neutral and uninvolved opinion given so far, doesn't get discounted because our IP friend is behaving badly.--Isotope23 13:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

... Hey! no worries Demong & sorry for spreading your seed with 0 trace of who I am. word. The people here are not very nice to us students of the wiki thing and they don't repect us as fans or whatever. Every person I know with an account has been banned or blocked! "We" .my friends and me. are doing a thing now on verifiable credentials (Wales thing)and why the schools won't let us use Wikipedia. It is rad with epic written all over it and spot on with the rest of the world on the net. I have been studying Brandt and Steadman here. Look out below. LOL ! I am going to show the Walker and Nysted thing to Brandt and Steadman. I did a search that's how come i got to Nysted from steadmena. Nysted is from around here before he went to Aruba you know and I saw his web pages. The kids here like his new stuff better than the old stuff. One older song kicks a..! Be safe and watch your backside. signed 67.163.7.227 18:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Gere
As a person who has been involved in the discussion of various rumors related to Richard Gere, I thought you may be interested to know that due to the unwillingness of FNMF to find consensus on this issue I have taken the discsussion of the Gere/Crawfod letter to the BLP noticeboard. . Please feel free to comment. Sparkzilla 10:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As you probably know I am trying to make a change in the BLP policy to make sure that editors like FNMF cannot abuse the BLP policy to remove relevant and well-sourced material on grounds of "sensitivity". I appreciate your comments on my proposed changed to the policy. The latest proposal is at the bottom of this section:. Thank you for your help. Sparkzilla 10:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello again! I still intend to stay out of it :)  I don't think this is a case of a flawed policy, but of (everyone involved, me included) allowing WikiLawyering in a discussion and thereby muddying it.  (By allowing, I mean responding to it, thus validating and perpetuating it.)  In the future, if I find myself in an argument that goes "It's against policy!" "No it's not, because of x, y, and z." "It's against policy!", I'll ask for a why but otherwise ignore the disruption. Wikipedia has no firm rules, and the spirit of the law is much more important than the letter. — Demong talk 19:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez
The military did investigate him: Aatombomb 03:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A smile for you too


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Regarding your recent edits
Hey, thank you for your active participation with everything, but what is your reasoning behind the massive changes you've made to the article? I'm not sure if it makes the current situation better, or worse. While it is apparent that Bus stop refuses to present any sources to support his arguments, and seems content to turn this into a finger pointing section with cries of 'advocacy!', I've always tried to handle the entire situation much more delicately. I was rather please with the current state of Dylan's entry description- it most accurately reflected the sources we have at hand. It seems that in his conversion, he was comfortable in enjoining the two spheres of his belief. His religiosity faded, but he doesn't seem to have renounced anything. I've seen sources which claim he still holds to Christian beliefs, and other sources which portray his beliefs as more ambiguous, and ultimately, a secret Dylan keeps largely to himself.

Therefore, it's only fair that we retain the clarifying statement (on Dylan's entry) on the List. I agree with your changes to the heading, as the previous one seemed a little bit unfocused. The controversial status accurately reflected the discussion at hand, but not the sources. Your removal of that is acceptable, but may cause problems. Thank you for cleaning up the references.

I think it would be proper to re-apply the description on Dylan's entry. I want to make it quite clear that we are only representing what is truthfully and accurately stated in the sources. --C.Logan 06:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was being bold and strengthening the article. I think all that hand-wringing is terribly unencyclopedic.  If you make parenthetic statements about Dylan, you're starting on a very slippery slope.  The note says he never renounced his faith... no one else on the list has such a note, does that mean they renounced their faith?  He is "comfortable" in both contexts... are the others uncomfortable?  Dylan is controversial?  The challenge is being made by an editor in the talk page, not by any reliable sources; why is it in the article?  Is he the only controversial one?  What does that word even mean?


 * If you qualify and apologize for everything, you end up with extremely weak writing. Sharp, unambiguous prose is most effective. If someone wants to challenge sourced statements, they need to provide their own sources. — Demong talk 07:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And why point out that his current status is disputed, when the lead paragraph says current status is not a consideration for the list? — Demong talk 07:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your argument makes sense. It seems, thought, that Bus stop could still argue his usual: that we're trying to 'promote' Christianity by including Dylan on the list.


 * I've seen very few sources which say that Dylan returned to religious Judaism, and the seem to be on Jewish sites (ironically, these sites seem to be the only support for Bus stop's argument... and yet, he can't reasonably use them because he has still refused to recognize Christian sites as valid sources).


 * I'm unsure how knowledgeable you are on policies and guidelines, but I'll assume you're more familiar with them than I am. Does Bus stop's accusation what we are violating WP:NOT hold any weight?


 * I'm not advocating any religion, just trying to provide an informative listing.


 * I do want to keep with the format shared by other 'convert' listings, and I also want to make it clear when an entrant has later re-converted (the list was in this form before the argument started).
 * For instance, Duleep Singh certainly converted back to Sikhism. I don't want to misrepresent anything here. As far as Dylan is concerned, the man is a riddle. I've seen little evidence in any direction; it would seem that he has preferred to remain ambiguous about the issue. --C.Logan 07:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Does Bus stop's accusation that we are violating WP:NOT hold any weight?" No; I don't think so, anyway. It's ironic, though. — Demong talk 08:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

List of notable converts to Christianity
The request for mediation for the above article has been rejected because one of the parties involved, User:Bus stop, would not sign to accept or reject mediation, so the request was automatically rejected after 7 days. Personally, I don't think that anyone is really interested in continuing the discussion much longer. Please indicate at Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity what you think the appropriate next step to resolve this matter would be. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 16:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I think the recent addition to the page might help resolve the dispute. We can hope, right? :) And, for what it's worth, at this point, I think that "in the interests of fairness" I will only involve myself in further discussion there to ensure that any changes he sees fit to invoke on one page be invoked on all such pages. John Carter 15:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, keep it up.
Just a brief note to say that Wikipedia needs more editors with no special investment in particular points of view, but an overarching interest in making sure all significant point of view are represented fairly, notwithstanding odd comments to the contrary. There are lots of us. Keep the faith [small ironic smile]. No, really: it's easy to think no one understands what you're doing, but many do. --Rrburke(talk) 01:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
A request for arbitration involving yourself has recently been filed. Please feel free to go to Requests for arbitration and make any statement you believe appropriate. Thank you. John Carter 14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Third Opinion
template:History of Manchuria is suffering from extensive revert warring, and discussion is heading nowhere. A RfC was filed, but was only able to get one outside commentor. Please provide a third opinion on whether template:History of Manchuria should be titled History of Manchuria or History of Northeast China to facilitate dispute resolution. Thank you. 08:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much
Vidor 17:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment on User Conduct - Matt Sanchez / Bluemarine
Hello, may I ask for your participation in an RFC established for user Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez? The reason for the Request for Comment is set out in the RFC summary here. Whether you support or oppose it, your input would be appreciated.Typing monkey 18:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group
Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page. Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Hey, I want to thank you for your input on the TST page. I basically gave up because i was bashing my head against a wall. I was wondering why you deleted your comments towards me and the seanbonner situation? Also you've got a good amount of arbitration kudos do you have any advice on how that situation on the page can be dealt with? Thanks again just for being reasonable

WHWonka (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC) 


 * Re: wondering about deleted comments. Because I don't want to argue with Sean any more. I do think WP editors tend to be clannish (see WP:IGNORE), common sense is okay in many situations (see WP:COMMON), and demanding that newbies jump through particular hoops seems to me like an intentional attempt to baffle and repel (see WP:DONTBITE). He does seem to be "guarding" the article (see WP:OWN). There are various options for dispute resolution, which I intend to pursue.


 * Don't give up. Thanks for the goat. — Demong talk 09:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The responses you got were precisely designed to get you to give up. It's too bad they worked. — Demong talk 23:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The Satanic Temple
Please don't wp:edit war. If a discussion is open, content needs to remain in place (unless it's a significant policy violation, of course) until wp:consensus is reached. Yes, wp:policy is often arbitrary and often open to interpretation, but it's the only thing there is. It's likely been that way for awhile, so probably best not to expect quick results.

If you want to get it changed, please consider discussing it on the wp:Village pump. Unfortunately getting things changed around here is like elephant reproduction... Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * An edit war, by definition, involves two people. You did not put this request on the other user's Talk page, and haven't done anything but support him on TST's Talk page. — Demong talk 00:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Surly, you can adhere to wp:BRD? The content is under discussion, you need to reach wp:consensus before reverting. May I suggest you read wp:Tendentious editing. Two mentions of pseudonyms makes for "repeated parenthetical notes about pen names"? You are also making vague complaints on talk:The Satanic Temple. Is that intentional? From reading your talk on TST, it sounds like the organization is being slandered. I don't see that. Jim1138 (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD says, "In general, BRD fails if... a single editor is reverting changes and exhibiting other forms of ownership attitudes"; three mentions, including one in the first paragraph; my complaint is extremely specific, and includes detailed arguments and references to Wikipedia policy; and this conversation is misplaced, please stop trying to bully me. — Demong talk 19:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The Satanic Temple. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Seriously, please stop. — Demong talk 21:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel harassed. (I did not edit the article in between Jim's previous Notice comment and this one.) — Demong talk 07:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * : — Demong talk

to
 * : — Demong talk

—Anomalocaris (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Done. — Demong talk 08:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

How should The Satanic Temple be labeled by the lead sentence of its article?
Hi Demong. A courtesy note to let you know I have closed an RFC you initiated, at How should The Satanic Temple be labeled by the lead sentence of its article?. Apologies for the delay, I have been working through the backlog of closure requests. Kind regards, Fish +Karate 15:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)