User talk:Wikidemon/Archive 11

transclusion of a partial page
I'm pretty sure the the and/or tags let you transclude a partial page. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Question about NFCC
I stumbled upon this issue at ANI (though I didn't post anything), and am interested in helping fix all of Delta/Betacommand's errors. I fixed one at Claro Puerto Rico, but I was wondering if there is any centralized list for the removals he's done? (I'm asking you because I saw you interacting with him at either ANI or the Arbcom case, I don't remember which.) Thanks, LHM 23:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. As far as I know there's no centralized list, nor is Beta the only one doing these deletions.  For example, the last one who reverted this image was .  That's part of my concern, no easy way to clean it up.  The best method I can find is to use the "user contributions" to look at the edit history of accounts you know to be doing deletions and just get started.   You can do that 500 at a time from the link, and if you add a zero to the "500" parameter in your browser bar you can go as high as 5000 edits per page.  There is a family of use rationale templates for different common applications (logos, book covers, album covers, etc) and a master template for most logos.  I've created a couple multi-article templates that can save a little time so you don't have to cut and paste - Template:Non-free use multi (which works pretty well I think) and Template:Logo fur multi (which still needs some work).  I'd be careful with messages like "see templates above" because there's a chance those templates could change.  Also, do be careful to look at each image use.  Logos are obvious cases, but many of the images Beta removed should stay removed because on top of not having a use rationale they really don't meet the policy or guideline about acceptable use.  Others have a plausible rationale but it could be different than for other articles, not just a cut-and-paste.  Hope that helps!  - Wikidemon (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. J Milburn made much the same point about using his contrib list at my talkpage. Also, I found an image removal by Hammersoft at Wendy Thomas that was definitely correct. Thanks again for your reply and your suggestions. LHM 00:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that there are a couple discussions going on there - one is about whether she's notable or not, and the other is whether the cartoon image of her is viable, rationale or not. I'm undecided on both points.  - Wikidemon (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, her lack of notability based uponn WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED is pretty straightforward. And that lack of notability pretty much moots the other discussion. LHM 00:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could well be. I should write an essay on that --
 * WP:NOHYPO - don't fix hypothetical problems! - Wikidemon (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"santorum" consensus
Wikidemon, I've instituted a process to, hopefully and credibly, NPOV resolve remnant hotbutton issues and would appreciate any consideration you might care to offer as a prior contributor to that discussion. Any credible resolution will require significant editor input and your observations would be appreciated. Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I'll take a look. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course you're not an administrator
Just someone who's asking good questions on the most important pages on Wikipedia and happens to live in the San Francisco Bay Area. I guess User:Batman is embarrassingly taken. ;-) Randnotell (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Wikidemon knows how I did it, of course. Right?Randnotell (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama page
Lot of folks looking at and editing the Barack Obama page tonight, it's slowing the page down. But I'm pretty patient, Your Demondness. Randnotell (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Good work, Your Demondness. I'm guessing you removed my email address from the talk page, and I'd like if you'd go ahead and bury the email deep. We'll talk more tomorrow; for the next hour or two, I have questions to ask.Randnotell (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * One of them being, what is the "B" after the "M?"Randnotell (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Which doesn't mean just take the "B" away. Not for me. Get in touch with me somehow if you have to.Randnotell (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Fuggedaboutit, I'll just call y'all in the morning EST, around 8 or 9 your time. What's that, noon here? So I'll go to bed around 2, but I am taking an hour break in a while. The world and the Barack Obama page should be able to survive without me, now that we're asking good questions.
 * Get excited for my call.Randnotell (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Down boy down! I'm excited of course but I'm too sleepy to interpret all the coded messages.  If you know me you know I never answer my phone.  Wikipedia articles truly aren't all that big of a deal in the great scale of things, just a bunch of computer people playing around and it's just a hobby for me.  Could you email me or SMS or something?  Assuming it's night time in your part of the world, have a good sleep and we chat in the morning?  Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm in EST, so it is night time. But I can't text you if I don't have your number. But I'm happy to email you. But I'll probably just call you tomorrow your time.Randnotell (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, wanna know how I know I'm a better troll than you are? Because it's night time here, but it's daytime UTC. If Wikipedia articles aren't that big a deal, why are you looking at your talk page at midnight in San Francisco? Jimbo knows the answer, I need to talk to him.Randnotell (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a bunch of computer people playing around? You're good, Demondness. I just have to explain to you why that's the problem. It just may not be you I have to explain it to. #IntentionallyCryptic #SorryImNotSorry Randnotell (talk) 07:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As always, we'll play by your rules #sigh #knowsyoureright #alsoagoodeditor. I'm on Meta-Wiki now, get in touch with me there if you don't mind terribly.Randnotell (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Capt. Mark Kelly
Hey Mr. Demon, I'm trying to get in touch with Jimbo Wales regarding a possible venture. I know you say you're not an administrator, but as someone who lives in San Francisco and has spent a good bit of time on Wikipedia, do you think you might know someone who could get in touch with him? Perhaps this guy Herostratus or maybe [User:Batman|Bruce Wayne]? I've tried to send him an email and he just does not like to respond ;-) Robbie Ottley (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm still not good enough at editing. I keep forgetting that the text is first, then the article. Getting there. ;-)Robbie Ottley (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, Mr. Demon, just want you to know that editing Wikipedia is easy for me; as I think you know it helps me to relax. I am working on other things; since I'm at University I will always be a student first.Robbie Ottley (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know Mr. Jimbo personally nor have I ever shook his paw. Has he moved to SF with Wikipedia or is he still in Florida?  He does not have a discernible LinkedIn account & I don't know any among his scant 75 Facebook friends, so I think he is not a very socially networky guy.  I do have a couple friends who I am sure know him.  But why a venture with him?  He's started perhaps one of the most important sources of knowledge in the history of mankind and I don't think it's a fluke, he's a righteously wise guy in that way, but he doesn't have extraordinary currency venture-starting-wise.  If I had a great venture idea and I wanted to get it funded and spread, I might seek connections with guys like Peter Thiel or Ron Conway (who I also don't know).  - Wikidemon (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

final warning, stop your vandalism
if you think that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yelp,_Inc. has anything bad, feel free to edit it. stop your vandalism, otherwise, you will be reported for vandalism, and your account will be deleted. this is your final warning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.39.143 (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm.... May want to start with WP:WELCOME - Wikidemon (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

if you have a boring life, and you have nothing else better to do but to revert every article that you don't like, i suggest that you sit down, start to edit any "bad" articles that you don't like. you are welcome to edit yelp,inc, just stop your vandalism. i am sure that if you have time to revert non-stop, you should have the intelligence to edit that article, and make it a better article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.39.143 (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked for the article to be protected, after which I'll restore it to the earlier version.  I can and do edit articles to make them better, but my editing is not at issue here.  I've left a caution on the talk page of one of the IP addresses you've edited from.  The Yelp article like almost every other one can be improved, but not by repeating claims that it's an extortion racket.  Please don't add poorly sourced information to company articles repeating uncorroborated allegations of fraud.  If your edits are rejected per WP:CONSENSUS you're supposed to use article talk pages to make proposals and gain WP:CONSENSUS, though frankly, the stuff you're trying to add is already covered as well as it can be.  For this and other lessons on how to edit Wikipedia, you might want to start with some modest additions on uncontroversial topics.  There's lots of info at WP:WELCOME on how to begin. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikidemon, I've granted your request for semi-protection of the page and reverted to an earlier version without the disputed text. To the IP, this request was granted for a number of reasons: (1) the text added was not neutral, especially regarding the section heading; (2) the accusations made were not clearly backed up by reliable sources; (3) the text has been persistently added with no attempt to discuss the matter on the talk page, and (4) you appear to have edited using at least three different IP addresses. That last point may not be something you can control, if you log in via a dynamic IP connection; however, it's a concern that suggests page protection is a better remedy here than account blocking. Per the bold-revert-delete model for editing, the burden is on the editor wishing to make the change—your addition, in this case—to justify the change. The change has been objected to, so now you must discuss it before it can be added to/changed in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Lee Fang
Hey Wikidemon,

Regarding the edits on that page, the editor is attempting to add WP:SYNTH in the form of unrelated op-eds that don't even mention Fang to "disprove" Lee Fang's statements. Also, much of it is poorly souced, either to op-eds or partisan blogs like powerline. It's a clear violation of WP:BLP, but the editor continually re-adds it without consensus or discussion. See the talk page for futher details. Also, as a side note, this seems pretty clearly to be a sock, I'm just not sure of who yet. They registered a new account about a week ago and then hit the ground running on this article, edit-warring and quoting policy. I tend not to have the time for initiating SPI, but if you have any advice on that it's appreciated. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It isn't poorly sourced at all. All of the pieces there mention Fang or his work, which you would know if you had bothered to look at the sources. 2) It's not inappropriate to cite op-eds, depending on the circumstance. 3) I'm not a WP:Sock. Sigh. Starbucksian (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked in that much detail. I think I explained below what I think of citing op-eds, with my Noam Chomsky example.  You really want some third party corroboration that it's relevant and worth paying attention to, and BLP does limit the use of op-eds to try to source criticism.  Anyway, I don't have a lot more energy for this now... just be patient and keep up the good spirits.  In the meanwhile, I'm not a sockpuppet but I just bought a famous sockpuppet a few days ago on eBay.  You squeeze his mouth and he says dumb stuff.  - Wikidemon (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool! I'd love to get one of those. How much did it run you if you don't ask me saying? Starbucksian (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Some More Help Needed
Hi User:Wikidemon, would you mind weighing in on the Lee Fang page? User:Tommyboy1215 and I are having a hard time getting consensus with User:Loonymonkey regarding the response to Lee Fang's article about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Thanks! If you could recommend an administrator to help arbitrate, we'd be much obliged.Starbucksian (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the Lee Fang page!
Thanks for your help with the page Lee Fang! I'm concerned, though, about User:Loonymonkey being a WP:SPA Given that he only edits from the perspective of the political left and only on political issues, this definition seems to apply to him very well.

"'Evidence that the user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area, may suggest the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus. By contrast, evidence that a user is also editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral approaches, or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus, possibly with limited interest in pure editing for its own sake, is more likely to suggest the user has the kinds of concerns described in the introduction.'".

How do I go about tagging him?--Starbucksian (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, LM is not a SPA. I think what you're looking for is WP:POV.  However, opinions are mixed as to whether it's okay for an editor to display a personal point of view or not - the article shouldn't have a POV, and it goes too far if an editor is exclusively editing to promote their own views, but on the talk page everyone is free to say their opinion, and hopefully the best point wins.  You've got to be careful though because when you start looking at things through a liberal-versus-conservative lens you can become preoccupied with that.  On this particular page, the problem isn't really that Fang got criticized and called out on bad reporting that the article doesn't acknowledge, but rather that you need secondary sources that establish the context and importance.  Think of it this way, in reverse.  You know Noam Chomsky, right?  A complete confrontational liberal, he has lots of negative opinions about lots of people.  It would be poorly sourced to say something like "Noam Chomsky said X is an idiot" [source: Noam Chomsky editorial in Washington Post].  If we did that, five hundred or more articles would have to carry Chomsky's opinion of the subject, even if nobody really listens to him.  By the same token "Person X said black is white [cite person X blog].  Up is not down [cite article on color theory]" is classic WP:SYNTH, putting together two sources that aren't directly talking about each other.  On the other hand, "Noam Chomsky called X an idiot, and it caused a major public outcry" [source Washington Post news article describing incident] would be better sourcing, because it establishes the context and it also establishes that the incident is considered important enough by news sources to report.  I hope that's clear.  If Fang's reporting is shoddy or controversial, you'd want to find a non-editorial source that either comes out and says it (like factcheck.org) or a source that reports on the controversy.  I hope that helps.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. What do you think about the discussion I placed about John H. Hinderaker? Is that appropriate or do I have it wrong?

And also, would you please get involved in this? User: Loonymonkey is apparently trying to get me blocked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Starbucksian_reported_by_User:Loonymonkey_.28Result:_.29. Starbucksian (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill Ayers
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the 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 without further notice. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * That's not a legitimate response to a BLP reversion of a load of poorly sourced material. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul Krugman
I don't disagree with your most recent edit, but I'm puzzled at why you would refer to the sources as "unreliable"? I suppose I could see that claim for the NY Post, but for the Fin. Times? Or are you referring to the authors? Never mind, I think a comment of yours at BLP/N explains the rationale.. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Arse
It's actually much *less* civilized and refined than the American "ass". In British English "arse" always means "buttocks" (not specifically "asshole"), and because of that it's considered a much more transgressive word than the American "ass", which can also mean "donkey" even in insults ("dumbass", "stubborn ass", etc. are all references to the animal). I also get the impression that "arse" is almost a shibboleth in that, although anyone can use it on occasion and under provocation, people who use it frequently and casually are assumed to be low class.

There are dozens of English accents (and even more Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, and Manx accents), and only one or two are considered refined. One of my English friends explained the general British confusion at Americans thinking a "British accent" is automatically posh by asking me to imagine an Englishman who couldn't tell the difference between a Boston Brahmin accent and a rural Appalachian one, and constantly oohed and aahed over the sophistication and intellectualism of the latter. --NellieBly (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See arse and then buttocks (which seems about right to me, although largely unsourced - also quite amusing). In the UK, ass means donkey and would rate about 1 as an insult (scale 1 to 10). Calling someone 'an arse' is about 2. Calling someone 'an arsehole' is much worse, 5 or 6. Arse = ass-hole is just wrong. In polite conversation in the UK one would use 'bottom', 'backside' or 'bum' rather than 'arse'. (Apologies for the lateness of this: it has now reached ArbCom. The offended editor, User:Tbhotch, seems to be Spanish - it is of course possible that being called 'an arse' in Spanish is a mortal insult.) There is a very common UK phrase 'can't be arsed' (common since the 90s) which means 'can't be bothered' – a gross misuse of a noun in my opinion. Occuli (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration case
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In case you're back here, thanks! - Wikidemon (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ted Frank
Hi. The reason why some of the info about old trolling was removed was because I couldn't find any reliable sources which are verifiable to support it. If I could find solid reliable sources documenting him as a great big troll I'd readd the information. Doesn't surprise me that his article though is attracting some disgruntled individuals though.. .♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Mobilsouthwest.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mobilsouthwest.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview  19:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

KAlmihdhar.JPG
File:KAlmihdhar.JPG is tagged as non-free. Can you prove to me that this file has been released under a free license? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reverted my edit restoring the image - I was looking at the wrong image. I've also reverted another edit or two of mine restoring some images, I was too hasty.  Sorry.  - Wikidemon (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Accepted. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Investors are NOT in the secondary market
You asked me to put this in the talk section, which I've done. Please offer the counter argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 19:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Your evidence
You may wish to review this--Scott Mac 14:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

File:McKesson.png needs authorship information
Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:McKesson.png appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).


 * If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the own template.


 * If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV for Qian Zhijun
Since you participated in the BLP thread, the DRV discussion is at Deletion_review WhisperToMe (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC
Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. Be— —Critical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Non-free use multi
Template:Non-free use multi has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Fleet Command (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nfccremoved
Template:Nfccremoved has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum vs santorum
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Santorum vs santorum". Thank you. --The Gnome (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, Be— —Critical  22:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...
Howdy, I just have to say thanks for restoring my faith in wikihumanity. Based on your previous edits at Weather Underground, I was actually worried that you would erase my entire edit and yell "consensus" or pull out some vaguely appropriate WP, but instead, you made a meaningful edit and we combined to make it, I think, better. Thank you. It's been such a long time since I've made such an edit to a "controversial" page and had such an amicable editing process. (And, on that issue, I thought it a bit one-sided to just accept the pronouncement of Ayers that they didn't target people when another member said they did, which is why I think what I added was an appropriate counterpoint and addition to the article.) Thanks again. TuckerResearch (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Second Amendment
WD, would you mind looking at the last couple threads on the Second Amendment talk page? Maybe you can chime in, tell us what you think. -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Anchor baby
Hi Wikidemon, as someone who has been involved in this discussion before, I wonder if you might weigh in in the current discussions at anchor baby. Cheers,Cúchullain t/ c 03:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary
I just came here to say that while looking at a page history I came upon your edit summary of "rm impertinent apologetica", and want to compliment you for an edit summary that is succinct, communicative, and also hilarious. You made my Monday. -- Monk of the highest order (t) 18:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:In creation
Template:In creation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Anwar al-Awlaki
thanks for fixing that. the paragraph about prostitution and the booking photo have been delted/undeleted at least 3 or 4 times in the recent past. Decora (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20
Hi. When you recently edited Agritopia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neotraditional (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Obama

 * Hi. I have read your latest response on the Obama talk page and wanted to let you know that I have responded to it. Look forward to further discussion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.220 (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Dead link in article 'Acme Bread Company'
Hi. I tried to fix the dead links in 'Acme Bread Company', but there was one that I couldn't fix. I marked it with Dead link. Can you help fix the last dead link?

Dead: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-14890725.html Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!
 * You added this in September 2007.
 * I tried to load this link on 31 March, 3 April and 5 April, but it never worked.
 * I looked in The Wayback Machine and WebCite but I couldn't find a suitable replacement.

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words.
In this edit to Presidency of Barack Obama, you commented, "Removing notable, reliably sourced information from several different sections."

Thank you for admitting that the content is notable and reliably sourced.

781fcg (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I was teasing you and also teasing everyone else. They don't want me encouraging you, but nice to see you around.  :) - Wikidemon (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, thank you for saying, "He keeps a laundry list of derogatory factoids about Obama that's better written every time he posts that wall of text here."


 * I recently discovered this latest incident.


 * 982pka (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Notification of Admin Noticeboard Discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators%27_noticeboard/ regarding your recent edit warring and unreasonable deletion of well-sourced edits. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Noting for the record - the above was a ban-evading sock, here to settle some old scores over having been banned. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

My purpose
I have noticed several posts from you on the Obama talk page wondering about my purpose. I'd just like to point out a contrast; it may help you resolve the issue for yourself. I believe the Bill Clinton article does for the most part fairly summarize the controversies that engulfed his tenure. The article is a highly positive article, but I think that's fair, in light of Clinton's generally positive image and high approval ratings. My contributions to that article have therefore been limited to requesting corrections to a graph, deleting said graph when no one made the corrections, then thanking the person who reinstated the corrected graph. If you are so inclined, you can read about it on the Clinton article talk page.

The point is that I am quite capable of separating my own conservative POV from the question of whether a given article conforms to NPOV. I am not simply trying to push my POV all over the place; rather, I believe the Obama article does not fairly represent it, in contrast to the Clinton article, which does. Hence all the attempts at including a critical POV in the Obama article, with no corresponding attempts in the Clinton article. I can understand that if you believe the Obama article is balanced, you may find this frustrating. However, I hope the above can convince you that this does not represent a general attempt to circumvent Wikipedia policies about NPOV/POV pushing; rather, it represents a genuine difference of opinion about whether the Obama article is balanced. For another example of an article which is grossly unfair, we have the Dan Quayle article, so I'm pushing for some changes there, and so forth.William Jockusch (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Solyndra
I find it remarkable that you and I appear to be close to agreeing on something. Did you want to make a formal proposal? If not, I will, but I don't want to steal your thunder, and you are more familiar with the process than I am.William Jockusch (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably best that I make the proposal or we do it jointly, as I'm perceived as one of those "camping out" at the article. Nobody will accuse me of having an ulterior agenda to disparage Obama.  I just think it's a relevant and important (if not earth shattering) event in his Presidency.  I'm concerned about the tone of discussion in the RfC, though.  It's not very orderly right now, plus it's a weekend.  Things proposed on weekends are reviewed over a pint of beer.  Maybe wait a day or two.  - Wikidemon (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and make it, whenever you like.William Jockusch (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Nobody will accuse me of having an ulterior agenda..." - collaborator! Burn him! -- Scjessey (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrapping up H. Fineman Conversation on BLP/N
Hi there, I was wondering if you would be willing to respond to the more recent discussion at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. As I mentioned in my second-most-recent post in that thread, I think it is time for Wikipedians to come to a decision on the outstanding question, as it appears to be largely an editorial decision. I am going to refrain from this decision-making part of the process, as I have a COI and wish to respect WP:COI. Would you be willing to weigh in and help conclude this discussion? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hampster dance.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Hampster dance.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  00:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Politico has an article called "Solyndra controversy debate rages on Wikipedia"
Politico has an article called Solyndra controversy debate rages on Wikipedia. Brian 5527 (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Solyndra controversy article cleanup
I just did a bunch of work on this. I'd be interested if you'd take another look. Above is yet another Grundle sock BTW.William Jockusch (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Congratulations, you made the news!  Grundle would have too but it's a dirty word they probably didn't want to print.  Grundle and I are on good terms, he's welcome here anytime he wants.  He's actually a smart, articulate, funny, friendly guy (online - never met him in person), he just has a Wikipedia obsession like the rest of us.  I wish he wouldn't cause so much trouble, but I could say that about a lot of people I know.  - Wikidemon (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Grundle's username is actually a reference to Adventure (Atari 2600). He's actually mentioned twice in the Politico article - once for adding the info about the 4,000 jobs, and once for adding the info about the toxic waste. 871lacc (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,

the wub (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Articles for deletion/Barack Obama on Twitter
Since you thought that summarization of Barack Obama on Twitter is not appropiate for Barack Obama article, perhaps I am giving you some invitation to AFD then. Feel free. --George Ho (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of NULLINK
NULLINK, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:NULLINK and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of NULLINK during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Balance on the bin Ladin killing
I cannot tell if your second paragraph beginning with "There are various people and nations who support..." is a reply to my comment or somebody else's. If it's a reply to my comment, I don't think that you're adequately addressing my point. If it's not a reply to my comment, please disregard this entire post. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It responds to your point and earlier ones. I'm wondering why we cover reaction pro and con to various things the President does.  Of course Pakistan objects to the US going it alone.  So does Al Qaida, so do a bunch of countries.  Why are we covering reactions at all?  - Wikidemon (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, I don't edit this article very much and really don't care. I'm just saying that if there's a legitimate point regarding what happened, it's not what you guys are arguing about, it's about how it affects foreign policy with Pakistan.  And no, it has nothing to do with Pakistan objecting to the US going it alone, it has to do with the US violating Pakistani territory.  This is something that the foreign policy section doesn't even mention.  Anyway, I don't want to get too involved.  Hopefully, this post makes sense and it helps improve the article.  Good luck! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

John
Please read this thread (which refers to a discussion you were having with him) and do a sanity check for me. Am I wrong about this? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he's crossed the line from being merely misguided to being actively disruptive. He's been disrespectful and insulting, edit warred and threatened to continue edit warring, shows he doesn't really understand concepts of edit warring or consensus very well, accused the regular editors of bad faith (IDONTLIKEIT and "tag-teaming"), and resorted to sour grapes tagging and FA review when he doesn't get his way.  I wonder how he got to be an admin like that.  The only suggestion / improvement I can offer is don't be goaded into sinking to his level, and try to deescalate and ignore instead of escalating.  I closed (I hope) my participation on his talk page that we don't need to engage as long as the disruption stops.  It's as simple as that, if he can stop stirring up trouble we don't need to do a post mortem on how he got off on the wrong foot.  Unfortunately he doesn't seem to be showing a sign of stopping, making talk page accusations, being uncivil, proposing an edit that would take him to 3RR, etc.  If he does continue to edit war I'd probably take him to AN/EW before AN/I because the edit warring is an open and shut question, whereas a new AN/I report would be just another place for venting.  And keep yourself clean - no need to edit war in kind, let someone else revert any inappropriate or nonconsensus edits.  Don't give him any ammunition for his farfetched accusations.  - Wikidemon (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I only take exception to the FA review swipe. Pretty much every comment has agreed it would be a good thing, timing is the issue. As to the rest, I'm not sure he was aware of the sanctions at first, and no one is innocent of messing up. Me included. Arkon (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to make that accusation on his page or the article talk page (which shouldn't be used for accusations anyway), but since SCJ asked here and this is my talk page I wanted to speak frankly. It's pretty obvious that the FA review proposal is some kind of sour grapes or escalation on John's part - he's also threatened AN/I, RfC, and a whole bunch of other random lashing out.  That doesn't mean it's a bad idea, though, or that it's wrong to support FA review.  I don't know if we can get to John to calm down and take a breather, but to anyone who will listen, there is no hurry.  If a FA review, or the content he's proposing, or anything else, is a good idea there's no deadline and no reason to get into a fuss over it.  Just a simple question of whether it's a good idea.  - Wikidemon (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Mostly agreed, but as a rebuttal... It's been mentioned that it is 100 days to the election, what better time to make sure we have it right? Arkon (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Stanley Kurtz National Review article about Obama and the New Party
This discussion may involve you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&pe=1&#Stanley_Kurtz_National_Review_article_about_Obama_and_the_New_Party William Jockusch (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll vent there. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Frank Marshall Davis and Obama
Is Forbes a reliable source? Can a book be used as a reliable source? [http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/07/25/book-review-the-communist-does-frank-marshall-davis-have-an-ideological-godson-in-president-obama/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/2142-384-122 Book Review: "The Communist" - Does Frank Marshall Davis Have An Ideological Godson In President Obama? ] The book "Dreams of My Father" documents this relationship and the Obama campaign acknowledges that the "Frank" in the book is one and the same person in the article. Is there a factual dispute or do you merely need a better source? Fox News is a reliable source, and it calls Frank Marshall Davis a "mentor". WP enforces a "neutral point of view". If a notable book which has been reviewed by the mainstream press has a rebuttal as to accuracy, then the rebuttal should also be included rather than the source deleted. Redhanker (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about Frank Marshall Davis other than a few recent articles linked to from Wikipedia, so I have no opinion on the facts. The problems is I can't even get to the factual question without seeing some real sources that neutrally and authoritatively describe whatever interactions he had with Obama.  For now, there are only politically-focused accusations having to do with the US election.  Forbes is a publisher, not a source - see the very beginning of WP:RS where it describes what a source is.  The particular article, no, is not a reliable source.  It is a book review (and thus opinion) about a controversial book.  The book, Dreams for My Father, is a reliable source only as to the contents of the book, as it is a first person account.  However, an analysis of what the book supposedly really means is not reliable.  The Obama Nation is obviously not a reliable source.  Whatever Fox News may or may not be, The O'Reilly Factor interviews are not a reliable source.  Neither WP:BLP nor WP:NPOV suggest turning articles into accusation / rebuttal arguments about politicians.  - Wikidemon (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Except for...
Yes, except for, there's an argument on the talkpage whether or not "controversy" is an acceptable section title... :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited Market Street (San Francisco), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oscar Hammerstein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wikidemon!
Jill Stein, the Green Party Presidential candidate, has tweeted a link to my blog:

https://twitter.com/jillstein2012/status/237957623146745857

7f8s9vm3 (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2012 (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 19:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks
Admittedly, a difficult thing to do on political pages. Thanks. Settdigger (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll preserve this one for the record, but the ball has flown out of bounds, bounced through the parking lot and down the stream to the next town over. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
Dear Wikidemon, As requested, I've asked for dispute resolution in our argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Wikipedia:_Editor%20assistane,%20Barack%20Obama:%20talk,%20Barack%20Obama%20Presidency:%20talk

Thank you, Settdigger (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Obama
I am slightly confused by your prompt closure of my Obama entry on the talk page. Half of the discussion concerned what Michele called Barack's home country - not necessarily where he was born. Should I take this to the birther talk page? YankeeJeff (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

mail
Tvoz / talk 08:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Noticeboard
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YankeeJeff (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus
It has been asserted that you oppose this edit to WP:CONSENSUS. If you could contribute to the discussion at WT:CONSENSUS to clarify either way, that would be most appreciated. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:1906 San Francisco Earthquake survivors
Category:1906 San Francisco Earthquake survivors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat  (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Brandi Chastain 1999.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brandi Chastain 1999.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Writ Keeper's removal
User:Writ Keeper is removing Talk Page content under copyright issues on .61.245.165.22 (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Need your opinion on my editorial decision
Hi Wikidemon! I've made a decision to remove the image from Ghost Riding and would like the opinion of a much more experienced editor; plus, I noticed that you've also commented on the image. My rationale is that the Club Car is stationary. The steering wheels of most vehicles -- and certainly true for the model of Club Car in the image, which I am very familiar with -- will straighten out immediately upon release. I suppose this is technically OR, but do OR conventions hold for specific instantiations? How do we verify ANY image as real without taking an inductive leap, which could always be considered OR? Thanks for your assistance...174.114.30.214 (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Weatherbilllogo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Weatherbilllogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Rizana Nafeeks' Image
Since 9 editors including 3 administrators(including Jimbo Wales) agreed that the image qualifies under fair use, I have added back the image to the page Execution of Rizana Nafeek. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise removed it. There is a going on currently. Please let others know whether still you believe the Image has a Fair Use value?61.245.172.21 (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Marc Bodnick


A tag has been placed on Marc Bodnick requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Transcendence (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Transcendence (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Transcendence (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Transcendence (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Article notability notification
Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, GoGirl, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources:. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 01:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Introducing myself
Hi Wikidemon. I noticed you were active on the Yelp page and have an interest in venture-funded, Silicon Valley internet companies. I do a lot of work helping companies follow Wikipedia's rules with a focus on ethics. I'll be working with Yelp to help improve their page from Talk, so I hope we'll get to collaborate. My approach to COI is to leave all content decisions in the hands of editors that serve the reader's best interest, so you'll see me mostly just on Talk. You can see an example of my work here.

I'm also working with YouSendIt, which I thought might be up your alley. We should have a YouSendIt draft ready for sharing and feedback relatively soon. I may be surprised who comes out of the wood-work that may have the article watchlisted, but at-a-glance their article is a ghost town and if we could borrow you, I would be immensely grateful. We're doing our best to find a good way to incorporate this, but it's filled with contentious BLP issues that are awkward for YouSendIt to do themselves. So we'll give it our best shot and entrust the community to improve it from there.

Cheers! CorporateM (Talk) 16:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted at: Talk:YouSendIt if you care to join in. Cheers! CorporateM (Talk) 19:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Wikidemon. Just thought I would ping you RE the Yelp Inc. request. I don't mean to be so impatient, but only bring it up since you mentioned doing it earlier in the week. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 12:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of UFC gym


A tag has been placed on UFC gym, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Transcendence (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Transcendence (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yelp History
Hi Wikidemon. I was about to go through the feedback from Yelp's legal team, but I was hoping you could update the History section first so I could propose updates to the actual article. In the past you mentioned waiting to see if another editor chimes in, so if you like I can ask a couple editors for a second opinion. The Request Edit template doesn't really do much but add it to a largely-unwatched category for Request Edits that I myself often process.

Let me know what works best. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 21:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey Wikidemon. I'm working with Yelp on offering a second draft of the controversy that incorporates the corrections, but makes the section more concise and less defensive, so please feel free to ignore our Request Edit for now. On the other hand the Criticism of Reviews sections seems to be attracting some un-encyclopedic content sourced to press releases and just general cruft. I was thinking when we have a decent draft in place I might ping COIN inviting additional input and trying to get a few more watchlisters. The article seems to be a target for more of this kind of stuff than most articles I've worked on. In the meanwhile, I wasn't sure if I should just ping you or trust that you still have an eye on it. Sorry if I'm pestering. CorporateM (Talk) 00:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Wikidemon. I wanted to see if you would have time to review our second attempt at the legal controversy here. Naturally it's an area where those affiliated with the subject may have strong opinions/bias, and I definitely appreciate your participation thus far keeping us honest. CorporateM (Talk) 20:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll get to it sooner or later, pretty busy offwiki these days. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Barack Obama discussion closed by involved editor.
This template should only be used by uninvolved editors, you are an active editor on this discussion page, please self revert your hat. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. If you have something viable to propose for the article please do so. But discussing opinions that Obama is a terrorist is pointless. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Noam Chomsky is the 8th most cited source in the world, adding his opinion of Obama is quite viable. Your status as an involved editor excludes you from hatting the discussion. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. I'm not into procedure games, and I just did. If you believe in good faith that this has a chance of inclusion you're incorrect, but go for it. Just mind WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, as you are likely to run into a stone wall there. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yelp, Inc.
Hi Wikidemon, over the past few days I've made some bold changes to the article in regard to the lawsuits controversy which I've outlined on the talk page. I'd be interested in your feedback and suggestion for further improvement. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 21:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

New Article
Hi Wikidemon, I have contacted a couple of other active members of the Private Equity task force. I notice the team in general is less active. I would be grateful if you could take a look at my draft article User:IP7942/Business Angel Co-Investment Fund. I would love to get another POV and help shaping it. If you don't have the time is there anyone you could point me to who could help? Thanks in advance. --IP7942 (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=575695257 your edit] to Fleur de Lys (restaurant) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * {one source|date=December 2011}}

Gayot.com listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gayot.com. Since you had some involvement with the Gayot.com redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). The Banner talk 23:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop following me around.
It is getting rather annoying to see you following me around and restoring blacklisted links. The Banner talk 08:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are behaving tendentiously at this point, in Wikipedia lingo. You really need to think through why you are editing Wikipedia and your purpose here. You are on a misguided spree of mass content edits here, and they will likely be reverted wholesale at some point. For the moment, I am only dealing with the ones on my watchlist and related articles. You really need to stop. I just gave you a third level warning. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is you who should stop and get those links of the blacklist first. Disguising backlisted links by using nowiki is clearly gaming the system, so stop it. The Banner talk 08:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not discussing this in a rational or collaborative fashion. Better just cut it out. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Throwing in warnings and demanding things is also not rational or collaborative fashion. You are plain pushing your desired link in. Never got the idea of finding another link to prove the statements? The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 12:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are the one who is proposing, and making, disputed changes to many articles. Instead of actually discussing the matter with an experienced productive content editor like me you're pulling process nonsense, damaging the articles, making accusations, and spouting nonsense rhetorical arguments about why my position isn't just an opinion you happen to differ with but somehow improper and needs to be put in place. I run across editors with attitudes like yours every once and a while and it's never pretty. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Laughing is healthy, so thanks. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please refrain from edit warring and summary reversions to old article versions.


 * Yelp operates internationall so it is problematic to call it an "American company". See for example Facebook.
 * Social networking is a key aspect of Yelp. This is covered extensively in the article.
 * Yelp is internet based. This is a key aspect of its operations.

Please engage in discussion and let's make edits to improve the article instead of taking it backwards to an old, inaccurate, misleading, confusing and incomplete version. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ask yourself simply, are you going to stop reverting or are you going to try to re-add the changes you want to make prior to a consensus discussion? If the answer is the first, then you are edit warring and you have no business leaving me a nonsense warning like that. The correct procedure after proposing a disputed change rejected by another editor is to stick with the status quo version of the article, and hash it out on the talk page. I'm doing exactly that, and trying to get you to engage as well. Meanwhile, if you have any behavioral accusations to make, that's too bad, but AN/I is --> that way. I doubt there is anything to be resolved there, though. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted link on Frédy Girardet
As you've been told, the citation you've added is on the spam blacklist, so I've removed it. You can get your specific link whitelisted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Transcendence (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll re-add it. If you believe it is a spam link, please state your reasons on the talk page. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Transcendence (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, it's quite clear your citation isn't spam, which is why I'm calling it a blacklisted link and not a spam link. Transcendence (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Transcendence. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Frédy Girardet, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Transcendence (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks like an automated message. Thanks for the notice — best to talk about article content on the article page. Thx - Wikidemon (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * One pointless warning deserves another. Transcendence (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're admitting to being WP:POINTy here? I was just asking you to stop edit warring. If you have anything constructive to say I'm all ears - Wikidemon (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, this warning is not being "WP:POINTy" as I not disrupting anything. This warning is legitimately in response to your edits. "I was just asking you to stop edit warring." That was not all you did. There were quite a few more statements there. Transcendence (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Could've fooled me. Anyway, you can work on your parsing skills to see why "I was just asking you to stop edit warring" is responsive to an editor claiming they were giving me an (admittedly) pointless warning as a tit-for-tat response for my giving them an (allegedly) pointless one. This is getting really silly. You believe that a link should be removed from an article because it is on the blacklist, and you're ready to revert war to enforce your opinion. I'm asking you to discuss rather than to revert war, and in discussion I'm pointing out that your understanding of the blacklist is flawed. Simple enough. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, while we're quoting behavioral policies, take a gander at No personal attacks with regards to your statement, "you can work on your parsing skills". In particular, "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Transcendence (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, thanks, I've had my fill of retorts for the day. Any luck parsing that sentence? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh nice, claim that you had enough retorts and then make one right after; and again, blatantly violating No personal attacks by commenting on my cognitive skills. Excellent rhetoric. Transcendence (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But hey while we're commenting on the other person, I really think you should take a through look at No personal attacks. You have a full history of being making snide and belittling remarks. Transcendence (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So the answer is no? I thought not. Please, no mock offense. It's tired - Wikidemon (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mock offense? Let me put it in no uncertain terms for you. I am indeed offended. This is not the first time I have been on the receiving end of your little snide comments. And I didn't like the first time either. Transcendence (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh and before you decided to troll or something with "You mad bro?", the answer is yes. Transcendence (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thicker skin, bro. Seriously, thanks for the clarification. You've been doing some dishing here on my page and my intent was to respond in jest without escalating. How could anything I say credibly impugn your cognitive skills? I meant the "you can work on your parsing skills" in the way that someone might say "Reading comprehension, try it!" or "google is your friend". You misunderstood or more likely took out of context (hence, mis-parsed) something I had said earlier. I left a first level warning on your talk page for your 2RR removal of a citation and invited you to discuss the matter on the article talk page. My response to your statement that you were leaving a pointless warning on my page because I left a pointless warning on your page was to say that my warning wasn't pointless, I was "just asking you to stop edit warring". 'Just' and its cousins 'only' and 'merely' can be parsed in two ways. One is synonymous with the adjective "exclusively", i.e. that is all I was doing. The second, which is how I meant it and to my mind is the only consistent interpretation is a diminutive term, something like "not in a forceful or aggressive way, but in a mild or humble way". One rule about interpreting other people's sentences, borrowed from the law, is that if there are two ways to interpret a statement and one of them renders the statement incorrect or inconsistent, and the other makes sense, choose the interpretation that does not falsify the statement. In rhetorical debate, choosing the wrong interpretation of a person's statement in order to falsify it is something of a fallacy. I hope that's clear. I have no beef with you, and don't carry grudges — I don't remember a prior encounter — just somewhat annoyed by the idiot wind that blew through the encyclopedia a week or two ago involving a misbehaving anti-spam bot. I really don't want you to feel hurt, and you shouldn't. I'll keep in mind not to address you this way, and sorry to make you mad. Feel free to remind me, gently please, if I cross the line again. I'd rather spend time making people's day better, not worse. Could you please on your end give me credit that I'm actually trying to deal constructively with a process that I believe went out of control and did some damage, however mild, to a bunch of articles? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, you are indeed trying to fix this odd mess. I think we can put this behind us. Transcendence (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yelp, Inc.
Hey, I didn't mean to call you out or anything, btw. I was just re-reading my original comment and realized it came off a little brash. North offered to work with me on making it GAN ready. It would be great if you join us in hammering things out and getting it ready if you have time. CorporateM (Talk) 03:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo's tallk page
Eh, excuse me, but you do know that removing a post from someone else's talk page is a no-no? Coretheapple (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. Must be an edit conflict. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Please be civil.
Please be respectful of other editors, even when they disagree with you as I did on Ayers. Thx. SPECIFICO talk  18:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Bot Update
If the bot starts to try to alter the tags in any way other than update the links within the tag, let me know as that would be a bug. The bot should no longer be overly aggressive. The bot automatically removes no longer valid tags and marks them as resolved on talk pages.— cyber power <sub style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online <sup style="margin-left:-6.1ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Merry Christmas 01:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Cyberpower678
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

— cyber power <sub style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online <sup style="margin-left:-6.1ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Merry Christmas is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. — cyber power <sub style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online <sup style="margin-left:-6.1ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Merry Christmas 22:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks. Very nice! - Wikidemon (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy 2014 from Cyberpower678
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:gold; background-color:white; font color:gray; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

— cyberpower <sub style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online <sup style="margin-left:-6.1ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Happy 2014 — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

— cyberpower <sub style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online <sup style="margin-left:-6.1ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Happy 2014 00:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is BLP violations, wikilawyering, and tendentious editing by Tdadamemd. Thank you.  Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  00:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:LIP listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LIP. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:LIP redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg (chat) 16:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Mobilguidelogo.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mobilguidelogo.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Haz talk 03:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edits in Yelp, Inc. article
You keep adding back this statement: "The company uses a filter designed to isolate unhelpful, biased or fraudulent reviews." with the reference "CNN Money Sept 2013" there. This reference doesn't contain any of these terms: unhelpful, biased, fraudulent. In fact, this article doesn't mention the purpose of this filter, if you read carefully. So why do you keep adding this? In fact, these terms and filter description comes 100% from the company materials, and they keep the filter proprietary and secret. So we can't tell what and how does it do. No computer program exists in the world, that can detect "unhelpful", or "biased", or "fraudulent". Or do you believe there could be such program? And when I bring this section closer to common sense, you restore this marketing nonsense again. In fact, I was closely studying several cases when reviews were hidden by Yelp, and in most cases I couldn't determine that something was wrong with the hidden ones. So how come the program can determine this? Yurivict (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We should discuss on the Yelp talk page. It's filter system and of course the purpose (not the "alleged" or "purported" aim — that's not encyclopedic) is to separate the valid reviews from the invalid ones. This is pretty obvious, as there's no other real purpose for a filter like that. I've added a couple more sources out of many. The sources are generally not too specific about which reviews the filter is trying to find, but calling them "fake" reviews seems to be the most common descriptor even if it's an informal term so I've replaced it with that. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Purpose isn't that obvious. This is a stated purpose. However, there are a lot of allegations that they use filter to manipulate reviews. If this is true, the purpose of the filter would also be for the company to manipulate reviews. There is the record of them offering review modification for money, and they were sued for this. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Veterinary-Hospital-Sues-Yelp-for-Extortion-136018.shtml After looking closely at many reviews, I can (subjectively) see that this is likely the case. Another issue: wikipedia can't say something that is against common sense. WP:COMMON In today's state of technology, no computer system can detect "fake" reviews written by humans. Any reasonable person familiar with computer science would agree with this. Wikipedia can't just cite something that contradicts common sense, unless magic can be accepted as a normal, daily life fenomenon. Yurivict (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reputation and fraud detection are indeed a major application for computer software. Like other companies, Yelp uses a filtering system to detect fake entries. All of this is per sources. The theories and lawsuits alleging that Yelp is an extortion racket are well covered in a section of the article devoted to that. I don't really see too much point debating this here. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK  [•] 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tutelary (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI
I have expanded the request at Sockpuppet_investigations/Marcoa1000, make a comment if you feel you can add to it, but I think I have most of it covered, at least for these ones in particular. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Duckhorn logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Duckhorn logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yelp
I know this page has probably worn you out a bit. I myself feel like in the past my time has not been well-spent here, because even paltry items like the exact wording of the disambiguation page attracted edit-warring. However, the current page has actually degraded over time - some sentences are not even written coherently. And in the meanwhile, most of the editors that were originally involved have moved on, been banned, etc. and I think it is a good time for a fresh effort to bring it up to GA.

In the past your considerable subject-matter expertise has helped prevent me from facilitating potential COI edits accidentally and I wonder if you were up for giving it a second go at Talk:Yelp. user:Coretheapple has also expressed some interest and I think would have a strong personal interest in this section in particular that may even exceed my own interest (albeit we would probably both have a very strong bias on the subject).

It's a logistical nightmare trying to improve a large, developed article with 100 cites from the Talk page. Looking to whatever editor(s) choose to help for the process they are most comfortable with. CorporateM (Talk) 16:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Your edit suggestion on the president supported
Hi Wikidemon, Your edit suggestion of shortening the edit on the Barack Obama page for Healthcare looked good and I supported it by posting it with consensus from 5 editors. One editor has then called your edit "redundant" and against consensus. Could you take a glance at it. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Porn stars in mainstream
I've had the ref edits in progress for the last 2 hours, I'm working on sourcing every single one. Bear with me... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;"> 16:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm up to the H's now. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg 16:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps best to add them now to avoid edit conflicts, or put an under revision template on the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Tried the template, Squeak objects to that too. But now that others are involved, I'll save what I've done so far. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg 16:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently Andy doesn't like it either... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg 17:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Changing headers on AN/I
While I understand your frustration, please bear in mind that changing the section header to yet another new title breaks all the links to it (yet again) from the page's history and from individual users' contributions and edit summaries.

When changing the header for a section, unless the existing header is defamatory or otherwise egregiously objectionable, please remember to use an anchor template, so that you don't break any and all previous existing links to the discussion section. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that template. Thanks for fixing it. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Violation of talk page guidelines
If you violate talk page guidelines again, I will report the matter, and ask that you be blocked from editing. You do not have the right to insert material into the middle of an AfD nomination rationale. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * . Nonsense. I was about to leave a warning regarding your edit warring and attempted WP:OWN violation of a process page. My edit is not in any way, shape, or form, in the middle of your comments. It is a modification of a template / header area for the benefit of editors so that they can understand the nature of the deletion nomination, something explicitly endorsed by the talk page guidelines. You are at 2RR right now. I will restore it _one_ more time if nobody else has already, but to avoid getting into an edit war will not go beyond there. I can meet you at AN/I if you wish, and it will not look good for you, but I highly doubt anybody is going to be blocked over your petty process game. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Restore it and I will call for you to be blocked for editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to call for my block anytime. Looks like you were saved by the bell, though, the discussion was just closed as a speedy keep. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I did mention this exchange at AN/I. Not calling for your block right now, just consolidating the record. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy
When you open a thread about someone on ANI you must inform them as the ANI page makes clear. Or did you think you could discuss me in detail there without me even becoming aware of it? That is not how ANI works. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Flop noted. You're already participating in the thread. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That was cos I found it, sigh! But if I hadnt you guys would have been talking on ANI behind my back, trying to get me blocked without me even noticing. You have a charming way of doing things. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Paranoid much lately? - Wikidemon (talk)

How broad of a topic ban?
How would I word a topic ban proposal for Squeakbox? Tutelary (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't like to advocate for sanctions against tendentious editors. Not only does that stoop down to their level, but if you're WP:INVOLVED in a content dispute or the policy debate behind it makes it harder to reasonably judge what to do and creates an excuse for them and their defenders to attack the legitimacy of the proposal. Better any behavioral remedies come from an admin or well-respected editor who is not WP:INVOLVED in the content dispute or the policy question behind it.
 * The other issue is that until the RfC is decided we cannot conclusively say whether Squeak's content position will be vindicated or not. If it comes out that blue link BLP lists need refs in line then we're likely to have another issue on our hands for a while with rampant uncoordinated deletions until the community gets fed up enough to impose a process on it. If it comes out that blue link BLP lists do not need refs in line then we'll have to see if Squeak abides by the outcome. If not then surely he will be blocked or topic banned at some point whatever you or I think of the matter. This does seem to be a long-term pattern with Squeek if you look at the block log, so the prognosis for a change of ways is cloudy. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll just drop the idea, but he does really need to knock it off in my opinion. Tutelary (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Somebody already has. If he just blanks five or ten lists we can all deal with the aftermath when the RfC is over. If he's going to blank five or ten per day, or persistently goad the community, then for the integrity of the encyclopedia and its editor community I would tend to agree. But again, I would rather that decision be made by uninvolved administrators with some perspective and wisdom on how to deal with difficult editors. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

edit conflict)
 * I have brought this up several times. I would for any article that deals directly with porn stars (including lists, obviously), films/videos, and the subject itself such as the main Pornography article. Pretty much anything under the purview of the Porn Project. I would say that Human Sexuality topics that might tacitly be concerned with porn would be OK to edit during the ban. It might be worth mentioning BLP articles in general in case he goes after non-pron stuff next. My 2 cents... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure Squeak actually cares about porn, I think their BLP ambitions are broader than that and porn just looked like a good place to start. Or maybe they just like to play cop and harass the community and BLP seems like a worthwhile cause. I haven't looked at their editing history in detail and I generally don't remember these things long term, but I do have some recollection of seeing Squeak in a bunch of past BLP conflicts on various topic areas, or not isolated by topic. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=621867438 your edit] to Madison Young may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * php}date=August 16, 2007|author=Violet Blue|title=Madison Young: Bondage Model. Artist. Feminist } She has received awards for her bondage and suspension work and has been called "an auteur
 * No, sir bot, you are welcome on my page at anytime. Most helpful. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=622145156 your edit] to List of bondage models by decade may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * *Jewell Marceau (aka Scarlet Fever) cite news|publisher=xcritic|url=http://www.xcritic.com/columns/column.php?columnID=2446|title=

Speedy deletion nomination of Simon Oxley
Hello Wikidemon,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Simon Oxley for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. MaxineBangs (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, removed. Please be more careful next time. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Simon Oxley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Octocat. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Simon Oxley
Hello, Wikidemon. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Simon Oxley, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Simon Oxley to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, MaxineBangs (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Porn and BLP
You are included in ym request at Requests for mediation/Porn and BLP. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI
You're unfortunately on some kind of future hit list by one of your known "friends". Guy1890 (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a hit list, just a record of BLP violations. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, It does appear to be a hit list for some kind of renewed campaign against editors who dispute Squeakbox's unhelpful approach here, which is troubling. I believe this violates Wikipedia policy about using one's own to make personal attacks. I'll ask Squeakbox to remove it. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, he's already been asked to delete the page and basically refused. I wouldn't be surprised if he just deleted any messages from you on his talk page, as I think he tried to "ban" you from there recently in one of his edit summaries there. Good luck... Guy1890 (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm following best practices. Ban or no ban, if an editor is using their userspace to plan personal attacks on me, it is most appropriate and collegial that I give them a courtesy notice before any more formal dispute resolution. I'm not sure what the right forum would be, though, or if there is any. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Cavarrone 23:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

HW
He seems to be extra cranky today. In case you missed it before he deleted my comments, in the span of a day he accused me of making racists comments and that I'm a paid editor. This is out of character even for him. Its probably not worth the effort to reasonably "discuss" anything with him for a bit. He's been calling us both trolls for the last dozen or so edits. Par for the course... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw all that. Thanks for the note though. If you're not a racist or a troll, you shouldn't worry if someone calls you that. Best give him a little time and room to blow off steam. The social breaching and button pushing is unfortunate, but it's not worth the bother to engage with that. I'm gaining considerable respect for this editor. I can tell he's good, and taking pains to be correct and non-disruptive in article space even if I disagree with some. Even his less cautious compatriot, Squeak, has made some self-revelations (see his user page) about his motivations that reveal a genuine desire to help the encyclopedia and the world at large. These policy disputes only matter when they result in large-scale content degradation, or affect an article you're vested in improving. Otherwise, no point getting involved in a tussle just because someone's being ornery. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you miss the good ol' days?
Seems like only yesterday that a story like this would result in the creation of and ensuing battle over Obama coffee cup salute controversy. Tarc (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Jimboquote
Template:Jimboquote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Teleprompter. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)(DRN volunteer)

Gamaliel
Thank you for your impressive post at Arb, which expressed many of the issues much better than I have been able to. I think you got a bit weak-kneed at the end, though. Lithitman's evaluation of Gamaliel's "apology" is much closer to what I see than yours. He remains quite convinced that my inquiry of other editors about the sources was beyond the pale and deserved revdel. You don't want him to be the one asked for the second opinion on such a matter by drmies. And where is any indication that he erred in not responding to my demand for proof after he characterized what I had done as repeatedly, blatantly racist? Her apologizes to a lot of people, but not to me.

Of, course your comment on my talk page about fighting too many dragons may reflect your position rather than mine.

P.s. -- Calling Tyson "intellectually weak" is not my position. But treating him as the Voice of Science is partisan. Can I say that without violating my topic ban? If not, please redact this. Andyvphil (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Would be helpful...
Based on your post on BLP about the Gamergate thing you mentioned issues with WEIGHT and tone. I have been struggling to convince primary contributors there that there are problems with this in this specific area (well beyond the BLP aspect that was in question), but cannot get anywhere, they refused mediation and while Arbcom will consider hearing this, the committing is excising themselves to give the chance for sanctions to work. I'm only interpreting what you said you saw at BLP in that you are seeing similar problems that I see there, so it would helpful if you could explain at least what you think is happening here (or at the gamergate talk page, but be warned that stepping in there is very caustic, just-staying-under-civility policy, so you may want to leave it here.) I just want to make sure I'm not the only one seeing the problems with the current state of the article in terms of how WP should handle a controversial topic. Thanks. --M ASEM (t) 07:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Self-serving public announcements?
You wrote about this edit, "...repeating self-serving public announcements is not useful." In a free society, threatening journalists is a very serious matter. A journalist who speaks to the people issuing the threat isn't making a "self-serving public announcement." That person is defending free speech. Chisme (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I made several edits to remove public statements, which along with press releases, advertisements, and legal claims are not encyclopedic statements in nature about the underlying subject, nor is fact that someone made them of them usually noteworthy. There is a temptation to include these on Wikipedia, particularly when covering current events and controversies, because newspapers that want to find something to print without digging into a matter will sometimes repeat them. It's hard to say that one incident like this if isolated is relevant to informing a reader about the company. It's important mostly in that it is part of a pattern of other aggressive, over the top actions they have taken, and the corporate culture behind it. If the controversy worth mentioning here, the issue it is that one of their executives made threatening remarks about a journalist (and soon, that he was subsequently fired or resigned from the company), not either side's attempt at either editorializing or damage control. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding to my edit summary...
...Would not it be better to collapse a duplicate discussion as to allow for it to be linked if a potential second duplicate should arise? Dustin ( talk ) 19:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Did that 'exact discussion get cut-and-pasted from the archive? If not, I will revert you and collapse it to indicate tat it is a duplicate. In that event, linking the collapsed discussion may help to indicate that the issue has been brought up time and time again; else, my apologies. Dustin ( talk ) 20:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Userspace draft: Nigel Cayzer
Hi Wikidemon – I noticed you've been active recently on the BLP talk page. I have prepared a userspace draft for Nigel Cayzer, a British businessman and chairman of two London-listed funds. I have a conflict of interest in that I work for the PR firm Bell Pottinger and Nigel Cayzer is my client. I have disclosed this on my user page, on the draft article's talk page, and on COIN. There are a number of offline news articles referenced in the draft, which I've stored in their entirety on its talk page. I see you've created a lot of BLPs. Would you be happy to take a look at this draft? Thanks very much. HOgilvy (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Wikidemon – any chance you could take a look at this for me? Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

NPOV tag
template:pov requests "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." Obviously, the dispute on Anwar al-Awlaki is not. Would you mind self-reverting for now? Thundermaker (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please discuss whether or not there is a POV dispute to resolve on the article talk page. Out of respect I would not have removed the tag a second time if I had seen your comments saying that you had added the tag back deliberately. As it was, it seemed to me a reflexive move for process reasons rather than an attempt to actually deal with the article or whether it has any POV issues or any dispute over them. Having already removed it, the tag is inappropriately placed and hurts the usefulness of the article to the reader, so so there is no process reason why re-adding it in deference to the text of the tag, or the rash attempt of an editor to place it there, would be the right thing to do. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Global account
Hi Wikidemon! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Health, not just medical
About our discussion on organic food - MEDRS is the guideline for sourcing content about health, not just "medicine." Lots of folks who don't regularly edit health/biology/medical content, don't get MEDRS. I wrote an essay (drafty, needs lots of tightening), if you care to look at just the lead. It is here: Why MEDRS? Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Quora
Do you think we should just ask for a third opinion, or do you want to go ahead with removing per your comments, mine, and Tom Morris? <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling &bull; talk   17:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The content is obviously unsuitable so it's a process matter of collegial de-escalation. I think if we wait another half day and make an effort to find a couple things in there that are useful, well-sourced, and relevant that'll probably lead to a better outcome than confronting the editor. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds great! I tried to suggest a couple in my last followup on Talk. Thanks for helping, <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling &bull; talk   06:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chinese American International School


The article Chinese American International School has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:ORG and WP:GNG. NO good redirect target.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Uber regulation summary: help needed
Hi Wikidemon, I'm reaching out to each of the editors who commented on the "Request for Comment" at Talk:Uber (company) re: the Uber article's section on regulation and legal issues. As you might remember, editors were overwhelmingly in favor of splitting off that information into a new article, then summarizing in the Uber article. While the first part happened, there has been no movement on the summarizing and Regulatory opposition continues to grow and grow. To help kickstart that process, I've put forward a draft for everyone to take a look at that aims to cover the key details in a summary form: Summarizing Regulatory opposition

My conflict of interest means that it's best for me not to be bold and move this into the article myself, but I hope that it can at least be a starting point for other editors to work from. Would you mind coming back to the page to have a look? Craig at Uber (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Help with Uber's History section?
Hey WikiDemon, Thanks again for your help with the Uber article. Would you be willing to take a look at some new changes I've proposed to the History section? I posted them on the Talk page here, but I haven't had any luck with replies yet. If you have time, I'd love feedback. Thanks, Craig at Uber (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey WikiDemon, I wanted to ping this message, as I see you're still watching the Uber article and reversed a couple vandalism edits recently. Have you had a chance to take a look at what I suggested on the talk page? Thanks, Craig at Uber (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Tool for quickly reporting vandals
If you aren't using it already, consider enabling WP:TWINKLE in your preferences in the Gadgets tab. If you're on a user's page, there's an "arv" menu option that allows you to quickly report a user to WP:AIV which usually gets handled quickly. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 13:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Speakeasylogo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Speakeasylogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

When is the AN/I stalled?
When will it be legitimate to call "a stall? Deicas (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sorry
Template:Sorry has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

André Gayot
Instead of wasting your time with an edit war against a bot, you better try to solve the issues. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 00:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is in fact the first time that I have requested page protection due to a content dispute between a bot and a real editor. But as long as you do not put in the effort to get Gayot.com from the spamlist, this silly cat and mouse game will persist. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 00:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice way to poison the editing environment for no discernible improvement to the encyclopedia. Don't you have anything better to do than to harass good faith editors in stupid process wars? - Wikidemon (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just solve the issue at hand instead of fighting windmills. The article is now protected so you have time enough to file a request to get the link off the spamlist. If you refuse to do that (or are unsuccessful). the bot will come back and marks it. Nothing to do with my opinion, just a fact. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

As promised: "André Gayot and Wikidemon] op AN/I. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Incorrigible. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See and .  Nyttend (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding your edit summary — you've made a mistake, I think. It's not whitelisted, but simply un-blacklisted: whitelisting leaves it on the blacklist but allows it to be used on one or more specific pages, but removing it from the blacklist makes it available to go on any page whatsoever.  See my note at the whitelist talk page; it's possible that we'll have to restore it to the blacklist, but a whitelisting for Gayot's article will then be necessary.  Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NoelToy.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:NoelToy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)