User talk:Demiurge1000/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
About your comment on Bangla Wikipedia survey post
Hi Demiurge1000, I have seen your comment on the signpost report on Bangla Wikipedia readers survey. I am intersted to know the user who expressed his/her feelings that way and would like to find out more if I can help. Could you please introduce me to him/her? Apperciating your help, thanks! Tanvir Rahman (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm afraid I don't have any direct contact with them. For similar future queries, I will also suggest that they ask on your talk page, if that's OK? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
GOCE news and September drive invitation
Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors
 The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events:
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC) |
Orphaned non-free media (File:Amy from The Monroes.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:Amy from The Monroes.JPG. 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) 04:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nice! And all thanks (mostly) to Crakkerjakk! Now we are all just a little more WP:VEGAN :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It's nothing personal. I also used the same image to replace a non-free cast image that I, myself uploaded for The Monroes article. All indications are that the replacement image was distributed to the media and without copyright notice prior to 1978 for the purposes of publication. If I thought there was anything "dodgy" about the copyright status of the image, I wouldn't have replaced the non-free image I'd originally placed on The Monroes page either. Whenever I add a valid image to Commons, I always check to see if there are non-free files that it can be used to replace (including, but not limited to, non-free images I've uploaded myself). It's not any reflection on which image I think is "better". It's simply a case of Commons images that convey the same essential information (when available) are viewed as preferable to non-free files. The reason I replaced this particular non-free image in the Tammy Locke article was that I've seen this type of rationale used for non-free files in the past and it never holds up as a valid rationale for use in biographies of living persons. I actually agree with the basic argument of the rationale – an adult photograph of a former child actor from 30 or 40 or 50+ years ago simply does not convey the same information that an image of the subject as a child would – however, this is not viewed as a valid rationale for the use of non-free images in bios of living persons. You can feel free to revert my edit to the Tammy Locke page, but I believe that if/when an admin eventually comes across this file, it will almost certainly be nominated for deletion (unless the subject passes away in the meantime). Again, it's nothing personal, I just simply believed it was best to swap the non-free file for a valid Commons image before it was nominated for deletion. If you believe the non-free file can stand up to an eventual nomination for deletion, then don't let me stand in your way. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, no, you misunderstand my slightly tongue-in-cheek edits - there's no problem at all. I've never been quite 100% happy with the quality, nor the fair use status of the child actor image of Locke, so your alternative image saves me from having to work out what to do about it. Having said that, from my point of view it's a valid instance of fair use under the policy - it's not necessarily the case that it would've been immediately nominated for deletion "when an admin eventually comes across this file". I've been using Tammy Locke as an example page when teaching new editors referencing and such (and sometimes even fair use image policy!), so it's been seen by hundreds of admins.
- Conversely, I do still regard the replacement image as "dodgy" - new editors regularly offer me former publicity shots accompanied by the claim "it's not copyrighted!", but I have never assisted or encouraged use of these as "free" images. There's not only the rather obscure nature of the claim of being "free", but also the limitations that prevent such images from being used on large numbers of major other-language versions of Wikipedia. Incidentally, the German Wikipedia seems to have an article about Locke but not about The Monroes; their Locke article, of course, uses the properly free photo of Locke as an adult, but neither the fair use child actor image nor your replacement for it.
- The publicity photo replacement is a nicely detailed high quality image. In fact it's quite possible that Locke herself sent me a copy of it when I was creating the article, under the "I'm sure it's not copyrighted!" viewpoint. I'll ask if she has any more that might be useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. I thought you were being sarcastic when you cited the Vegan parable, so I misunderstood your post. It's true these types of Commons images cannot be used on several wikis that don't recognize the rule of the shorter term (including the German wikipedia), but on Commons, the status of this type of image is clear. The documentation provided for this particular image shows that it was distributed to The Chicago Tribune sometime between 1966–1967 for the purposes of publication (a very different thing than a studio image from a former child star's "personal collection"). You may believe that this is "dodgy", but there are featured publicity images on Commons with much less documentation than this one. I'm actually surprised to hear that hundreds of admins saw the fair-use image and it was never removed. Like I said - I actually agree with the "former child star" rationale (and I even defended other editor's use of the rationale in the past), but I've never once seen it stand up to a nomination for deletion and the images inevitably end up being removed, without exception (again, unless the subject is deceased). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where 'a studio image from a former child star's "personal collection"' comes from, as there are no images of that nature involved. Anyway, I don't use promotion processes on Commons as the arbiter of whether an image is as freely licensed as I'd like it to be. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
My RfA
Thank you for participating in my RfA. I really appreciate your insight. As an aside, I've never been aware of the adoption subpage you linked to, but now I'm very curious to see how much policy knowledge I really have. I think I'm going to take some of those tests and see how I do. It might help me in the future.
Anyways, take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, and I'm glad you're making constructive use of criticism. One thing to keep in mind is that the adoption course is far from being a guide to everything an RfA candidate would need to know. In fact, it's quite a struggle just trying to give a reasonable overview of things an ordinary editor might need to know. So always be aware there's a lot more hidden nuances out there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Schoolboy
Like all too many of your fellow editors you appear to be the 6th form prefect wearing all the badges (easily earned with so much spare time) while behaving like a 4th form bully. There are decent, balanced editors out there without self esteem issues. You, sadly, are not in their number. The sooner you and your kind are located and removed.. the better for Wikipedia. In the meantime, pop down to the "a life" store and get one. All the time you spend on Wikipedia. Your life really must lack color. Orbiston (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ha, we might have to keep you around, you're kind of cute. Do please let me know when the book comes out; judging by your performance so far, it should be an absolutely fascinating read ;)
- A little tip for you. Google "wikipediocracy forum" and you will find some people who share a great many of your views about Wikipedia. (Some of them are writing books about problems with Wikipedia too, and are happy to share parts of the research process.) In particular, there's a discussion thread right now entitled "On the moral bankruptcy of Wikipedia’s anonymous admins" that covers issues that seem to be close to your heart. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello.
Remember me? Puppyonpedia. think its funny to ban me? you jerk. duck you. have fun in hades — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puppupup (talk • contribs) 21:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Puppy! How are you? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the action you have taken over this article. I had expressed my concerns here, but you have taken it where it needs to be. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. I'm slightly puzzled by it appearing in an apparently respectable magazine if it's entirely a hoax, but either way it looks to be one of a not uncommon class of WP articles that ultimately don't meet WP:GNG. Odd that the entrepreneur hasn't turned up at the AfD, though! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering what to do about Dan Roodt, but I see you've been cleaning it up a bit - thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, seems to have plenty of eyes on it now. (Or indeed, has turned into a bit of a battleground, albeit a small and polite one.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Trainers
FWIW throughout my 30-year career as a lecturer in undergrad and graduate schools, when asked about my job, I have always referred to myself as a teacher trainer. I feel the word instructor in a CVU/Wikipedia context could evoke some notions of responsibility or authority, which here of course is not the case. There are of course many uses of the word 'instructor' such as in driving instructor or flying instructor, but where at Wikipedia there is an extreme effort to avoid injuring sensibilities or giving a false impression, I often thought the word 'coach' to be more apt - but then there would be sure to be some who would confuse the term with long distance travel in the same way as those who would not understand the role of running shoes when learning to revert vandalism. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think the concern over "trainer" was more just an attempt to check out every possible flaw before going ahead with an idea, which is perhaps no bad thing. "Coach" is indeed a potentially useful alternative. There's always the risk of baffling people with unnecessary levels of complexity - it remains something of a mystery to me why I'm sometimes "mentoring" an editor while the activities involved in doing so are exactly the same (excepting a few userboxes and sign-up pages) as when I'm "adopting" an editor. I guess the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy, but there's always at least some sort of useful activity behind all the labels. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
BLP/N
Hey Demi! I've been working at DRN for a few weeks and have found BLPs to be my niche. I see that you are quite active there. Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with BLP issues from your experience? Also, is there a volunteer sign-up page (we have one at DRN)? Thanks, Electric Catfish 23:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC).
- Here are some suggestions that spring to mind. First, consider the section "A thought on articles that mention living persons" on my userpage. Keeping that in mind, it's best to take the view that we err on the side of caution, i.e. against including negative information about living people unless it's solidly sourced in multiple properly reliable sources, and it's relevant to a properly written biography of the person. WP:UNDUE often applies in that context. Often people will disagree - don't edit war with them, just take it back to BLPN - but a careful reading of WP:BLP (which is the relevant policy) really does support that approach.
- Also keep WP:DOLT in mind. (I have zero tolerance for legal threats, so often the threatener gets blocked but the material to which they object gets removed anyway. We don't keep negative material about someone on Wikipedia just to punish them for being an unpleasant individual, whether in real life or on-wiki.)
- On the subject of sources, it's fine to source trivial positive facts like "X won Y prize" (assuming it's not a booby prize) to things like The Daily Mirror, but it's not fine to source negative BLP information to such sources. Again, you will find people disagree with this, and want to use celebrity gossip rags (mostly online) for negative material about celebrities. But they shouldn't. Just because something is true and widely reported, doesn't mean it's appropriate in an encyclopedia.
- First case study is Ina Garten - take a look on the talk page and its history, and the article history, to see the consensus on what is not going to be included (unless it somehow becomes a far more a significant part of her career than it was.)
- Second case study is this. Read the source, and work out why the edit is not just irrelevant to her career, but also substantially misrepresents what Penny actually says in the source itself, even though it quotes her directly. There's a lot of subtle misrepresentation like this that goes on, and it's worth re-reading WP:SYNTH (particularly the examples, which are rather good) to see some sorts of synthesis that are not acceptable.
- Personally I watchlist almost everything that comes up at BLPN, because if it's been an issue once then it will probably be one again. (After the semi-protection wears off, or whatever). An exception is that anything that already has more than a page of discussion at BLPN, probably already has enough eyes on it. (Often a debate about someone's religion, race or ethnicity.)
- That's some thoughts to get started - there will probably be some more when I get some more time.
- I'm somewhat active at DRN, but never saw the point in the sign-up pages, so haven't signed up. I don't think BLPN has anything similar, probably for that reason. There are some lists of pages to watchlist, somewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
GOCE September activities
| Reminders from the Guild of Copy Editors
A quick reminder of our current events:
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC) |
Thank You For Contacting Me With The Writer's
You were helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- No problem! I'm glad that you have raised these issues about who wrote what about Zeus, because it does seem that some of the material on Wikipedia about the subject is indeed incorrect. And therefore needs fixing! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Honestly I believe It's true. Because more then one person said it. However this is not heard of to most people. So I think that someone should give me the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 18:39, 2 September 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:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
--The Olive Branch 18:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi
Thanks for the message on my talk page, Pbl1998, Adam mugliston and I have all been trying to calm the situation between us and Charles. We (Pbl1998, Adam and I) have decided the content on the project is fine but Charles seems to not stop until he gets his own way, Many thanks-Willrocks10 (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited First Great Western, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ATP, AWS and West Midlands (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) 17:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Original Biography of Ch. Om Prakash Chautala
Hello Demiurge1000 I have edited article "" OM PRAKASH CHAUTALA"" twice, but my content were removed by wiki. The biography which was addede before 9th sept 2012 for article "" OM PRAKASH CHAUTALA"" was totally fake. Supremo Om Prakash Chautala is the very famous name in my country. He is my Grandfather in relation. What ever contents I provided yesterday or today was correct. you can check my own website, which i have launched for our political party, i.e. www.joininld.com My Name is Man Mohan Deswal, domain www.joininld.com is registered on my name , can check on www.who.is or if you want take content from my website and display for ""Om Prakash Chautala"" if you allow me to change the content again , then please give me the right procedure.
with regards
Man Mohan Deswal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manmohandeswal (talk • contribs) 09:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a place to post original or official biographies of people that you know. The place to post the official biography is on your own website.
- Also, you cannot copy and paste information from another website (even if you own the website) directly to Wikipedia, as you have done, because the copied text does not meet Wikipedia's license requirements.
- Finally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so articles must be both neutrally worded, and backed by citations to independent reliable sources (for example newspapers). Language like "so as to provide justice to the people" is not neutral.
- An example of an article about an Indian politician that meets Wikipedia's guidelines is Rajinder Kaur Bhattal. Note in particular the use of inline citations, and the contents of the "References" section. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
GOCE mid-drive newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors September 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
>>> Sign up now <<<
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
Dacians
Hi Demiurge1000. Wow, what a job that is! Would you like me to archive the GOCE request for it now, or is it still active? Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ha, yes, I discovered there was a reason other copyeditors had been avoiding it for months :) Yes, still active, aiming to finish by the end of this month. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
GOCE September 2012 drive wrap-up
| Guild of Copy Editors September 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up
Participation: Out of 41 people who signed up this drive, 28 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing July, August, September and October 2011 from the backlog. This means that, for the first time since the drives began, the backlog is less than a year. At least 677 tagged articles were copy edited, although 365 new ones were added during the month. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2341 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 54 requests outstanding before September 2012 as well as eight of those made in September. Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the August 2012 competition, and prizes will be issued soon. The September 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The October 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
|
ANEW
I am confused by your statement "You've brought a great deal of disappointment" at ANEW. I was against semi protecting and for full protection, and even for giving a strong warning where the vast majority of admins would have simply blocked on site. I have no idea how I could have been more understanding, more patient, or could have assumed "more good faith" in this matter. If anything, Huge's reaction might have demonstrated I assumed too much, as he didn't seem to get that his actions were wrong, necessitating a very strongly worded final warning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think that was probably an over-reaction on my part. Rightly or wrongly, I felt that a block was the only appropriate response, given the editor's behaviour. Fully protecting the article only brings a halt to the editor's behaviour if that's the only article he edits. But in fact, he's very busy at other BLPs, in fact he appears to mainly edit BLPs. And he's using exactly the same style of edit summary on those other BLPs that he used when reverting the problematic material back into the Berrios BLP ("restore neutral content from verifiable, reliable cited source" crops up many, many times just in the most recent page of his contributions).
- I also wonder what the solution would have been if I hadn't reported him at WP:ANEW. Maybe Orlady would have been expected to edit war with him just to get the problematic material out of the BLP.
- Maybe your strongly worded warning will be all that it takes, and I'm just too cynical. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I completely respect the fact that you have concerns over my handling. Blocks are cheap, and like I told him, he has used up his "one free" for a while. I tend to think his faith was actually good, even if his execution was completely lousy. I didn't like the semi-protection, which favored him and not the IP, but someone else full protected before I could. All of us can get too emotionally and screw up every now and then. He has been here a long time without incident, enough to earn one "get out of jail free" card. He has now used it. Since this behavior was out of character, so unusual and perhaps fueled by an unreasonable IP, I would rather try to not block him this one time and just see if a strongly worded warning and a little cooling off time will fix it. No one with a clean block record wants a block. Sometimes, once they have been blocked, you no longer have that carrot to hold over them and they feel like there is nothing to lose, so blocking often has the opposite desired effect in edit warring. I try to use blocks sparingly where it is at least arguable that their intentions were honorable. And it is always fine to disagree with me, I'm not the law here, just the janitor, and no matter what I choose, someone will disagree. So I just have to follow my best judgement in each case. I might be completely wrong here, but at least I know (we know) that we tried to solve the problem without being heavy handed, and if it takes blocks next week, he will have no one but himself to blame. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for the very late interjection, but looking at the state of the article now, it's basically a moderately well disguised hatchet job, that also seems to have large amounts of WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING. This is a mess that will take quite some time to sort out. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Regarding article " Om Prakash Chautala"
Respected Demiurge, Good day to you. Thanks for helping to improve the article "Om Prakash Chautala" but some material was improper like ref. JBT scam... I have removed it by editing the article. This ref is not fair... Chautala Ji is a very very kind, helpful, fair personality. He is clean from all kind of scams. He is most famous and coming CHIEF MINISTER of Haryana(INDIA) Plz help me add his image on article. I don't know how to add image on article. I have created image article "Ch. Om Prakash Chautala". There you can find Chautala ji image. Plz insert that image with article "OM Prakash Chautala" I'll be very thankful to you with great regards INDILEOS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indileos (talk • contribs) 03:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- First of all, if I may correct your mode of address; I am not respected, I am in fact sleaze boy. Hope that's clear :)
- However, the article does not belong to you or your family. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its contents are freely licensed.
- Please read my reply to "Man Mohan Deswal" further up this page, for more information.
- I have also replied to an email from either you, or him, about adding a photograph of the person to the Wikipedia article. However, I received no reply to my email. Please email me again if you have an image of the person, and you also own the copyright to that image; or if the person who owns the copyright is willing to freely license that image. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!
- Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
- Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
- Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
- You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).
If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
- A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
- Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
- Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
- When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks again, Ocaasi! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar |
| ... for the great work in copy-editing Dacians. Thank you! Codrin.B (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks Codrin! It is fascinating stuff, I first read about the Dacians (or their precursor tribes) in Herodotus when I was very very young. Please do keep on with the efforts to fill out all the missing sections of the article! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Regarding article " Om Prakash Chautala"
Hello Demiurge1000 this article belongs to me and to my family, thats why i am trying to make it 100% accurate. whatever i have added or edited in this article is completely genuine and accurate. Please help me to make the article more genuine. regards Manmohandeswal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manmohandeswal (talk • contribs) 09:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- See reply to you or your friend, further up this page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
September 2012 copy edit backlog elimination drive barnstar!
|
The Working Man's Barnstar |
| Thanks for participating in the September 2012 backlog elimination drive! For copy edits totaling more than 8000 words (10,942 to be exact), I hereby present you with this Working Man's Barnstar on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors. We look forward to your help in November! —Torchiest talkedits 16:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks Torchiest! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The barnstar :)
Dear Demiurge1000, I really appreciate your note. Thank you so much! heather walls (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, you have put a lot of work into this, and a few too many times I have played the role of the angry cynical software engineer :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Accusations of lying
Dear Sir,
To me it is a serious thing to be accused of lying repeatedly on multiple pages for a silly mistake I made because I am new, not good at formating when I'm upset, and didn't realize that the word "diva" was not allowed to be used. I didn't personally attack anyone, but was accused of attacking a whole "class" of people because I used the word "diva". Then I was accused of intentionally removing a link for "Puritanical" reasons when I was just trying to copy it. But it's hopeless. I understand that now. Respectfully, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Matthew, sadly here on Wikipedia there are some cliques who like to look after each other "come what may". Your best way of dealing with that? Find a topic area that they're not involved in, and work on articles there. If you stray into their topics they will not forgive you for that, so it's simpler just to steer clear. I hope you'll stay with us.
- No, I don't understand the "diva" thing either. But I do know there are a lot of them around. See also WP:DIVA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The image you added at WT:RFA
Could you please consider reverting this? I don't think it's very helpful, truthful or otherwise. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- As I've said to you off-wiki, I think it's very truthful. I've removed the patronising material posted here by someone who should know better, and he can perhaps refrain from commenting on my actions until he understands them. Should I go to great lengths explaining them, one thing at a time, by email or something? I'm sure my patience might one day extend to it, if my schedule allows enough time for it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nevermind if there are straw man arguments or not, calling the thread out about it in such a manner is just apt to inflame things further, which is particularly unhelpful when so many folks do not know better. More constructive might be to either try directly to get folks back to reasonable arguments or just get them to back away and leave the entire thing, since it ain't going anywhere pretty, though at this point I'd suggest you do the latter as well. -— Isarra ༆ 07:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Leave the entire thing"? This is my user talk page, and it's you guys - several of you! - who are coming here spouting bullshit. If you want to "leave the entire thing", it shouldn't be so very difficult for you to work out how to do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've removed the image - it was clearly inappropriate and you should know better. Dougweller (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nice piece of censorship. Congratulations. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Putting that picture up was not only a personal attack, but it was beyond immature and inappropriate. Not admitting to the fact and self-reverting was doubly so. And Dougweller is quite correct, you most certainly do know better. Trusilver 04:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- On whom was it a personal attack? Have you actually read the thread? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Well it looks like you haven't, so I suppose I will have to read it out to you. One little piece at a time.
Kudpung started a new section at WT:RFA, in which he said "Particularly interesting in the light of some suggestions that RfA voting should be restricted to admins only... a staggering 40% of the supporters are sysops... If this is a new trend, it's a very welcome one, and RfA might indeed be on the way to recovery". (He also mentioned that it was encouraging as a possible indication that fewer admins were inactive.) He did not suggest that he thought that RfA voting should be restricted to admins only, nor did he put that forward as a proposal.
Less than two hours later, Kudpung clarified what he meant, including quite clearly saying "What I do welcome is the apparent increase in admin participation in the system which may help counteract the unresearched and often unqualified votes of new and less experienced users, and/or those who vote with an agenda". This left absolutely no doubt that he was not suggesting that only admins should be allowed to vote.
Despite this, over the next 36 hours, three separate editors objected to Kudpung's non-existent proposal to limit RfA voting to admins only. (Two of them did so via sarcasm, one marking it as such, but both used the form of words that if the admins-only voting proposal were carried, other obviously ridiculous things might follow). Such comments were strawman arguments, and while they may or may not have been disruptive, they did nothing to promote constructive discussion of Kudpung's observations, and the entire thread rapidly foundered into accusations and recriminations of various sorts.
I was irritated at the unconstructive nature of this, and duly indicated my view of the comments by posting the picture and caption we're talking about. Including a link to strawman so that anyone who was even slightly unsure could understand what was meant.
I have absolutely no idea what cogitative processes occurred in the minds of no less than three different editors for them to see that picture and that caption, at the top of that thread, and come to the conclusion that it was a personal attack. You see a picture, and you see the name of an editor mentioned as part of the caption to that picture, so you think the picture is intended to depict the appearance of that editor? Come on, really? What on earth?
I'm so baffled by your weird responses that I've had to rack my brains to work out what else you might mean - I've no reason to imagine that any of you are really that limited in comprehension. The best I can come up with is that some of you may have thought that just saying that someone used a strawman argument is, in itself, a personal attack. I shouldn't even need to point this out, but no, observing that someone's comments are a strawman argument, or any other logical fallacy, is not a personal attack.
There may also be a side argument that you think images should not be used to make points in that way. (Again, I'm scrabbling to work out what, if anything, any of you are on about.) Sorry, but while it may not be the best possible form of communication, and I've sometimes found it irritating myself, it's still a valid form of expression. And did Dougweller's censorship of it put the discussion back "on track" in some way? No, what followed, was yet another response to the supposed proposal that only admins be allowed to vote in RfAs, complete with, ironically, a picture at the top of the new sub-section, helpfully likening the proposal Kudpung hadn't made, to the ancient Roman class system.
Now, I'm willing to accept that Kudpung may have been dealing with a lot else at the time, may have been annoyed that "his" thread was somehow being defaced, and may have jumped to the ridiculous conclusion "the caption has my username in it, so it must be an attack on me". What's the excuse for the rest of you?
That doesn't apply to Isarra, who apparently merely believes that it's inappropriate to deal with an outbreak of strawman arguments by pointing out that they are strawman arguments (she just happens to be wrong, but being wrong is not the same as being inexplicably rude, presumptuous, sanctimonious, and failing to assume good faith), nor wctaiwan, who just has some view on it whose reasoning remains utterly obscure to me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Formatting
I tried to fix it, but I'm not sure that's how you wanted it to look. LegoKontribsTalkM 21:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's a distinct improvement on how it looked before. Thanks!
- I think the perfect formatting might be to have a # mark at the start of each paragraph, but sadly I don't think we can do that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
New to this assignment
I am new to Wikipedia. I have to select an article for editing review. Any ideas how to pin point an article to review?
Thanks for your help!
Ellenizgellin (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Ellenizgellin 10/17/2012
- Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been pre-occupied with various things. What sort of review do you mean? One project that is always in need of reviewers is DYK. So you could read through what's at WP:DYK and see if you can find a nomination to review. Feel free to ask again if you need more help! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
GOCE fall newsletter
| Fall Events from the Guild of Copy Editors
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events:
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC) |
GibraltarPediA Options followup
You participated earlier in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options, in which a proposed moratorium on Gibraltar-related DYKs was rejected and a set of options was agreed. There is currently a suggestion from editors who did not participate in that discussion that a moratorium should be imposed, overturning the earlier agreement. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Time-sensitive DYK nomination. Prioryman (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. I may be a little late now, but I'll try and have a look there this evening. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
For cleaning up my talk page :) Mark Arsten (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Very welcome! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Blocks
I hope you don't mind, but rather than load up Stephan's page some more I'm replying here. Right, but, as Stephan has made clear, that's not why he blocked in this instance.; I don't follow entirely. Malleus' only uncivil comment (and indeed about his only edit) following Stephan's warning was to reply with an insult. I could get on board if he took the warning then followed it up by going after MONGO again, but that isn't what happened. As to notoriety; Admins should exercise caution then for their own sakes :) It would be nice to have a community where notorious editors, and admins :P, could be treated the same way as the other 99%. Sadly it doesn't work that way - as is evidenced. --Errant (chat!) 22:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, no problem with moving it here, my talk page is a haven of calm and tranquillity. Well, with the occasional exception :-)
- I think the misleading assumption here is that Stephan's initial post to Malleus' talk page was, as you put it, a warning. With that assumption, then we have a sequence of events like this; Malleus insults Mongo, Stephan warns Malleus, Malleus insults Stephan, Stephan blocks Malleus. With that sequence of events, it does indeed follow that the block was a result of the second insult not the first.
- However, Stephan's initial post to Malleus' talk page didn't specifically say "please don't insult other editors again" (a warning), but rather it suggested (requested) that Malleus retract his insult to Mongo. Malleus chose not to do so, and he chose not to do so emphatically. The only conclusion Stephan could draw from Malleus' response, was that Malleus would indeed insult Mongo again the next time he felt like doing so. (A conclusion that, unsurprisingly, turned out to be accurate, though that was later.) Therefore Stephan imposed a preventative block, based on the indication that the first insult (the one to Mongo) would be repeated.
- If it helps to clarify, consider other possible responses Malleus could have made. If he'd replied with "No I certainly will not retract my comments, and I'll carry on making people aware of Mongo's nature every time I feel like it", then that would've made his intentions clear equally emphatically, and Stephan would still have been justified in blocking even in the absence of further edits that insulted Mongo or anyone else. In other words, the block was due to what the second insult made by Malleus indicated about the first insult made by Malleus, not due to the second insult itself (or its target).
- Now of course there's lots of other things in question - whether Stephan's initial post was worded to make clear enough that it was a request for retraction not a warning about future edits, whether I'm interpreting Stephan's meaning correctly, whether the block was justified, whether admins should never make requests for retractions of insulting comments, and so on. But to me the post hoc ergo propter hoc assumptions about the block are clearly flawed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
More pie for T
— Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixG1995 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! I was just thinking of contacting you, as I have important news. Sainsbury's are selling Jaffa Cakes for £4/yard! I bought a yard (60 cakes) yesterday. It's relatively rare that provisions get measured in yards; yard of ale is the only other example I can think of. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Edit summary was cut off
So what else did you mean to say here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, yes. The truncated word was "discussions". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
something about members of Indian National Lok Dal
Hello Demiurge very good day to you I am very thankful to you for stopping user - Sachkasamna1972 for editing article " Om Prakash Chautala " living person biography. Article is the National President Of Political Party name - Indian National Lok Dal, india based political party. user - Sachkasamna1972 is doing same for article - "Ajay Singh Chautala" User belongs to opposition party, thats why user is posting fake material in articles. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.71.146.6 (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I've now watchlisted that article too. I do wish you people would email me so that we can talk about having properly freely licensed pictures of these various very respected politicians, that we can use on the Wikipedia article about them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Thought you should know
It looks like you're under attack by Wikipediocracy now. There's a thread on you now. I just thought you should know. SilverserenC 01:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I saw this the other night. I was terribly excited, and was seriously considering staying up watching for responses :-) but actually just went to bed instead.
- I'm not hugely surprised that it was "swiftly moderated", just as the original boxcutter comments were. Quite apart from the "amusing" attached video probably not being very amusing for people with real life psychiatric problems who need to have ECT treatment, there's presumably a more rational subset of the Wikipediocracy staff who don't see this sort of juvenile 4chan-style "you suck" behaviour as helping their cause, just as the boxcutter threats didn't help their cause.
- They need to portray their forum to outsiders as containing rational discourse, and that's difficult enough when a significant proportion of contributors there use adjectives like "evil" to describe WP editors in all seriousness, or label people like WTT a "brain-washed cult member". I regularly attempt to recruit new members for Wikipediocracy, but it's not uncommon that I get the response (as I did the other day) "what on earth did you give me that link for? That's obviously just a crank site!" --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I saw it too. It was made by lilburne. He linked yo your post about boxcutters and called you "manic". You should upload the screenshot you mentioned to Flickr, and publish the link to it on Wikipedia because otherwise it is really hard to believe that you are not manic and that somebody really threatened "to slit a few throats". 71.198.215.115 (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, unregistered editor number 115, and welcome to Wikipedia! Congratulations on making your way here to my talk page. This is where we discuss my editing on Wikipedia, and things that I might want to be informed of. It's not where we discuss things that were randomly claimed about me on random forum websites that then subsequently got "swiftly moderated" anyway.
- However, I'm sure it's much easier to find evidence of my being "manic", than to try to pretend that the Wikipediocracy staff member with the username "EricBarbour" didn't say what we all know he said.
- For the record, the exact wording of the sentence was "It just makes me want to fly to London, get a box-cutter, and start slitting nerdy little throats." In the screenshot I have, the immediately subsequent posts are from a certain "professional journalist" (I wonder if this is the so-called "Wikipediocracy trustee" that Kolbe recently mentioned on Jimbo's talk page) 26 minutes later, and Kolbe himself (the other Wikipediocracy "Global Moderator") sometime after that. Neither of them express any disapproval or concern about the boxcutter comment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Kindly stop lying by omission, Demiurge1000. What happened was that I posted the following exchange from the uk.wikimedia watercooler site in the Gibraltarpedia discussion thread on Wikipediocracy:
- There have been changes here - can we get Robain's report to the Board on September 8th up here, linked from the board meeting reports? From memory, the project will now be managed by a new Welsh non-profit company, who will get this and any future grants or WMUK money for this project. Originally we were going to manage it & now we won't. One reason is that a specifically Welsh body can help with getting grants. The project remains well within WMUK's mission, & I think the limited support given so far, plus some future support, is an appropriate use of funds. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Are you saying it is an appropriate use of Wikimedia supporters' donations to pay travel expenses for a Wikimedia UK director (and/or other Wikipedians connected with the project) so that he can get a £17,500 grant for himself? Andreas JN 20:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Then another user posted:
- Sorry, can I just clarify if I am reading this right:
- WMUK paid expenses for a WMUK trustee to work on getting a grant from elsewhere that will not go to WMUK, but in fact will go directly to the trustee?
- O.o
- Granted you could probably argue the expenses claim was a microgrant by WMUK in order to achieve a goal that they have an interest in seeing happening... But ethically that's dodgy as fuck...
- In response to that Eric Barbour posted:
- I gotta stop reading this thread. It just makes me want to fly to London, get a box-cutter, and start slitting nerdy little throats. These bastards simply aren't worth the effort.
- That was followed by another post by someone else, saying:
- They seem to be doing a fairly efficient job of slitting their own throats. Might as well stay home.
- The last two of these comments were redacted. Cheers, Andreas JN466 05:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- So the "someone else" at Wikipediocracy (I suspect they are in the screenshot I have, but haven't checked) managed a more sensible tone than Barbour, who is staff there. (Is he one of your "Wikipediocracy trustees" that got treated to a copy of Jimbo's private email to you, I wonder?)
- Kindly stop lying by omission, Demiurge1000. What happened was that I posted the following exchange from the uk.wikimedia watercooler site in the Gibraltarpedia discussion thread on Wikipediocracy:
- And then, by the sound of it, someone at Wikipediocracy decided Barbour's comments were clearly beyond the pale. Which they clearly were.
- Careful who you accuse of lying, you who spend your time plotting with your little band of "Wikipediocracy trustees". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Oops
Sorry about that - indeed it was a misclick.--ukexpat (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- No problem at all - thanks for the note. It might've been a moment to have a BLP-war, but perhaps best not :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Changed it
I changed the unnecessary change you did on thearticle of separation of powers and i just want to talk, why did you change my previous correct statement?--User:Slurpy121 (talk)
- I reverted your first edit to the page because you did not provide a reference to verify the information that you were adding. In addition, you added your material into a paragraph already referenced to a source, and that source contradicted what you added. Finally, you didn't include an WP:EDITSUMMARY to explain what you were trying to do. I have opened a discussion on the talk page of the article, Talk:Separation of powers#Montesquieu is not Polybius, please contribute your thoughts there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
If you read the whole thing carefully, then you would realize that the reference i stated is in fact supporting my satement, and wikipedia is a place to add information to articles that need it, and thats what i'm doing, thank you ;)--User:Slurpy121 (talk)
- Is it becos I is Bri-ish? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
RE:WP:AFC
Hello Demiurge. Sorry about my typos in the declination by the way. My first language is not English. I have revewed your article, and have accepted it. It has some big improvements. It is located at: Cesar Balsa.
Thank you for your time, Jr Mime (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- The "typos" were not the problem, nor is it "my" article. Thanks though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
notification
A misguided discussion has been opened on WP:ANI about the Separation of powers -- the newbie editor is being redirected to the article talk page where you've been attempting to start a dialog. NE Ent 03:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Heh, it seems so often these things boomerang to completion while I'm still asleep! I've added some illustrations above. Thanks for letting me know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
In case you were wondering, the level two header added was the name of the subject's most recent album. I would have done the same. Thanks. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 20:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
GOCE November 2012 copy edit drive update
Guild of Copy Editors November 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
>>> Sign up now <<<
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC) |