User talk:Demiurge1000

GOCE drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors January 2012 backlog elimination drive GOCE January 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graph Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors January 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here is your end-of-drive wrap-up newsletter. Participation 45 people signed up for this drive this time; of these, 35 participated. This is similar to the number of editors who helped out in November. Thanks to all who participated! Barnstars will be distributed in the near future. Progress report Recent drives have been focusing on the oldest three months in the backlog. During this drive we were successful in eliminating our target months—July, August, and September 2010—from the queue, and there are less than 300 articles remaining from 2010. End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here. When working on the backlog, please keep in mind that there are options other than copy editing available; some articles may be candidates for deletion, or may not be suitable for copy editing at this time for other reasons. The {{GOCEreviewed}} tag can be placed on any article you find to be totally uneditable, and you can nominate for deletion any that you discover to be copyright violations or completely unintelligible. If you need help deciding what to do, please contact any of the coordinators. Thank you for participating in the January 2012 drive! All contributions are appreciated. Our next copy edit drive will be in March. Your drive coordinators – The Utahraptor talk, S Masters (talk), Diannaa (Talk), Stfg (Talk), Sp33dyphil (talk), and Dank (talk)

GOCE March drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graphs Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter. Participation: We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far. Special thanks: Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (talk), Stfg (talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

QRpedia plaques

Thanks for the link. We also make sure that the url is human readable so that the wary could check if they wanted to, QRpedia was reviewed by security experts ad found to be good for a QR code solution. Actually I'm not sure if I believe this really happens - its like cleverly vandalising wikipedia .... we mostly get silly vandalsm as the clever people have better games to play.

Merry Christmas

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 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.

Hohoho!!!

Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 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 Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for your kind help! ;)

safeguarding wikipedia

Hello Demiurge1000,

thank you for your reply to my post. I've been away on holiday, apologies for the delay thus.

It was not my attention to suggest that the fake persona on facebook would be a problem for us. Rather, I am suggesting that 1 natural person, an agent, could control half a dozen socks without wikipedia realizing it, and could even control multiple admin accounts.

Since wikipedia is widely trusted, and a lot of people look to wikipedia if they want a balanced view on anything, it is a price worth conquering ... the corruption of wikipedia for corporate needs.

PR-firms and intelligence agencies must be targetting wikipedia for their covert activities on information biasing. What point would there be in a multimillion PR campaign if wikipedia shows it's not truthful at all?

How can we defend wikipedia from this?

Info-sabotage would likely involve both insertion of biased information on the one hand and also deletion of 'unwanted' information on the other hand. Wikipedia has so many editing rules, that wikilawyering in combination with the control of multiple accounts could scare off 'honest' contributers easily. How savvy are we at wikipedia to fence off such attacks ? Mick2 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

mail

Hello, Demiurge1000. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Davut Kavranoğlu copyright violation

Hi. I noticed that you declined a CSD for copyright at Davut Kavranoğlu. I disagree with your reasoning and I have listed the article as a possible copyright violation at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2013 January 5. Although it is not a complete word for word copyright violation, the edited version only slightly modifies the copyrighted text. This is also prohibited under copyright law, and it would be better for an admin or OTRS clerk to make the call. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 23:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you disagree with my reasoning, you will need to explain how the text in the version I removed the CSD tag from, meets the CSD requirement "this criterion applies only in unequivocal cases, where there is no free-content material on the page worth saving". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In my view it was an unequivocal case. Policy states: "Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure..." (WP:CV). Here, the entire "Life and Career" section was taken from http://www.sanayi.gov.tr/Pages.aspx?pageID=708&lng=en, with only minor word changes, in other words, an unequivocal violation. The only free content left is the infobox and external links, so without the main body of the article, there was nothing worth saving. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If that's your view I have no objection to it. That's why CSD tagging has checks and balances to it. The author (or at least, I assume it is he) still apparently has problems with that, but seemingly I have to put up with that whereas you, if you're lucky, may not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Reasonable people can disagree, and I agree about the checks and balances--I've had editors question my declination of CSDs before too. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes not (and I'm not saying I'm right in this case). In any event, I've looked back at the article, and the author blanked the section and rewrote it in his own prose, so it's a moot point now. GregJackP Boomer! 05:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

A cannery is different to a canary

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greed (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canary (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) 11:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks bot, I've fixed this now. Previously the word used was cannery, which is actually something different. Altered after the problem was pointed out by someone using the article feedback tool... so you see, it does have uses after all :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

I think you should read the Anticyclone and Cyclone and make sure it does cover the stuff in Anticyclonic rotation and Cyclonic rotation before we redirect them. Jason Rees (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will take a look later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Indian Rape Victim: male friend, boy friend, or fiance?

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case#What_needs_to_be_done_to_the_article, you said "BBC News, which is generally more reliable than the Mirror, is also reporting the person being very specifically not a boyfriend nor fiance." What are some links to the BBC News items about this, please? Thanks, David F (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It was the last section of this that I was thinking of, but now I look again, it's not actual news reportage as such, and it's also not as specifically stated as I thought it was. But it is stated. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"Last section" you refer to? David F (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It comes in six sections, similar to how kola nuts used in divination come in four sections. The sixth section is the last. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I see. Each section contains comments by an individual. The last section is a comment by Uma Subramanian, a social worker, not reportage by the BBC. Thanks for clearing this up. David F (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A Wiggin13 apdoption

Hi, and sorry for not getting back to you sooner (I've been busy with school). I didn't yet have any plans for formal tests and such, so no, you would not be duplicating work by making some. I would, however, be willing to collaborate in making or grading them, if you wish. CtP (t • c) 20:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That would be excellent; one problem I've had with user adoption is that I like adoptee answers to receive proper attention, which usually means a detailed discussion, and I don't always find the time to engage in that level of discussion as soon as necessary. Being able to delegate some aspects of that would be awesome.

I'll set up a few things and let you know once it's underway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reminding me about WP:CONSENT. I hadn't thought about it in quite some time. Mkdw^talk 21:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I use it a great deal, although pretty much always for images. You're right that there are very few instances when it's useful for individuals or organisations to freely license text from their websites for Wikipedia, but the option does exist. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV policy note

A comment by you in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case#Victim.27s_name mentioned me. NPOV impartial tone calls for avoiding personal comments. David F (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No, WP:NPOV concerns "Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content"; it doesn't say anything about avoiding mentioning other editors' problematic behaviour.

I'm glad that you struck part of your unwise comments. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Review suggestion

Thanks kicking off the review of Template:Did you know nominations/Political development in modern Gibraltar. FYI, Template:Did you know nominations/Grand Casemates Gates‎ needs another review following (yet more) objections - you may wish to have a look at that one too. Prioryman (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wimon Sainimnuan.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 14:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Social/structural change in Wikipedia

If you can add anything to this list it would be appreciated. I think we need to talk about a central repository for this splintered discussion. Perhaps a notice in Signpost? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Greed

Hey, Thanks a lot for all of the help on Greed, its infinitely better because of your contributions. I've just added my last contributions in terms of new content and was going to submit it for a Peer Review specifically for FA status, unless you have a better suggestion. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Did the GOCE copyedit for FA happen yet? I specifically asked for an FA-level copyedit from someone who knows the ins and outs, so it's probably worth waiting for that before putting it up for peer review. I'm pretty sure it hasn't happened yet. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your block of 213.103.161.12

Look at the history of Moja domovina. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at it. What am I expected to see? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism and lying in edit summaries to be doing the opposite. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

2002–03 South Pacific cyclone season

Hi Demiurge1000, what's the status of the above article's copy-edit? I'm asking because it's booked out to you at the GOCE Request page and your last edit to it was on the 5th of January. Should the request be archived? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm still working on it when I have time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll pop a note on the page. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea what purpose that serves, but all right. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Philippe

My only concern with Philippe is he said I was being ridiculous and offensive and had made a leap of bad faith. I asked two questions on Jimbo's talk page:

I see from the discussion at Commons AN that the file has been saved on our Florida server and is viewable at will by staff, oversighters and stewards. How many people does that represent? Does the complainant know the image has been saved on our server and is still being viewed? Is there any reason to save this image on our server? On its face, this seems very wrong. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That question was asked, I didn't see any response beyond the 'omg its deleted stop questioning us already'. If its been deleted due to a legal issue, it needs to be gone completely. Not viewable by anyone. If its been deleted out of process because someone thinks there is an issue, well there are questions that should be answered. More importantly though - it was on there for 2 years and survived a deletion discussion! Great that it has now been deleted, there are lots of people who would like to know exactly how and why so the method can be applied to other suspect material on there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a knee-jerk reaction by a cadre on Commons that any thing with a hint of nudity, or sexuality MUST BE KEPT no matter what. They are supplying a bungy rope to ensure that Western Civilisation is protected from sliding down that slippery slope back into the days of the Inquisition. John lilburne (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. And they're entrenched at Commons and have the buttons... Carrite (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Umm. Are some these people who obsessively save porn on Commons able to view that "deleted" image? I'd still like to see a list of people who have free access to the image. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Without speaking to this specific case, in general, images that are problematic are oversighted and not deleted from the servers. There's a very good reason for that: law enforcement advised us to do so, so that the image remains in place for their investigation, should they need it. After a certain amount of time, we have it quietly removed. Let's not go casting about breathless lines about people obsessively saving porn unless we know the whole story, okay? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC) (Edit summary:"Don't be ridiculous)

Philippe knows how indenting works on Wikipedia talk pages. He was addressing me. The claim that people were obsessively saving porn was made by John lilburne and Carrite; I was addressing my second question to them. Is Philippe saying there is not a cadre on Commons that believes that anything with a hint of nudity or sexuality MUST BE KEPT no matter what? If he does, he should take that up with Carrite and John. The link in my first question says, Correct. As a steward I can still see the content and I understand why it's suppressed. Trijnsteltalk 19:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC) My second question was straightforward, not ridiculous. I never encounter "stewards" on Wikipedia, and don't know what they do. Since this person, Trijnsteltalk, had just said they could access the file, a file that had been "deleted", it was reasonable to ask who else could access the file, and whether any of the abovementioned porn savers were among their number.

Philippe, in his "apology" on his talk page, said my "leap to bad faith (in suggesting that there was a group of people harboring illegal material on the wiki, and that the WMF would allow that)" was offensive.

There is no leap of bad faith or anything offensive in my questions. I had a perfectly justifiable concern, and I raised it. From what he says on his talk page, it is clear there is a group of people harboring illegal material on the servers (on advice from the police or prosecutors) and his claim that my assumption to that effect is offensive is baffling.

Philippe has offended me. His "ridiculous" comment and his "leap of bad faith" and "offensive" epithets were unfair. He doesn't see it that way. I would very much appreciate it if you and everybody else would drop this, not respond. This is between Philippe and me. He should apologise. He hasn't. It's over. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

GOCE mid-drive newsletter, January 2013

Guild of Copy Editors January 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter We are halfway through our January backlog elimination drive. The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

for 'fnix'ing my brackets. Hate it when I do that and forget to use preview. I hope the editor who presumably tried to fix it actually responds. I did ask him to after warning him. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. gwickwire^talk_edits 00:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Very useful that was. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edit at Om Prakash Chautala

Hello, Kindly conform your edit at Om Prakash Chautala. You have identified it as vandalism..--Sachinvenga (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Trashy Bags logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Trashy Bags logo.png. 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. — ξ^xplicit 01:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Article feedback

Hi. I have to say that I'm pretty disappointed and hurt that you chose to deliberately misquote me in an attempt to create drama here. It really speaks poorly of you. :-( --MZMcBride (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've replied there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Trashy Bags

Hi Demiurge1000. I wrote you a message at WP:REFUND#Trashy Bags. I wonder if you could please reply there? Kind regards, --Unforgettableid (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Replied there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2013 (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!

Stubs			Cleanup
	Atma Singh Gill			National Institute of Technology Karnataka
	Cosma Shalizi			Rihanna
	Employment discrimination law in the European Union			State Management of Affairs (Ukraine)
	Deborra-Lee Furness		Merge
	Nina Nesbitt			World Trade Center in popular culture
	Satyavrat Chaturvedi			Investment Advisor
	Rise and Fall of Idi Amin			2011 Indian anti-corruption movement
	Harendra Singh Malik		Add sources
	Hermann Oldenberg			Ranbir Singh Hooda
	First Love (1977 film)			Swami Sri Lilashahji Maharaj
	Constitutional Assembly of Ukraine			Dowry law in India
	Fireball (novel)		Wikify
	Juma Oris			Zombie (fictional)
	Rao Birender Singh			Canadian leaders debates
	Rhacophorus helenae			Penarth
	Ram Prakash		Expand
	Wat Phnom Daily			Human rights in Japan
	Commercialism			Ernst Schäfer
	Daily Excelsior			McCool Hill

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) 14:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Unban request

Un ban me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.208.254 (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Katie, how are you? I'm afraid that, as far as I know, you're not currently banned anywhere that I'm able to unban you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for stepping up and answering some of my mail when I wasn't feeling well lately. Much appreciated. Danger ^{High voltage!} 18:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Typhoon Edit

Here we go with the American strangulation of wikipedia. Only the facts you want hey? Can't wait until your dollar sinks because I can't stand you.

And by the way, the talk functions are crap. They're overly complicated and confusing. As are the edit and edit summary facilities. Please improve them. It's just a jumble of text at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your timely "man-urgement" input, Demi. Why isn't that Australian strangulation (by Dr Carlo Kopp?), I wonder? And I didn't realise that one could make the dollar sink just by not standing you. Any idea what this editor means about the "crap talk functions?" If the vandalism warnings posted on their Talk Page appear to this editor as simply "a jumble of text", that might explain a lot. I belatedly assunmed GF, but they don't seem to be editing in a particularly collaborative manner, do they? Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The tabloid-like Licona analogy

Demiurge:

Thank you for your comments. I have rewritten my two postings, removed all the subjective evaluations, and neutered my objections. My first draft was influenced by the style of comments I had found on the TALK page, and I thought I was writing in the same uninhibited spirit. Do note that the Talk page is much more loaded with subjective evaluations and reactions than my new version.

I concur with your hypothesis of "good faith", but it is not enough. Competence and scholarship are also valued criteria. I have dealt all my life only with the top experts in their field, and it is an education to encounter writers who are well below that level of knowledge.

If I had used the Licona comparison or similar in any of my papers at Harvard, I would have been laughed out of his office by my supervisor. I am sure the same would have happened at Oxford or Cambridge. Anyway thanks. This is a different world. Very few top scholars accept to make an input in a Wikipedia article. Nonetheless some articles are first-class. But others are unsatisfactory. This Licona analogy would not be even accepted by our tabloid "New York Post" (or so I hope!). --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The French system of conscription brings together a fair sample of all classes; ours is composed of the scum of the earth—the mere scum of the earth. It is only wonderful that we should be able to make so much out of them afterwards. — Arthur Wellesley.

I will reply to your other points when I have a little more time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Matrix article's CE

Hi, Demiurge, I have a question. Bear with me a bit, because I'm still new to CE Guild process. I've noticed that you're working on The Matrix article, and sometimes you leave things off, and I can't tell whether you're done. I assume that it is the standard procedure that when you're done, you'll inform the editors working on the article? Is that correct? Anthonydraco (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'll drop you a note when I finish. (Not all GOCE copy-editors do this.) I tend to work intermittently over a week or more, and generally only work on very small sections, so it's fine for you to make more additions or changes in between. Some GOCE copy-editors do entire articles in one edit or a few very large edits, so they will normally put an "in use" template at the top while they're working, to avoid edit conflicts.

I'm more or less finished now; I'll confirm this later today. However, just to forewarn you, it looks like there is (or was) at least a small amount of overly close paraphrasing (WP:PARAPHRASE) from the Andrew Godoski piece. This does bring up the risk that there's lots more, so this will need to be looked into carefully before a GA review. More on this later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Matrix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evil genius (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) 11:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh?

Hey, I have no idea who Philippe is or what he does or what list you're talking about. In any case, as I've said somewhere, I'm scaling back my commitment to wikipedia to staying with that RFC/U until a resolution appears. Then I'm done. Right now, I'm going to take my daughter to the park, and then I might read a book and she has a book she wants to read too. If there's something you want me to do, e-mail me: "daniel.judd@gmail.com" and I'll get to it next time I can be arsed to visit this place. In other news, I didn't see your notice at the top asking for no talkbacks, so I'm replacing that with this. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. A walk in the park sounds like a good idea. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

GOCE January barnstars

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Demiurge1000 for copy editing articles totalling over 12,000 words in the GOCE January copy edit drive. Thank you very much for participating! Dianna (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

		Leaderboard Award—5K articles—5th Place (tied)
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Demiurge1000 for copy editing one article of 5,000 words or more during the GOCE January copy edit drive. Your contributions are much appreciated! Dianna (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK

Hi there! I understand you are knowledgable on DYK nominations. Can you have a look at Women in Turkish politics and help me/us/WP to make a DYK out of it? Thanks in advance and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This will be tricky - the article was created on 25th January 2013 so you are fast running out of time. You would need to submit the nomination today, and even then I don't know if it would be accepted.

The most obvious thing that needs fixing is that every paragraph should have an inline citation - that generally means at the end of the paragraph. There are some sections that have no citations at all, and some that have a citation but only half-way through the paragraph. See if that can be fixed first. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we're late. Thanks all the same. Best. --E4024 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard M. Daley GA nomination

Thanks for the heads up about the CCI, i'll check it out shortly. Retrolord (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Demiurge

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		Demiurge, you always help me when I need or ask of it. I appreciate you putting in the time to work with me and answer my noobish and very random questions. You definitely deserve this Helping Hand Barnstar for all the assistance and feedback you provide. Thank you very much, —  dain- talk   01:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Sorry, they wuz all out of barnstars!

Drmies (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

BLP

I'm not sure how WP:BLP applies to a dead girl. I would kindly request that you undo your edit. Eminence2012 (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied, rather bluntly, on your talkpage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Demiurge1000. You have new messages at Starship9000's talk page.
Message added 01:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Starship9000 (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:REFACTOR

Can you please please tell me where in any policy it says users may not change their wording after someone has replied? Because if that's not in policy, you're violating REFACTOR. Thanks. gwickwire^talk_edits 14:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm not following the entire situation, WP:REFACTOR says "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted" and also warns that "Refactoring may cause confusion if improperly applied to an ongoing discussion; an editor should take great care to preserve all such discussion and all relevant details to its context" ... the obvious meaning of this is that you should not change your original post after it's been responded to, or else you change the meaning and context (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

More importantly, there's WP:REDACT, which states It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement. ... Removing or substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deprive the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Worm^TT(talk) 14:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have put a note in to state it was refactored [1]. Please carry on with normal business. If I see any more edit warring, I will hand out blocks. Worm^TT(talk) 15:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for help with IRC

Thanks for you help in IRC today. I really do want to be more involved and be able to create and publish articles. Is there a mentoring or training program like there is in vandalism? What would you recommend? I am just too intimidated to get started. Thanks! Jab843 (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you too! There are training programs in vandalism? I do hope not. But yes, of course there are training programs in editing. And yes, they do take away some of that "too intimidated" feeling. I'd be happy to help you through an adoption/mentoring course if you like - just let me know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your help today! You deserve a star! Jab843 (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Monmouthpedia

a primary source would be the report itself or the blog post by wmf and wmuk. the source i provided is secondary. didn't you click the link? 174.141.213.40 (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Demiurge1000. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#QRpedia.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Really?

I would've appreciated if you'd added a note about removing my hatting, or at least notified me. {{Archive top}}s and {{Hat}}s have always been something of a gray area, TPO-wise, but I'm of the strong opinion that if a closure note has anything other than a purely routine note in it, the reopening editor should either link to the diff of the closure, or include the full text that accompanied it. I don't think "foolish" is a very fair word to use, especially when both threads were complete bullshit. If you actually feel like taking a stand for either ideology espoused there, then by all means do, but otherwise I can't see what purpose it served to un-hat them - Jayron32 has re-hatted the latter, and the former remains unanswered because, as I correctly guessed, no editor has any interest in dignifying it with a response, yourself included, it seems. Additionally, while I'd stop short of calling it POINTy, it seems at the very least imprudent to unhat me twice after I hatted a recent fight you got into with another user. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well the conclusion from that is that perhaps you shouldn't go round hatting things all over the place just because they seem - to you - to merit it. There are plenty of "ideologies" or points of view that we may feel are "complete bullshit" but there's absolutely no advantage or purpose in hiding away such things under pink rugs (or any other colour) just because we think they're dumb or nonsensical or trolling. If it had been a discussion on the reference desk, it might have been more appropriate to hat it (though I've recently unhatted some there as well, where further responses were obviously justifiable). But people should be able to bring their views and concerns (however apparently weird) to the village pump without busybodies jumping in to close them down because subjectively their concerns (which may well be sincerely held) aren't important.

We also shouldn't be mocking such problematic people by wittering on about being "faux cabal" as you did - it's rude and a completely unnecessary in-joke, and if these people are crazy then shutting them off in that way is only going to make them crazier. (Quite apart from which, your argument "If we were controlled by the PRC, do you think you would've been able to post this" was clearly flawed, so should've been as a comment that they would be able to reply to and reason with, not a hat to prevent them doing so.)

"Close" notes don't have any special status in my eyes, so if you're using them to gain that, don't bother. I'm not going to edit war with you (or anyone else) over the closures, though, because re-opening them is only a matter of opinion (mine) just as much as closing them is. However, I don't inform people of unhatting a discussion, any more than I inform them that I've replied to them.

I'll give you a couple of examples to think on. In the last week some guy popped up and started getting very excited about altering Haiti; he was enough of a loon that I had to ban him and subsequently it turned out he was a sockpuppet as well (I think he ended up with an indef on all accounts). His style of discussion revolved around listing off names of individual Haitians with French-sounding names and demanding that I (and the rest of the world) google them. He was entirely incapable of explaining what this would prove or what his actual problem was or even what part of the article he felt was wrong. But, despite all this crazy, a bit of investigation led me to one of the things most troubling him, and in fact it turned out that part of the infobox was partially misleading, unnecessary, and likely to cause trouble. So yes, he was not a person that we could reasonably co-operate with on building an encyclopedia, but it was still appropriate to take his concerns seriously, rather than assuming he was trolling.

Another example was a few months ago at Jimbo's talk page. Some Japanese person repeatedly turned up with various questions and demands and accusations, completely incoherent through being Google Translate only, and spreading over into legal threat territory (against Jimbo!). Jimbo was completely polite, answered the person's questions where they made sense, told them each time that he didn't understand the rest of it, and so on. Eventually I went and found someone fluent in both English and Japanese, who looked into it and concluded the person was an idiot (not the wording I would've used myself) and that there was no chance of getting any sense from them. That was that - but it was absolutely correct of us to go to that trouble rather than just deciding the person was a loon right from the start and closing them down. Because doing that, as I said, makes crazies more crazy. (Especially if accompanied with apparent taunts as you did.)

Even fluent English-speakers struggle to understand how Wikipedia works; when I fix BLP problems I am often accused of being paid to do so or being associated with the subject, but that's a sincere and understandable mistake, and should be treated as such. As the largest Wikipedia, we do very regularly get complaints or queries from people whose English skills are either bad or just non-existent. Many of these look equally incoherent and ridiculous - some of the complaints about the Turkish Wikipedia have been just as bad, even though it seems very likely there is actually a serious problem over there. Although there are a few instances where the "assume a genuine problem" stage has passed a long time ago, in most cases rushing in to close down discussions for the sake of it, and mocking the original poster along the way, is not the route to take. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that "close" notes have any special status; quite the contrary. I'm saying that when re-opening a discussion, a user should include a reference to the previous close. As you said, contributors to the previously-closed discussion may want to respond to points raised in the close note.

As for your points about respecting fringe/unintelligible POVs, my feelings remain the same: If you care so much, you should actually respond to them, not silently revert me. If we could understand what the first thread said, I imagine we'd hat/remove it as rife with personal attacks. The second got itself promptly re-hatted, and the subsequent discussion proves that there's nothing about a hat that means that interested users can't simply click "show" and see what it is that got the user so up-in-arms. Threads stay on VPP for 5 days, last I checked, so that's 120 hours in which anyone can check to see if there was any substance behind all the trolling. Anyways, I'm all for ignoring certain conduct policies if the users violating them are making good points, but... despite all of your philosophizing, I don't see you actually contesting that this was bullshit. I agree with your abstract points, but I don't think that they apply here. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into an argument about the rightness, wrongness, or "bullshit"ness of the complaints that you hatted. If you want to make a point about something that someone posts, you need to put it in a comment, not in a hat. No-one is "ignoring certain conduct policies". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)