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! ;)

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.

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)

Fine, remove Gwick's comment if you must [2], but I just asked an honest question. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 18:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed Gwickwire's comment because he's apparently too lazy to even look at the issue that arose (even to look at the discussion you yourself gave a link to!), never mind actually reading what was said in response. (He finds it "intimidating" when someone gives a proper reply, I love that.) He's basically only here to continue his childish squabble about his failure to understand policy, which he's now taken to ANI multiple times (where he was told how ridiculous his behaviour is) and been warned for at WP:ANEW. He would do well to find something more constructive to spend his time here on.

As for your question, I don't have "rules" about hatting something, I exercise editorial discretion. It is generally not appropriate to hat something when it appears to be a sincerely meant complaint about policy or policy related matters, for the reasons I explained at length above. I have, however, collapsed material from time to time when it seemed appropriate (feel free to sift through my contribs for such exciting incidents, I'm sure there's one quite recently!), but I don't take particular umbrage if I get reverted after doing so. (Because, like I said above, the revert is an opinion that's as valid or invalid as the decision to collapse the material in the first place.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Quail Valley Middle School

Thanks for the suggestion!Cmckain14 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Demi

Hey Demiurge, like I mentioned that one day, I'm working on adding references to the Norman conquest of southern Italy article since there weren't very many, so I started working on it in my userspace. With me going over a few sources I changed some of the content after reading them (and citing what I found in them). I just wanted to get your eyes on it in my userspace before I put it "live" incase we want to talk about some of the changes and such. Anywho, I look forward to any feedback/response you might have. If you wouldn't mind using the userspace talk page for your response/feedback that would be appreciated since I'll ask for a few others opinions as well. Thanks again, cheers, — - dain- talk    01:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It's great that you're working on adding references to this. It would be nice to see this article reach GA one day, and a shortage of refs is one of the main things holding it back.

However, I'm not sure that copying it to userspace and then working on it there is necessarily a good idea. For a start, what happens if other people edit the mainspace version while you're editing the userspace version? You'll re-incorporate their changes when moving the userspace version over the mainspace version? How will you handle attribution if the userspace version ends up being edited by multiple different people - will you need to ask for a history merge later? Unless there's a reason for working on it separately in userspace (e.g. you're aiming at a 5x expansion for DYK and it will take more than five days), it's usually better to just improve the mainspace version. (WP:BOLDly.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You bring up a good idea regarding having to merge histories as well as folks editing the article in the interim before I "finish" contributing. I wasn't going for DYKs or anything of that sort. Thanks for the input, do you think you will be adding to the content later or just checking out updates, I assume it's on your watchlist since you have 30+ edits to the article. — - dain- talk    02:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It will always be on my watchlist, but I won't be adding much content - I was mostly involved as copyeditor. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Updates to technical pages

Hi Demiurge1000 - thanks for your note. I'm clearly new to wikipedia, so I would love to better understand how you would have written those updates. You mentioned that the updates were promotional - on the oscilloscope page, I definitely can see removing the mention of the brand of oscilloscope (although it is factual in nature), but slow update rate *is* an inherent drawback of digital oscilloscopes. Why would we try to hide that on a wikipedia page? For the RS232 page, there was no mention of any brand of oscilloscopes - how could that be considered promotional? It was the same context as the information above it in the development tools section, just about a different (and very common) development tool. What would you suggest? TIA. Richpike (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard, you must have forgotten, when you say "For the RS232 page, there was no mention of any brand of oscilloscopes", that in your edit to that page, you included a link to cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5990-6677EN.pdf which has the lovely quote "Agilent’s InfiniiVision 3000 and 4000 X-Series oscilloscopes (DSOs) and mixed-signal oscilloscopes (MSOs) offer optional integrated serial bus triggering and hardware-based protocol decoding solutions that give you the tools you need to accelerate debug of your designs". The only other article you have edited is Oscilloscope, where you included a link to a different piece of Agilent marketing literature, and also took the trouble to mention (without an independent source) how the fastest devices on the market today are, just by coincidence, made by Agilent.

What would I suggest? First, it's easiest to avoid mentioning the brand name (or the products under the brand) at all; unless you can find a reliable third-party source that discusses the importance of the products for the topic. Second, encyclopedia articles do not address the reader in the second person like marketing literature does; thus, we do not write things like "faster update rates allow you to see more signal detail and increase your probability of capturing infrequent events" in Wikipedia's voice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Very helpful! I thought it was beneficial to provide sources, but I see your point about the sources needing to be more indepedent. Thanks for the insights. I'll try again - thanks for the fast response. Richpike (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Mirror image discussions

Hmm. I've never read nor edited the Binge drinking article. I'm not sure I can be much help. Alcoholism and addiction are their own special area that mixes mental health with internal medicine.Legitimus (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, indeed. The common theme was perception of those involved being a major part of the issue and its portrayal here. As I say, just a curiosity that struck me this evening. (I'm working on a biographical article that touches on both topics, but am trying to relate only history rather than risking straying into medical territory of any sort - I have historical qualifications but no medical ones apart from some undergraduate psychology courses.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I will say that from what I know from colleagues who work with alcoholism that the denial involved is a breed all its own. It goes well beyond the simply psychological process of denial and cognitive dissonance. It involves genetics and brain chemistry. But as you can probably figure out, only an alcoholic goes around trying to justify destructive usage and disparaging medical science. A bitter irony when you realize the other person both is completely "outing" themselves by arguing with you, but at the same time revealing you will never be able to convince them through reason.Legitimus (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PERM/ACC; removal of {{not done}} template

Hello, Demi. I would like to ask why you have removed the {{not done}} template I placed when closing a request. Yes, I am not an administrator nor would I normally be handling requests for permissions but that is an area that I or another ACC admin is required to comment. If you wish for me not to use a template that an admin would place hours later, then so be it but I find that highly unnecessary. :) -- Cheers, Riley 19:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Riley, congratulations on your latest hat. The template was removed because, as has been discussed at length, requests for permissions should be approved or denied by administrators. The presence of comments with sarcastic edit summaries and bravado about "the big boss", suggests it wouldn't be wise to change that any time soon. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

GOCE February 2013 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors February 2013 events newsletter We are preparing to start our February requests blitz and March backlog elimination drive. The February 2013 newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the February blitz and March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Tim Gustard

Many thanks Demiurge1000, I appreciate your input. A great deal of info has been erased by this user who seems preoccupied with belittling the Tim Gustard page. The person who created did so in a rather flowery manner and was obviously an admirer and perhaps also not reliable. If you require any further information or wish to improve this article or indeed feel it is time to delete it, please contact me, Tim Gustard on bobdunda@btinternet.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.15.212 (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tim, it looks like the article will probably be deleted within a week or so, which is probably the best solution to the problem. Check in a couple of weeks and see if things look better. I wouldn't recommend re-creating the article (or keeping it), as it would most likely lead to the same sort of problems again. (Having said that, I'm not especially against the existence of an article, but it would probably be difficult to get right.)

Incidentally, is it correct that this rather nice image is public domain (i.e. freely useable) - it seems to have been uploaded as such by Pamela Ball on behalf of Beckstones Gallery, does this sound right? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your positive contribution to the discussion on my talk page. I appreciate it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I doubt it will make much difference to the outcome, but I do believe we should be very careful in assuming COI in such cases. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou

Hi Demiurge1000, thankyou for your comment you left on my talk page. You are right the photo was taken on the sea front of clacton on sea, although its not the best quality, i believe its one of the only on commons that show a complete rainbow so close, in your opinion do you think its worth a go at featured picture? Best regards --Danesman (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not much of an expert on the featured picture process, but I do know that even minor flaws in quality or composition can lead to Opposes. Still, there's nothing to be lost by trying. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Land reclamation

Hello Demiurge1000, you reverted my adjustments in the article Land reclamation.

An article about Land reclamation without mentioning the extensive Dutch history with the subject is a huge omission. I assume you don't disagree with that. If so, I would like to hear before I make the adjustments in the coming days.

You reverted all the adjustments all at once, because of too close paraphrasing the source. But only parts of it is paraphrased.

In the coming days I will put back paragraph by paragraph, rephrasing text and adding additional sources, since the article needs some more resources. If you still think parts of it are too close paraphrased, you can only revert the relevant parts. --Watisfictie (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Demiurge1000, I just read your remarks, making my own remarks above not relevant any more.--Watisfictie (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Where have you...

...seen a nomination by a low trusted user of a community? I just want to know what nomination was made by the user with low trust in the community, who is the nominator and who is the candidate. I need a link please. Cmach7 01:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't believe that would be useful to you (or to Wikipedia more generally), as it's something that happened nearly a year ago now, and I believe the opinions of the people involved may have changed in that time anyway. You may wish to just take my word for it that it caused some bad feeling and some problems for the nominator (and, as far as I know, one Oppose in an RfA that ended as successful).

As has been noted (in rather harsher terms) on your talkpage, you should probably stay away from nominating, requesting nominations, or requesting any other sort of rights, for a good six months or so at least. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Irish Music Festival

Hi, Little confused to as why my contribution of our Irish Music Festival Sligo Live was not accepted into wikipedia. There are many other Irish festivals listed. Kind regards, (Dan.young3000 (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC))

Talk:Main Page is not the place to post such things. Try Wikipedia:Articles for creation instead. You'll also need to write it neutrally instead of promotionally, and you will need to provide citations to independent reliable sources - see WP:42. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of posted content

This is rouge Bantha 21 young that I posted my lego Star Wars post with information from LEGO STAR WARS.com.

And my name is supposed to be spelled like that.

                 Cheers,
      
                               Rougebantha21  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rouge bantha 21 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC) 

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	You sarcastic devil you! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:26, 27 February 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
	Raisina Hill			Donner Party timeline
	Harendra Singh Malik			Military history of Argentina
	Sattahip District			Netherworld Dancing Toys
	Ram Prakash		Merge
	Nushrat Bharucha			2011 Indian anti-corruption movement
	Satyavrat Chaturvedi			President
	Atma Singh Gill			Data Terminal Ready
	Acts of Peter and Andrew		Add sources
	Tanchangya language			Haitian diaspora
	Deborra-Lee Furness			Technological Institute of Textile & Sciences
	Pamvotida			Data cluster
	Jai Parkash		Wikify
	Cayemites			Canadian leaders debates
	No Name in the Street			National Institute of Technology Karnataka
	Employment discrimination law in the European Union			Kickstarter
	Lyulin motorway		Expand
	Middle office			Darksiders II
	Avtar Singh Bhadana			The Mummy (franchise)
	The Lotus Caves			United Kingdom general election records

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) 13:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

A. Chenevix-Trench

If you can send me a scan of the newspaper cutting of the L. Kennedy book review which I infer you possess, it is just possible that I might be able to identify the source from the typefaces and layout, etc. -- Alarics (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The source has now been identified, but if you want to send me your email address (or reply to the email I sent you through Wikipedia), I can send you the review anyway, plus a few related articles that may be of interest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Showing a Quote by Richard Carrier in the "Reception" Section of the Doherty Article

Dear Demiurge:

I get your points, and I certainly endeavor to stick to facts, preserve an objective tone, and respect the tendency to a neutral point of view.

I have already written four full-fledged Wikipedia articles, all of them practically brand-new, on untouched or undeveloped subjects by the Wikipedia cohort of editors. I accept your remarks, offered in good faith.

However, I must respectfully claim that the following comment by Richard Carrier:

"I know Ehrman read Doherty’s monstrous second book but not his original Jesus Puzzle, and yet the latter is a far superior argument for his conclusion, by the standards Ehrman would expect, whereas the second is 90% speculative digression (hundreds and hundreds of pages worth) which is exactly the kind of thing that chaps the hide of professional scholars."

does belong to the section Reception. Alternatively this quote could be reduced to a shorter form, since Carrier's evaluation of the Jesus Puzzle has already been mentioned at the beginning of the section:

"I know Ehrman read Doherty’s monstrous second book but not his original Jesus Puzzle, and... the second is 90% speculative digression (hundreds and hundreds of pages worth) which is exactly the kind of thing that chaps the hide of professional scholars."

or even (probably the best excerpt, as being the shortest):

Doherty’s monstrous second book... is 90% speculative digression (hundreds and hundreds of pages worth) which is exactly the kind of thing that chaps the hide of professional scholars.

Those are the points to consider:

• 1. Carrier is an authentic Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University (Manhattan), which Doherty is not (with only an unverified B.A., probably an online degree from a degree mill)
• 2. He's already written many books, contributed chapters to many other books, all of them published by respected publishers (Prometheus is, in the States, the most prestigious publisher for skeptical books about religion and Christianity), a feat that Doherty has never been able to achieve.
• 3. He's written a lot of articles, published in creditable reviews
• 4. He has a Wikipedia article Richard Carrier, much longer and detailed than Doherty's, for example
• 5. He is not only notable in the States, but respected and invited to talks by many universities.
• 6. His articles are well known, and often quoted in the scholarly literature by other Ph.D.s, (whereas no article written by Doherty is ever quoted by anybody, for the reason that they are not read. The second book, Neither God nor Man is an effort to bring this collection of those unread articles to the public.)
• 7. He is the only person who has published a full review of Doherty's first book, The Jesus Puzzle, in fact mentioned in the Doherty article (Note 12, of Feb. 2002). No other scholar worldwide has published another review of that book.
• 8. Paul Ellingworth, of Aberdeen, a famous expert Biblical translator from the Greek, who's written one of the top commentaries on The Epistle to the Hebrews (and whose scholarship is used by Doherty in his chapter on Hebrews in Neither God nor Man), has declared that he has verified that only one academic library in the whole of the UK has a copy of The Jesus Puzzle and none of the second book, Neither God nor Man.
• 9. Carrier is already mentioned in the section "Reception" about the first book, The Jesus Puzzle:

"Among authors sympathetic to the view that Jesus never existed, Doherty's work has received mixed reactions. The Jesus Puzzle has received favorable reviews from skeptics Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier."

• 10. Carrier's quotation about the recent book, Neither God nor Man is, in Wikipedia's perspective, objective and factual, and not related to any editor's POV. It does belong to the Section "Reception".
• 11. I am willing to bring the consideration of the eligibility of Carrier's quote to the most experienced court of Wikipedia (a new experience for me) . But I can only hope you'll agree with me.
  

And indicate which formulation of the quote best satisfies you. Meanwhile I'll repost the (shortest) #3 formulation .

Regards from a good-faith editor to another one. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Keith Johnson (author)

I have written an article, whilst logged in as 'dvdwllm', and in the Sandpit title 'Keith Johnson (author) but I am not clear how to upload it into Wikipedia. I have saved it, and been through the upload wizard but still do not find it in Wikipedia. Dvdwllm (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Your draft article is at User:Dvdwllm/sandbox. And very interesting it is too! If you add {{subst:submit}} to the top of it, it will be reviewed to check whether it is currently suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. (This usually takes between one and three weeks.) However, in order to be accepted, it will need references that demonstrate that the subject of the article has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (click that link for more information about that). The subject's LinkedIn page, the website for his software, and a listing of his publications, are not independent sources. A good example of a reference to use, would be a newspaper article about him. Further, the references to these independent reliable sources about him should ideally be inline citations - please read WP:REFB for information on how to do that. And ideally, statements like "It was the first to cover complete concepts in single- or double-page spreads" should all be supported by such an inline citation as well. So there is lots to do. Good luck! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Anthony Chenevix-Trench

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

kidnapped

Hi, it is not my desire to increase any drama regarding the user who expressed his fear that he or his family might be kidnapped by foreigners. If you go back to the original thread there's concern expressed that the OP seems to be claiming a memory from his youth of such kidnappings before they were known to the general public and before they even happened. The user has an odd sophistication with his first and very frequent contributions being well formatted posts to talk spaces yet showing an oddly slow learning curve when people explain why certain behaviors are problematic. For instance, here it was explained he shouldn't mark In The News nominations updated unless they were, according to policy, to which he replied understood, then here, 20 minutes later, here violates the exact same policy. I appreciate your wish to help new users. I have found dialog with this user unproductive. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

AN Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Crazynas ^t 07:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Speculation much?

Did you have any evidence for the speculation you posted, or is it just empty rhetoric? I'd hate to think you were just making it up. Kevin (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge contacted me about this privately. I can tell you that there is evidence for every statement they made, and the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is in posession of this evidence. gwickwire^talk_editing 02:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

<redacted> But I very much doubt he has any evidence at all that Kevin is supplying the asshole with any information <redacted>. That kind of casual slander is really unacceptable. If either one of you make that accusation again on-wiki, you'll be blocked from editing. If you have any evidence Kevin is involved in that, send it to ArbCom. If not, don't say it again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarify: Actually, even if you do have such evidence, don't say it on-wiki. But I doubt you do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm sorry, but since this involves very private information, this should be left to ArbCom on whether a block is warranted. Demiurge made a statement that may or may not have had evidence. I'm no longer going to comment on this publicly, as it's leading to (surprise surprise) more harassment and outing on that site. I can assure you that both Demiurge and me are aware that any private evidence must go to the functionaries, and that we will follow that with all evidence. gwickwire^talk_editing 02:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

As long as the information stays in an email to ArbCom, I won't block anyone. But if the accusation is made on-wiki again, I will. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Someone seems to be reading something into my comments that isn't (wasn't?) there. However, since my comments were aimed solely at people who are still well able to read them, there's no need for me to be arguing about that one way or the other. Whoever censored what I posted in the arbcom case should, however, have made an indication that something was removed, rather than leaving something above my signature which is not what I wrote. I've fixed that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Just for the record, and to correct any misleading impressions left, what I posted specifically did not say that "Kevin is supplying" anyone with information. Floquenbeam, your implication of this above is poorly worded. Your decision to name gwickwire here is also rather poor judgement - I'll leave it to him as to whether he'd prefer to blank this entire thread then ask for it to be oversighted (I do mean oversight not revdel). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I've been told by an OSer that this would have to be a full team decision, and I have absolutely -100% confidence in the OS team (because it includes arbitrators), so I'll not bother. gwickwire^talk_editing 05:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Talking of "casual slander"

This is a picture of a straw man. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying "boxcutter", and what are you trying to imply by doing so?

No, honestly, I really have no idea. I suspect I may not be the only one, either. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't? That's rather surprising, Hex. However, a productive and valued editor has asked me nicely to find some other phrase to refer to these people and their unpleasant behaviour, so you won't need to be puzzled by it any more. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You could also enlighten me why you find that surprising. There seems to more than one assumption on your part at play here. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Really? What are these assumptions, in your view? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see you've explained the boxcutter thing below.

Assumption 1: All people on Wikipediocracy are in full agreement with the craziest things said by the craziest posters there.

Assumption 2: All people on Wikipediocracy are fully aware of everything posted there, ever, so making context-free references to things there in this way makes perfect sense to everybody reading.

That's certainly how it looks from your comments. Neither of those are true. Hope this helps. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Buddy, I'm through talking to you. What I said above is how your comments came across. If you can't grasp that, it's not my problem. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

All right. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

One of the things that may not have occurred to you, Hex, is that when members of that site are made aware of "the craziest things said by the craziest posters there", they have the opportunity to condemn such things. When the targets of those craziest posters see that opportunity missed or spurned, it reminds us of "qui tacet consentire" - silence gives consent. That's the missing Assumption 3 that may be in many peoples' minds. --RexxS (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks RexxS. I really should leave things like this to people like you who have the time and patience to explain properly, rather than charging in with artwork and implications as I so often do :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, speaking as one of the targets, it's an issue I'm already very familiar with. Regards --RexxS (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

One of the things that obviously didn't occur to you RexxS is that this was obviously an offhand comment which no one in their right mind, or with any common sense would have taken seriously. Like they say on TV, you shouldn't take everything you read on internet literally. And another thing which obviously didn't occur to you RexxS is that the comment was taken down pretty promptly by a moderator of the site. Which would fall under "condemn the craziest things said by the craziest posters there" category. You can show off and put in fancy Latin in your post (done it myself before) but that doesn't change the fact that you simply don't have an idea of what it is you're talking about. So... what you have here is the fact that at one point one commentator, in order to blow off some steam made a silly off hand remark. That remark was removed quickly. Yet Deimurge has been referring to that taken-down-obviously-not-serious remark over and over and over again and he's been using it to smear and insult editors who are or where completely unrelated to that remark. So he eventually he got blocked for it. Personally I would've made it a block for "blatant dishonesty" rather than "personal attacks" but whatevers.Volunteer Marek 03:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

So there was only one single comment about wanting to fly to London and use a boxcutter to "slit the throats" of Wikimedia UK members, right? Which was eventually removed from the publicly viewable area of the website... although not before there had been extensive discussion about it? And the "Global Moderator" (nice title, I feel so respectful already) involved kept his "Global Moderator" status, right? So he can still collect IP addresses from people who register there, or not?

And after the one single comment about that, there was another single comment about hunting down some kid who had dared to criticise Wikipediocracy at Wikipedia's Village Pump or WP:AN or wherever; that if he kept his mouth shut from now on then he wouldn't need to be "dealt with"?

Oh, and that comment was also eventually removed from the publicly viewable area (took quite a long time, mind you - even longer than the previous one), so instead one of your friendly "forum" members decided to post some material about how they wondered if the kid was sometimes on Wikipedia from school, and if they might get in trouble if someone were to mention that to the school, because of course they know which school it is...

Not to mention the several sockpuppets created over the last few days to continue the harrassment of the child editor concerned. Who is responsible for this, Marek? You're not, of course. Wikipediocracy isn't, of course. I'm not allowed to say that Wikipediocracy members are responsible, because I'd be blocked for suggesting anything so outrageous. Well now. Who? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Like I said, the proper rationale for your block should've been "blatant dishonesty in regards to other users" rather than "personal attacks", but I guess these are close enough. And if you're implying in any way - I can't tell if you are or not because your wording is sleazy insinuations at just the right amount, so that the true meaning is hard to divulge - that I'm responsible for "continued harrassment of a child editor " then your ass needs to be blocked not just for a month but indefinitely. You really need to stop digging your hole.Volunteer Marek 03:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, with all due respect it's easy for you to pontificate on the subject, Marek. When you get to be the target of crazies making death threats, you will be entitled to judge whether I have any idea or not. In the meantime, do you condemn that threat or not? Put up or shut up.

You may be surprised that I don't see all of the regulars at WO as a homogeneous group - there are many whose integrity and common sense I respect, and others who are clearly disturbed, as well as a spectrum in between. I also agree with the advice 28bytes gave to Demiurge and Gwickwire - giving the oxygen of publicity to the loonies only encourages them, so best not to mention them if possible. By the way, if you think having a knowledge of Latin (or any other subject for that matter) is "showing off", you're clearly unfit to be involved in writing an encyclopedia. Now get back under your bridge. --RexxS (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

RexxS, I've actually been a target of a lot crazies, some of them probably "Wikipedians in good standing", at least as of a few days ago. Hell, I've just had to remove some racist garbage from my talk page a few hours ago. And I already said that the remark was wrong. So sure, I "condemn" it, in the sense that I think it was a stupid thing to say. But, unless you really want to milk an unfortunate statement for the purposes of some Wikipedia BATTLEGROUND you're interested in, it was very clearly just an offhand expression of frustration which got promptly redacted. As crazy as it may sound, you (why are you concerned here anyway?) were not subject to a "death threat".

That's me putting up right there. Now will you put up and shut the fuck up?

I've also seen a lot of people on Wikipedia take some mistake that someone once made and then try to milk it over and over and over again, to get someone banned, to force their POV on an article, to climb some kind of idiotic social ladder. Usually this is done with some on-Wiki mistake. Demiurge has been doing it with someone's off-Wiki mistake. Either way this is a WP:STANDARD BATTLEGROUND TACTIC (someone should compile a list of these). It's nonsense, it's dishonest, it's a form of a personal attack (lying about people usually is, at least outside of Wikipedia, no matter how politely you phrase it)

And oh yeah, like I said, I've been harassed plenty here. On wiki and in my real life. I don't make drama out of it (so you haven't heard about it). But I've also seen a lot of people try to make themselves out to be some kind of a "tragic victim" or "martyr" because someone somewhere said something mean about them. That's not harassment. That's just somebody not liking you out there on the internet. Get over it. And that's sort of the messed up part about all this whining that you and Demiurge are engaging in. It cheapens the real harassment that actually occurs. So screw off.Volunteer Marek 04:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"a disgrace to Wisconsin, to the Senate and to America" -- William Proxmire. Have you no sense of decency? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Were the threats to contact the kid's school also "just somebody not liking you out there on the internet"? Was the implication that if he didn't say anything more against Wikipediocracy then he would escape further attacks, acceptable? Just how it normally works there?

Have you no sense of decency? If I asked you to Google search the phrase "have you no sense of decency", would you really not see anything there that you could understand? Does none of it make any sense to you? Have you been so wrapped up in all these nationalist arguments for so long that it is just a win/lose, them/us thing to you? Some of us are not like that. Some of us are - or were - trying to build an encyclopedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Screw this, I've wasted enough of my time trying to be reasonable with you. Obsess and rant on.Volunteer Marek 05:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Typical and not at all unexpected. Amazing, though, that you came here to talk about "dishonesty", and then spouted the above. My question about decency is answered. My question about what you thought of the threats to contact the child's school, remains unanswered. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Visitors from AN/I and other less salubrious places should feel free to partake of the light refreshments here provided. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for making personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Demiurge1000, I am extremely disappointed in your recent behavior over the past couple of days. Not too long ago you were blocked for falsely and repeatedly accusing an editor of creating malicious sockpuppets. When Dennis Brown unblocked you, it was with the understanding that you would no longer make "comments that can't be properly substantiated."

Yet just three days ago, you falsely accused another editor, without any evidence, of contributing to the outing of a minor editor – on an arbitration page, no less. Your comment was rightly redacted by a clerk, and you were given a very clear warning by Floquenbeam that any more false or unsubstantial accusations would earn you a block. Yet, you followed up that warning by falsely accusing me of making personal attacks, which you then followed by trolling my talk page.

This is completely unacceptable. Since you apparently have no interest in adhering to your unblock agreement not to make false and unsubstantiated comments about your fellow editors, I am restoring and extending your block. Since I am one of the (many) people you've made false and unsubstantiated comments about, I am bringing this block to AN/I for review.

Any admin is welcome to unblock once you make a convincing commitment not to make any more false and unsubstantiated accusations about your fellow editors. You will need to make it clear to them that this time – unlike last time – you intend to keep your word. 28bytes (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

One of the many things I've been accused of on the external website concerned is that I supposedly approached the editor involved (Gwickwire) and prompted him, behind the scenes, to get involved in the Cla68 dispute and to post things, some of them unwise things, aligned with my viewpoint on that dispute. (The implication was pretty much that I was writing the material and he was posting it.) I find this absolutely outrageous, for a number of reasons, one of which I will not mention here for privacy reasons, although you may be aware of it. Another of the reasons is that it's obviously and manifestly completely untrue, as when Gwickwire began posting comments (quite a lot of comments) about the Cla68 situation, he and I were not on speaking terms (and in fact I had recently asked at WP:ANEW for him to be blocked).

Immediately after reading these very unpleasant accusations, I came to Gwickwire's talk page to find you making what appeared to me to be an almost identical accusation, that I was "egging on" Gwickwire to post things that he would not otherwise post. That is why I regarded your comment as a personal attack, and indeed Gwickwire took the same view of it. Do you understand why, in that set of circumstances, our first reaction was to view it that way?

On a minor technical note, I'm not at all convinced that when one "resets" a 24 hour block that would have expired nearly four months ago, a proportionate extension of it can sensibly be said to reach the region of one month. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of a phrase I've now agreed not to use

Some of the people who were threatened by an administrator from the external website

There seems (understandably) to be some surprise at AN/I about my use of the term "boxcutter people" to describe the worst of the participants on the external website (those participants are banned on English Wikipedia). I did not use it to refer to the 9/11 hijackers, but to refer to those participants.

The reason - and this has already been posted on-wiki by a member of the website concerned, so no more claims of "false accusations" please - is that one of the administrators of the site said he would like to deal with the members of Wikimedia UK by flying to London and slitting some throats with a boxcutter. (Yes, this is the sort of website we're talking about, and this is why I over-reacted when I perceived 28bytes as making comments which appeared to echo ones that had just been made about me by such people on that website.)

Anyway it has been pointed out that the use of the term can be upsetting regardless of its intended meaning or context, so I had already agreed to cease using it before 28bytes got here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I am horrified. Please email me this website url. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Will do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you also email me a copy of where this was said? It would definitely be useful for my records. Truthfully, a threat like that should be taken to the police or at least directly reported to the WMF. Silverseren^C 04:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Outing of minors and harrassment of child editors

Not this sort of outing

I've been told that I'll be blocked (which now means, "even more blocked than currently") if I repeat my comments about the outing of minors that members of the website discussed above have been engaging in. This also means that I'm not able to explain, defend, or expand upon the comments that I made.

What does bear mentioning here and now, though, is that this harrassment is still ongoing, with at least two sockpuppet accounts created for that purpose within the last 24 hours. The bland dismissal of these concerns, and failure to deal robustly with what is effectively real-world harrassment of child editors, raises grave concerns about the inadequacy of Wikipedia's child protection policy and approach. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to know whether arbcom has replied to the email(s) from the child editor who is being targetted, and if not, why not. This is supposed to be one of the things arbcom is responsible for. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Next time, please...

Heya. In the future, if things are getting loopy over at Wikipediocracy and you are aware that a minor is being inappropriately fucked with, could you please email me (or Alison, or using the "report post" button if you have an account there) rather than making the situation worse by bringing it up on the drama boards?

Some things should be dealt with quietly, before they get out of hand. I hope you agree. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well thanks for the thought, but you're stretching my AGF to the max here. You (the Wikipediocracy management) allow your forum to be used for encouraging collection of private info on Wikipedia editors, and you allow people to use it as a place to swap such info, and to brag about how their "research" is coming along. You even allow use of its official blog as a platform for "outing" Wikipedia editors using the info gained through these discussions.

And this goes on constantly, and any sensible person would be well aware sooner or later it's going to be a child that these people are harassing, and then you act all surprised? Really?

Even now, the harassment of this minor on your forum has been going on for what, a week, and you still haven't dealt with it effectively; as recently as this evening the main perpetrator - whom you've known about for some time now - wrote on your forum "I have the snail mail address, email and phone contacts" and offered to supply them. Your reaction to that was "please cut it out". A bit inadequate, wouldn't you say?

Meanwhile another of your "Global Moderators" (how reassuring that still sounds) on Wikipediocracy called "Cla68" (sounds familiar somehow) tonight suggested that a forum member called "Lone Wolf" should "Email the kid and ask him for his parents' contact info and tell him why you want to know it", and then if the child refuses to hand over his parents' details, try and use that as a way to get him blocked (or, as he nicely newspeaked it, "follow Wikipedia's administrative guidance on dealing with minor contributors"). Such a great situation, isn't it - better hand your details over to this anonymous stranger, kid, you don't wanna get blocked, do you?

Now, does that sound like the actions of a person who I would feel comfortable contacting by pressing some "report post" button, and giving them private info about a minor? Would I have confidence in doing so? Really?

Does that sound like a situation that you have under control?

Now, if what you've actually come here to tell me is that the people who control Wikipediocracy (whoever that may be) have come to a realisation that things have not been appropriately managed, that the people who've engaged in this sort of thing who hold moderator positions on Wikipediocracy should be moved to positions more fitting with their behaviour, and that it should be ensured that the person who enjoys using your forum to harass minors should be prevented from doing that any more... then I, for one, would welcome that. I would feel able to work with people prepared to take those reasonable steps, and I could see how we wouldn't find ourselves in this situation again.

But I'm not sure if that's what you've come here to tell me. I fear it isn't.

Where is the Wikipediocracy reform campaign?

Note for anyone concerned about "false allegations" and the like - I have the screenshot of the Wikipediocracy "Cla68" account saying that, and of the other quote, and am happy to provide them to any oversighter on request. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I see. My request (or recommendation, or whatev) remains the same, for you and your page stalkers alike :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 14:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. This thread will remain here for their, my and your edification for the next 39 days starting... now! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Mostly about this morose-looking imprisoned Russian guy

Please could someone strike my comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#Fyodor Dostoyevsky, as it doesn't seem fair to the copyedit requester to have to wait unnecessarily and unexpectedly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I just removed it, as no one had replied, but I will happily restore with the strikeout if that's your preference. NE Ent 19:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Removal is fine. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please could you also mention at ANI that I've posted an explanation (in this section above) of why I (and another editor) initially perceived 28bytes' comments as a personal attack. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

We can copy whatever comments you wish to the ANI thread, but you have to be clear what you wish copied.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will write something brief (don't want to be asking for whole walls o' text to be splattered all over ANI, especially since I doubt you'd agree to copy the pretty pictures along with them). It'll be a bit later as I need to sort out some other things at the moment. --Demiurge1000 (talk)

OK, please post the following:

I'd like to make anyone who's not seen it aware that I've posted an explanation in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Demiurge1000#March_2013 this section] of ''why'' I (and another editor) initially perceived 28bytes' comments as a personal attack.

You should be able to copy it directly from the talkpage (not the editing page) and the link (and emphasis) will work. Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	We've had our fights, but I'm the reason you're blocked right now. However much of an unfounded block it is, I see that it's most likely not going to be overturned anytime soon. Sorry, and thanks for all your help on this. We may lose some battles, but we'll win the war. gwickwiretalkediting 21:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Being blocked or not blocked can really only be a secondary consideration when there's behaviour of this nature going on. People need to realise that some issues need dealing with, not swept under the carpet by trying to silence anyone that comments on them.

(Just before anyone jumps in with silliness about WP:BATTLEGROUND, gwickwire is actually referring to a speech made by Churchill in which he mentions a French perspective on the English.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Be careful with that, this place has a habit of putting restrictions on people that don't agree with the masses, not commenting on your block cause I don't really understand what's going on but I've been personally sanctioned before for "advocating on an editors behalf" by Arbcom, good luck at any rate. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Another edit request

Please post this in the section for my comments at ANI that Bbb23 already started. You should be able to copy it directly from here, not from the editing page. Thanks in advance for any help fixing resultant messes in the formatting!

Extended content

:I've avoided comment here up to now, as my reply on my own talk page gives a pretty good idea of what happened with this incident. However, there's a few points that have been made that do need addressing. <s>I'll keep it brief</s> Apologies for wall of text! :Above, Jayen466 defends the comment about "slitting some throats" of Wikimedia UK members by saying it was merely "a figure of speech". If it's merely a figure of speech, why's it supposedly so appalling for ''me'' to mention it? Some editors here are, rightly, "horrified" by it, and that's because it's an awful lot more than a "figure of speech". Jayen466 goes on to compare it to the [[Twitter joke trial]]. Now, that's an incident in which a man was convicted of a criminal offence after being arrested by anti-terror police, and his conviction was upheld by two appeal courts and only finally quashed by the third appeal court after a massive public campaign supported by more-than-notable figures. Did various authorities over-react to this joke bomb threat? Yes they did, but the airport staff who originally reported it to police did so because they are told, just like WMF are told by police forces in many countries, that even an apparently non-credible threat should be taken seriously. Likewise, here on Wikipedia, if someone makes a legal threat that's obviously aimed to have a chilling effect, that's blockworthy ''even if'' a sensible adult would be confident the threatener had no chance in hell of mounting a successful legal case (or potentially, even intending to try). Why? Because as well as sensible adults, Wikipedia editors include a great many young, naive, or just completely uninformed editors who do actually have the right to edit without worrying themselves about some supposed lawsuit from some angry guy with a COI. :Moving further down this page, The Devil's Advocate says "Demiurge openly speculated at RFAR without a shred of evidence or any reasonable basis that Kevin was using his administrator privileges to funnel private information about a minor to someone else in order to facilitate malicious harassment of said minor". No, actually I did not say that. Some people may have thought I meant that; some people may indeed believe that, or have been led to believe it when they were prompted to consider the facts themselves. But I am not those people. I '''did not''' accuse, and am not accusing, Kevin of having done that. What I ''actually'' said can still be read in the history of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case|the page concerned]]. :Now, Diannaa has said on this page that it's a problem that I'm "pre-judging people based on their participation on that website". That's a very interesting point, but no, no I'm not. I don't make any judgement about Floquenbeam based on their registering an account there [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFloquenbeam&diff=542595461&oldid=542587631 in order to be able to complain about the outing of certain Wikipedia editors], nor do I make any judgement about the arbitrator who said he reads the site to give insights into whether disputants on Wikipedia are being genuine or not (he also comments there thoughtfully with his own opinions from time to time, and there's nothing wrong with that either). :What I ''do'' make a judgement about, and I expect many other people do also, is when editors who are banned or blocked on Wikipedia use Wikipediocracy to "out", harass, or attack in whatever other way their opponents, in a manner that would be totally unacceptable here, and then an editor like (for example) The Devil's Advocate proceeds to engage onwiki, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Devil%27s_Advocate&diff=prev&oldid=541569358 Fluffernutter's words], "writing comments laying a trail of how someone else could find personal information on a user makes it look a lot like you're gaming the wording of the policy to accomplish the same aim as Cla68 was trying to do ... Posting continual details about another person on Wikipedia, for no other reason than because you appear to be fascinated by them and by someone else's right to use them against that person, is not behavior we expect of an editor in good standing". :So yes, we have a spectrum of users on Wikipediocracy; some of them make comments like the throat-slitting one, some of them collate private information about minors who edit Wikipedia and offer to give it out to other Wikipediocracy editors, some of them act in the manner Fluffernutter just described and then ''also'' turn up at the talk page of one of the people being harassed and oh-so-helpfully enquire as to whether they've had any other Wikipedia accounts. This while ''also'' engaging in the discussions on Wikipediocracy where all this harassment was being planned and discussed. :Let's look at one of those discussions a little bit deeper, because it shows just ''why'' I might think that's not reasonable behaviour. Earlier this evening, one of the "Global Moderators" on Wikipediocracy called "Cla68" (sounds familiar somehow) suggested that a forum member called "Lone Wolf" should "Email the kid and ask him for his parents' contact info and tell him why you want to know it", and then if the child refuses to hand over his parents' details, try and use that as a way to get him blocked (or, as he nicely [[newspeak]]ed it, "follow Wikipedia's administrative guidance on dealing with minor contributors"). Doesn't sound very wise, does it? To me it sounds a bit like "better hand your details over to this anonymous stranger, kid, you don't wanna get blocked, do you?" And a Wikipediocracy user called The Devil's Advocate immediately joins the discussion talking about whether this would be effective or not. The individual who has been doing the "research" on the kid concerned helpfully pipes up "I have the snail mail address, email and phone contacts", and offers to supply them. :Now, maybe I should be so much more assuming of good faith, but when a person who acts as Fluffernutter has described above, and (apparently) participates in that manner in discussions of the nature I've just described on Wikipediocracy, is ''also'' the same person that turns up to the target's talkpage making these "polite" enquiries as to their past history, I think to myself that that is not appropriate. Not appropriate at all, nonono. :Apparently, my rather intemperate responses discouraged that person from carrying on with those "enquiries". Well, given the situation described, I don't think anyone could argue that's a bad thing. :BWilkins [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=543204559 considers] that "Reality appears to be that membership on the one is nearly incompatible with editing on Wikipedia", and Herostratus [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlison&diff=541738752&oldid=541719258 takes the view] that "consorting with persons sworn to damage and destroy the Wikipedia is not consistent with being a Wikipedia editor", but I don't see anyone clamouring for either of them to be blocked for a month. Maybe they just have that little bit more self-restraint than me. :<small>Screenshots of the Wikipediocracy comments I refer to, and any additional diffs that are needed, available to any oversighter on request.</small> --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Done. -- Cheers, Riley 02:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Making silly faces at IP addresses

One should not remonstrate with IP editors while blocked or while wearing a facial expression like this one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

An IP editor has now posted allegations that I'm a collaborator with a "criminal hacker", that I've "probably never posted to Wikipedia Review", and that I'm bad at harassing people. (Well, I thought it was ambiguous anyway.) Also some metaphor about dogs.

Please would someone frown at the IP editor concerned for a moment, as I myself can't currently manage the correct serious expression to do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Demiurge1000; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum and George Pondorevo

Well now, who'd a thunk it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Block extended

Really? I've modified your block to indefinite. When you understand WP:CLUE, let us know and we will be happy to welcome you back. — Ched :  ?  08:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)