:Umm, OK. Don't worry too much about Area 51, I don't think anyone is going to attack it or arrest anyone about it. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 21:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
:Umm, OK. Don't worry too much about Area 51, I don't think anyone is going to attack it or arrest anyone about it. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 21:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
:Also, please explain what Pepper and Kad has to do about Area 51. Please explain the silly things wrote too. I could have had someone log into my account and write that. I only deleted the location, but it is probably not legal to post the location.
Thanks a lot for your help! The hyphen is incorrectly placed, the competition is called Supercupen, not Super-Cupen. I don't see anything wrong with with having Svenska Cupen and Supercupen on one line, since there is enough room to the right of the table I don't see how it could cause any problems. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! an editor over at FAC has expressed concerns over the prose of the article, some which I agree with and some which I don't. Some issues are over a new paragraph that I've added to the lead but others are primarily in the history section. I'm going to do my best to solve them and would really appreciate if you could just take a look at it. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep I just saw that, I've replied over there. If you want to fix what you can, I will then take a look at the changed sections (and some other parts) and see how the prose can be further improved. If there's any part that you feel doesn't need changing (from a structure or coverage point of view, or similar) and you want feedback on that, let me know here or there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply! I have now fixed what I could and I have also added more content, specifically a new section entitled "Ownership and finances" and a couple of various sentences, you can go ahead with copyediting if you like. Now that I've added the new section I mentioned above there might be less need for the mention in the lead (second paragraph), you are free too do what you want with that one, I feel like mentioning it would be a good thing but maybe make it shorter. I am very thankful for your help! --Reckless182 (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi man, I understand that you are busy. There has been some new comments, some which are prose and lead related. I have solved the majority of them but there may still be some minor issues left. The FAC has 5 supports at the moment and one editor who will probably support it after a copyedit. In my opinion the article is in excellent shape overall after the FAC process but as I said earlier the problem might be with the newly added content. So if you don't have time to do a full copyedit you could just look at the lead and the "Ownership and finances" section. Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! Sorry for the extremely late reply, but I was sick for a week, then after that I was really busy with important business.
Again, thanks for the information you gave me! It will really help me. --Ryder 01:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC) talk
A new link for your continuing wikihounding and harassment
Interesting speculation, but actually I've had Sandstein's talk page watchlisted since long before I even knew that you, Nocal, Brooks and the rest of your bunch of friends even existed. Since he helped out with a problematic issue here, in fact.
Are you ok? What Sandstein's talk page, my friends, and the question "are you the administrator that deals with Communism articles?" have to do with your hounding of my contributions and harassing me at user:Huldra's collection of absurd? Anyway I am unwatching your talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No great mystery here. You repeatedly accuse me and other people of "wikihounding" (on this occasion and many others) so I was making clear that I encountered Huldra's userpage because I have Sandstein's talk page watchlisted, and you turned up there trying to bully Sandstein into deleting the page - not because I'm "hounding" anything.
Hi Demiurge, since you're one of a few people I've worked with and respect on wiki, just thought to ask for your opinion on the direction of an article I recently created, namely Chief of Defence Force (Singapore). I need a few pointers, namely (a) from an outsider's point of view, what could be added to the article that is currently missing; and (b) would you, as someone viewing it for the first time, consider it an article (and thus subject to GAN/FAC in future) or a list (FLC)? Your input would be appreciated. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 02:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! I will have more of a look around over the next day or two, but I just took a very quick look at Commander-in-Chief Fleet for ideas. It's an article with roughly comparable scope because positions with similar seniority in the British armed forces are so intertwined with the messy structure of it that it's difficult to find pages for actual commanding positions (for example British Army lists its current commander, whose article in turn informs you that he is Chief of the General Staff (United Kingdom) but that article is essentially a list but with extremely limited information).
Commander-in-Chief Fleet has a certain amount of detail about where the role is based (with a distinction between Command Headquarters and Operational Headquarters), talks in quite a lot of detail about the additional staff that support the role, and also has some diagrams showing command structure. I think all of that is worth adding except that I'm not 100% convinced how useful the diagrams are, since they are too small to read without expanding them, and on that particular page they contain relatively little information to justify the reader bothering to expand them. But it's certainly worth considering.
Now, Commander-in-Chief Fleet isn't a particularly well developed article, but it is structured as an article that happens to contain a list as one of its sections, rather than being a list article. To me there is a certain attraction in trying to develop Chief of Defence Force (Singapore) as an article, not a list. Most of the available information is indeed rather list-like and easily tabulated because it's the history of the incumbents; however, to take a completely unrelated example that I'm working on right now, even current Featured Article candidate Malmö FF has a large part of the information underlying its prose that is essentially also list-like information (a list of football seasons and competitions and their results) that has been rendered into prose.
Whether this means that the table in "List of Chiefs of Defence Force since 1990" should be turned entirely into prose, I'm not so sure, but certainly I think there is justification for considering the page an article rather than a list. After all, the number of list entries is unlikely to grow much in the near future, but the amount of information available (about each incumbent or about other aspects of the role) has the potential to grow rather more.
That's my initial thoughts, but I will look over some more comparable examples from other nations over the next day or two, to see what other ideas there are. (I was recently looking at Armed Forces of Malta, another small island nation, since it's been in the news with Libyan fighter pilots seeking asylum there, and because an article I'm working on is related, but it seems Malta takes the exact opposite approach to Singapore, and some of their heaviest equipment is World War 2 vintage 40mm Bofors cannon.) It's worth asking for feedback at WP:MILHIST as well, if you haven't already. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate your taking a look at the discussion of this article at the BLP noticeboard. My own impression is that the article is little more than a smear of this guy, who, it seems, is a real controversial hotspot. So far I am the only one, apparently, who thinks this. So your input would be nice. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. I'd seen the discussion but hadn't checked it out. I'll look into it, it might take me a while to unravel whatever's going on though. ----Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for catching my obvious copy & paste typo. It was supposed to be the name of a school, but I can't remember which one now. I naturally would not consider deleting, moving, or redirecting an article such as Elementary schools ;) --Kudpung (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've expanded and referenced the article, trying to include sources demonstrating notability and giving a balanced view. I would appreciate your thoughts. Cullen328 (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement.
Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, or where free-content edits overlie the infringement), please consult Wikipedia:Copyright violations.
Remember to check that the suspected source of the seemingly unambiguous copyright violation is not in fact free content, such as a Wikipedia mirror, and to notify the page's creator when tagging a page for deletion under this criterion; the template ==Speedy deletion nomination of [[:{{{1}}}]]==
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on [[:{{{1}}}]] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by [[:{{{1}}}|visiting the page]] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. is available for this. For images and media, see the equivalent criterion in the "Files" section below, which has more specific instructions.
{{db-g12}}, {{db-copyvio}}
Sorry but I do not know how to proceed. Genbukan branched from Bujinkan a while ago. But all articles regarding Genbukan and Soke Shoto Tanemura seem to be deleted quite readily while Bujinkan seems to be protected from this veiled vandalism.
As I see it, claims of notability and verification and copyrights are similar in both cases but Wikipedia editors are prone to delete all Genbukan content but not Bujinkan.
Is this an adverstisment campain or an Encyclopedia?
If there are 2 branches with similar obscure or dubious claims... Shouldn't they be treated the same?
Please review historic deletions of Genbukan, GWNF, KJJR, Soke Shoto Tanemura, vs. Bujinkan and Masaaki Hatsumi: I think the wiki is being used for adverstisement purposes of one over the other.
I've inserted blockquote tags to try and make it a bit clearer what you're saying. It might take me a day or so to work out exactly what you're saying and come up with a sensible reply. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "Genbukan branched from Bujinkan a while ago" I guess you are suggesting that Bujinkan is a martial art tradition or school, and Genbukan was one that developed from it or was influenced by it.
Now, you say that "claims of notability and verification and copyrights are similar in both cases" but this appears not to be the case.
First of all, the articles that were deleted or userfied, and why;
The deletion log for Genbukan shows "16:22, 15 March 2011 VernoWhitney (talk | contribs) deleted "Genbukan" (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: http://www.kohakudojo.co.uk/Genbukan.htm)". That means someone copied some or all of the content of that article from the website listed. That's a copyright infringement, it rightfully gets deleted. If an article about Bujinjan consisted entirely of similar copyright infringements, then it too would get deleted. There are no double standards here.
The same deletion log shows that a PROD tag was present on an earlier version of the same article for seven days with no objections therefore that version was deleted. Someone removing the PROD tag constitutes an objection. Once there has been an objection, the PROD tag should not be re-added (as you seem to want to do with Bujinjan-related articles), instead the article should be taken to a deletion discussion. There are no double standards here.
The same deletion log shows that the deleting admin moved that earlier version to User:MiskaVuorio/Genbukan at the request of an editor, presumably so that it could be worked on with a view to eventually resubmitting it as a proper article. Cursory examination of User:MiskaVuorio/Genbukan shows that all of its references are to the organisation's own website; this makes it very clear why it is not currently suitable to be a Wikipedia article in the mainspace. If significant coverage in independent reliable sources can be found, there would be nothing to stop it becoming an article again.
The deletion log for Shoto Tanemura shows that it was deleted following a deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shōtō Tanemura in which it was noted "can't find any independent sources to support notability". If there is not significant coverage in independent reliable sources to prove notability, then the article does not meet WP:GNG and that is why it was deleted.
Secondly, the articles that have not yet been deleted or userfied:
The article Bujinkan, although something of a mess and needing more and better references, cites several independent published sources to back up some of its content (along with some non-independent sources). This is presumably why no-one has yet started a deletion discussion for this article, but there is nothing to stop you from doing so if you think that it's warranted.
Masaaki Hatsumi has something like half a dozen independent published sources (some of them looking reliable) backing up parts of its content. Again, this is presumably why no-one has yet started a deletion discussion for this article, but there is nothing to stop you from doing so if you think that it's warranted.
As you can hopefully see from the above, it is not the case that there is any "veiled vandalism" going on. The two branches may indeed have "similar obscure or dubious claims", however their Wikipedia articles had differing issues that were dealt with according to Wikipedia policy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to notability and independent sources in Tanemura and Hatsumi's pages I would disagree regarding independent sources. In the older Tanemura article there were sources that were at least as independent as Hatsumi's, if they are independent at all, for either of them. Most of the claims made are, after all, claims of knowledge received directly from master to student without independent bodies that would verify, since this is Ninpo tradition. I know that they claim that, in Tanemura's and Genbukan cases "all" of the references were to the organization's own web site, although I crearly remember different dojo's and magazines been referenced there. But when I tried to check on the old article it was not avaiable for rechecking. What I do remember was that in the page it was claimed that Tanemura claims more high ranks that the editor thought believable, but I would not think this to be a reason for deletion. But again I could not verify sources since the whole article was deleted by the time I got a chance to review. I would think that, if there are two branches to this Bujinkan Genbukan ninpo traditions both should have their space and one should not be deleted for not having verifiable sources while the other is allowed to remain while it has the same issues.
Maybe I'm not "wiki savvy" as to know how to review the Tanemura/Genbukan articles so I can verify them since they have been deleted.--Crio de la Paz (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
i.e. I just rechecked: I while ago Genbukan did appear in Wikipedia Ninpo article. Now the article seems to be a Bujinkan article about what that school considers Ninpo to be ...
--Crio de la Paz (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey: they even have there own category now! good for them. Great free advertisment.
--Crio de la Paz (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for bothering you so much: now I'm getting the hang of these. I reverted one of the pages and you were right: They are not sourcing to anything else! I will work on it on the following days, sorry for being such a pain, I think I'm getting the hang of how to "wiki" a little bit more now...
I thought I did see other sources in an older Genbukan article at another time but maybe it was elsewhere. I will try and source it up with "independent" sources as much as I can...
--Crio de la Paz (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's possible that both schools and both related individuals are notable enough for Wikipedia articles; equally perhaps neither and none of them are. However, it's more constructive to try to create a sufficiently well referenced article on Genbukan and Tanemura, rather than trying to ensure consistency by trying to get the Hatsumi and Bujinkan articles deleted. (If there's another deletion discussion, avoid using the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument as well.) You might find useful information at Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts or Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan, or seek feedback and assistance on their talk pages. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
wikihounding and harassment
As was stated above and he was accussed of only 2 weeks ago he does have this pattern. Pls assist in investigating user Ravpapa. --Billybruns (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Interior, that is one very shiny and very highly valued barnstar! There was some very slight unintentional irony in BillyBrun's choice of who he directed some of his final contributions to, but to quote some TV program... "that's not for here" :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just wanted to pop in and let you know I've responded to your new section in Talk:Michael McGinn about NPOV issues as I'm not sure if you've watchlisted it. I know that you started the section on behalf of an IP editor on a noticeboard so I'm wondering if you're planning on working on the issue with me or were just attempting to facilitate discussion. Either way, please let me know so I can help fix the issues and/or remove the tag. Thanks in advance. TomPointTwo (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do have it watchlisted and I do intend to contribute to the discussion. On the other hand, you're correct in that I probably won't be able to spend a significant amount of time in improving the article directly - it is a very big topic and I had never even heard of the guy before today. I will try to find some time over the next few days to outline what I think the problems are, from an outsider's point of view. It may well be one of those people who is controversial enough that anyone who really knows about the topic area will find it difficult to write neutrally, but anyone who doesn't know the topic area will find it difficult to write on it at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. I'll leave the tag up, hopefully we can revisit it shortly. If you find yourself with too many other things going on in the short term though please let me know so I can move forward. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to keep bugging but...a lot is going with the subject and I would really like to continue working. I made a few additions to the article since we last talked and I was wondering if you'd be charitable enough to take a look and tell me what you think. Having a couple NPOV complaints against an article I've essentially authored makes me want someone totally uninvolved take a look. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our friend is back
Do you think we can semiprotect Ronn Torossian and 5W Public Relations from anonymous editors? Our chum has completely reverted the two articles to their original puff status. I have never asked for protection and am unsure how to go about it. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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!
Hi,
My edits were removed and I have to clarify that a lot of the information you are posting is wrong:
"In February 2011 the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) presented a case to investigate an accusation from the Ministry of Health following complaints by Brunei's Ministry of Health's (MOHB) regarding complaints of overcharging a member of Brunei's royal family in 2007."
- There was in fact no complaint made by any party. The case began when Professor Saktu intervened on the private business transaction between Dr.Lim and The Brunei Government when the MOHB asked for a discount. They were advised not to pay by Professor Saktu, whereby constituting an interjection into private enterprise activities without prompting. Professor Saktu has since left his office (silently) and the Singapore media has not reported on this fact due to media bias.
"The bill for 7 months of breast cancer treatment or Pangiran Anak Hajah Damit, the cousin of the Brunei Sultan and sister of the Queen, came up to $USD 20 million (SGD$26 million) due to alleged significant markups.[8][9][10] On 28th March, 2011, Lim requested the intervention of Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Singapore) stop the investigation by the SMC, as "she would need to disclose details of the royal family of Brunei which could impact the relationship between the two countries"."
- this is a gross oversimplification of what happened and is misleading. Clearly your postings are based almost entirely on the articles written in Straitstimes, which has proven to be highly biased and only showing information cast against Dr.Lim, and almost nothing from her defense.
" Lim's counsel told the hearing that the medical bills had not been marked up.[11]"
- Lim's counsel has PROVEN in court documents and evidence that bills had not been marked up. The inclusions I made also show that there were in fact no charges or allegations of markups, and the entire issue of markups were added in court in order to sensationalize the case. Isn't that worth adding into the article??
You are sourcing articles which are all completely biased against Dr.Lim, AND removed any articles which I posted which explained the situation in a balanced light? I have to suspect that there is a motivation to post negative articles even though now there are articles which prove Dr.Lim has been the victim after all. The wikipedia article is helping in victimizing Dr.Lim and ruining her reputation based on unproven allegations. Is that the purpose of Wikipedia?
Why remove the other articles I posted? Is there a way I can pass this up to a higher authority because I feel you are intent on posting negative not balanced views on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegurukl83 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. I have to emphasise that I have only ever edited the article today, which was principally to revert your changes because I felt that, overall, they were inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. So for example, your changes included an editorial comment that explained your point of view on why the media and/or the public's views and responses to the allegations are unfair.
However, if I advertently removed sourced material that could be used to better balance the article, then I should not have done so.
A good place to raise concerns like this is at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, where I believe you already posted a few weeks ago, as a result of which the article was substantially revised at the time. I am going to check whether the article has since then been significantly altered from that revised version, as well as checking the edit I removed in greater detail to see whether there might be sourced information from it that might be possible to include to improve the balance of the article.
One of the problems here is that Wikipedia only reports on what "reliable sources" have already said; if the sources (that is, the media, including print and press) are all portraying the case unfairly then sadly that is all the information we can really use. However, as far as possible, Wikipedia attempts to write conservatively and considerately about living people - there is more information about this in the biographies of living persons policy.
Often issues can be resolved through editing, discussion, and asking for help at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard as mentioned above, but it can take some time and issues don't tend to get resolved straight away. However, "if you are not satisfied with the response of editors and admins to a concern about biographical material about living persons, you can ask the Foundation's team of volunteers for help" - further details are at this link. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Demiurge1000, you have been so helpful to me showing me around learning, teaching me how this place works. WP needs more people like you helping out new users. If it wasn't for you I probably would have gotten booted out for not following some random policy I had never heard of. Again thanks for everything you have done, @ d \/\/ | | |Talk20:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello you told me I was making "silly things" to Area 51 article. I also have no idea what "Pepper and Kad" has to do about it. I wanted to get rid of the coordinates, because that may not be legal. I am not complaing but, I did not try to make the article harmed. I just don't want anyone who is not supposed to be there go there, and maybe attack Area 51. I just do not want the person who wrote it to be arrested or go to court for placing the location of a military secret base. Also explain what "Pepper and Kad" has to do about a military base. Pepper and Kad is an animation not a place to go, the creator of the series would not want anyone thinking that their place is Area 51 in Disguise, because Pepper and Kad is not made at Area 51. Please respond. Sorry if I was rude. Thomasbum98 (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Thomasbum98[reply]
Also, please explain what Pepper and Kad has to do about Area 51. Please explain the silly things wrote too. I could have had someone log into my account and write that. I only deleted the location, but it is probably not legal to post the location.
