:Thanks, both taken to AfD. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 22:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks, both taken to AfD. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 22:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
==Thank you==
Thanks for putting the article on the Sams Wiki, I might go to that website instead, or just move onto a blog or something. I just can't think of good things to write about. Thank you! [[User:Thomasbum98|Thomasbum98]] ([[User talk:Thomasbum98|talk]]) 00:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Thomasbum98
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]
OK sounds good, I will look into this over the next day or two. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:40, 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]
Your involvement in that matter ..., well I'll let you to figure out what is the right verb to describe it.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
He was recently asked, "are you the administrator that deals with Communism articles?", or something like that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
As for absurd, yes that's exactly what I thought of the Communism question. Admins must get very tired of this sort of nonsense. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:04, 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]
Thanks for your comments. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have submitted a complaint here about Jonathan's editing behavior. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You keep editing and removing without comments - Why ? Jonathangluck (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:31, 17 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]
Maybe not redirectable, but... it could still be improved! Thanks for your note. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:46, 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]
Thanks for doing this, it looks much better. I've commented/!voted at the AfD. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your gracious remarks. Cullen328 (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
YGM
I have sent you an email Findingtruths (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC) User:Findingtruths (talk) 21.55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, got it. Will reply later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Genbukan Bujinkan
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]
Note taken and working on it: Thanks! --Crio de la Paz (talk) 16:12, 5 April 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]
To Demiurge1000, for diligent efforts to stymie P.R. sock puppeteers. The Interior(Talk) 03:27, 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]
The IP address he was most recently using, 108.21.128.55, is now blocked as well. If he swaps IPs again then I will ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:33, 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]
The old version you referred would be better since the case is ongoing and no judgement has been made against Dr.Lim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegurukl83 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another Barn Star
The Guidance Barnstar
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 \/\/ | | |Talk 20:17, 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]
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. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasbum98 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're right, probably Pepper and Kad doesn't have much to do with Area 51. However, I suggest that deciding what is legal, is probably best left to lawyers. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Frost Beckner full article text deletion
Thank you for taking the time and offering your guidance in publishing the most accurate biographical entry on Mr. Beckner. As I have been working in a vacuum on this, the suggestions and commentary I've now received as to what is and is not appropriate for this submission are very helpful.
It was never my intention to initiate a "puff piece" for the WP editorial community to help contribute to, but I can see now how in trying to create a narrative flow, some of my wording would have been viewed as advertisement and/or promotion. This was in error and the suggestions of you and the other editors are ultimately of great value to helping me and the WP community produce the best possible entry on the subject. There have been many minor edits by other users, but the deletion of the bulk of the text certainly came as shock. I had assumed someone was trying to vandalize the article, especially in light of the inappropriate entry, and my discussion about it, that ultimately brought the article to the attention of the WP administrators.
With your permission and guidance, I would like to post smaller elements of my original text in the talk section of the page for discussion, keeping in mind that the salient facts of Beckner's biography, sourced and cited, should only be the simple and succinct biographical incidences of his career. While I believe much of the source-based factual data is of interest in understanding and illuminating Mr. Beckner's career, I will be conscious to avoid putting forth my own characterizations and conclusions. Please advise. Thank you. Dwwinter (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your message. I can see how this has developed - it's easy to unintentionally write with a non-neutral tone when you have a connection with the subject, and of course also as you say, you haven't had the benefit of much outside input from other people into the article. Posting suggestions on the talk page is the ideal way to proceed with this, so yes that would be great. One problem is if there is still a shortage of independent editors who actually have time to reorganise that material back into the article itself. On a positive note, both the article itself and the talk page have now been temporarily semi-protected because of some unregistered users edit-warring on them (both to reinstate your "version" of the article and to remove the comment you made on the talk page, which seems an odd combination), so we should be interrupted less by problematic edits now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Hello Demiurge1000,
Could you please take a look at this for me. I am new to Wikipedia (my signature says otherwise because I stole it) and I just want to make sure that I make no oopsies. mauchoeagle 20:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a good start. There are some problems with the references at the moment, I'll see if I can fix them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK the refs are fixed, but one of them is on the Wikipedia blacklist. What sort of site is it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, having looked at it, I would guess the site (suite101) is blacklisted because of its very limited editorial control (basically just about anyone can sign up to be an editor there.) So it's not really a reliable source of the sort that we'd want to use for a Wikipedia article. Is there a more reliable source that you could use for that instead? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fiberanalysis reference is a more reliable source and it has that information in it so I can just take that reference out. mauchoeagle 20:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! It's a good idea to have a look around for other sources too, though, otherwise the article will end up being a bit too short, or people might question the notability of the topic. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would not be a good source. See WP:BLOGS for the main reason why, and WP:FRINGE for some more. I'm going to ask a police forensics expert if he can suggest a better approach to finding sources for this kind of thing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks and would this be a reliable source: [2]. mauchoeagle 20:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Demiurge1000 pinged me because forensics is vaguely my field and he thought I might be able to assist with sources. TruTV doesn't immediately look like a source to dismiss; on the other hand it's not necessarily the best in the world. Ideally we need scholarly works (or at least peer reviewed / reliably published books) on the subject. I always find Google Scholar and Google Books are prime places to find references; try here or here. Google Books is handy because they often let you preview pertinent parts of books (usually enough to make use of the source). The problem with scholarly stuff is that it is usually behind a paywall - if you have an Athens membership then that usually gets access to some of the documents. If you don't then make a list of sources and I will be happy to get copies of them for you. I also have other sources where I can get some of the law enforcement bulletins/handbooks & stuff; I'll have a dig through my library and see if I can find something useful. I have to dash right now (bed time) but if you have a look at those links - and if you need access to some of those references let me know :) I'll try and take another look tomorrow --Errant(chat!) 21:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Demiurge1000, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
@ d \/\/ | | |Talk 00:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And no this is not superfluous. Everyone needs to know they are welcomed every once in a while. We hope you stay Demiurge I could really use your continued help around here, and thanks for all you've done already. Thanks, @ d \/\/ | | |Talk 00:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeoman Editor (or Grognard Extraordinaire)
Hey Demiurge1000 it has come to my attention that you are no longer a Grognard but a Yeoman Editor (or Grognard Extraordinaire). I though I would let you change it on your page but I felt you should know, we wouldn't want you being shorted now would we :) @ d \/\/ | | |Talk 00:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Oh... Sorry I forgot there was a time restraint to. You've done enough work here but apparently you haven't wasted* enough time here yet. @ d \/\/ | | |Talk 00:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] *Disclaimer:Editing WP is NOT a waste of time. Although to get the service badge you could just not do anything for a couple of months and still get it...
Haha thanks... I will persist! Then I will get everything I deserve :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Demiurge1000. I see you tidied up a bit after our banned user. I was in a rush to get off to work but now that I have had more time to review the policy, it states that we are to revert all edits by banned users, both good and bad, so as they cannot game the system and get a reputation for doing good work whilst banned and thus have leverage in any future unban request. Thanks for helping to prevent damage to Wikipedia by continuing to watch this problematic group of articles. Regards, --Diannaa(Talk) 18:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Joe, yes the "thank you for your efforts to lighten up Wikipedia, but..." template is one of my favourites (and I actually know people that have received it for their edits, which is quite scary really). I like seeing vandalism non-constructive edits that are slightly more imaginative or humorous than the norm, in fact I had a vague suspicion at the back of my mind that the problematic IP in this case was the same person as the much less salubrious edits made to the same article by a different IP previously. So they are improving :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Francis A. Dales
On 9 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Francis A. Dales, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that cadet Francis A. Dales began Operation Pedestal on an American merchant ship, continued on a British destroyer, and ended it on an American tanker requisitioned and manned by a British crew? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
If you did not see, I might have done that article. See my explanation on admin board. Sorry if I contaminated that article with crummy edits. I did not mean too. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I've replied there. Thanks for your message. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I replied again. different ip address, but same person. 173.52.5.48 (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually "SysOp" is exactly the correct term, used interchangably with 'admin' - the user right, in Mediawiki, is called that - e.g. [3]. Chzz ► 01:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it's better to pick one term, and stick with it. Pretending that some people are "more important" because they have some bit or other, is silly. If it's relevant to the circumstance, then fine. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) "Sysop" is and has always been an acceptable interchangeable term with "admin". I'm not sure where you get the impression that the two are different in Wikipedia context. And you of all people should know better than to edit another editor's comment. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarity is important - I don't accept "sysop" as being usefully an interchangeable term - let's get things right, not just "right because we feel like it". Looking at the page quite recently, the questioned material has been removed entirely - so I don't think I'm wrong to have questioned it. An over-reaction somewhere? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Demiurge1000. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of New Republic Brewing Company, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Per the Eagle source, sufficient for A7. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Demiurge1000. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Royal Kerckhaert Horseshoe Factory, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: being in existance for 100 years is a credible indication of significance. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting the article on the Sams Wiki, I might go to that website instead, or just move onto a blog or something. I just can't think of good things to write about. Thank you! Thomasbum98 (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Thomasbum98[reply]
