User talk:Demiurge1000

A diversion

Hello, Demiurge1000. You have new messages at Roger Pearse's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Banned user

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)

<3

I LOVE YOU TOO ! MARRY ME ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidsuzukiisgreat (talk • contribs) 23:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Demiurge1000. You have new messages at Yogesh Khandke's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Very cool

Pardon the interruption, but I think this edit has the funniest edit summary I've seen in a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henrico_County_Public_Schools&curid=3128840&diff=423079722&oldid=423078467 You also provided a very nice comment to the editor. Cheers and happy editing JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

DYK for Francis A. Dales

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Project wikify

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)

No problem, I've replied there. Thanks for your message. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I replied again. different ip address, but same person. 173.52.5.48 (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

SysOp

Re. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pepper and Kad and this edit

Actually "SysOp" is exactly the correct term, used interchangably with 'admin' - the user right, in Mediawiki, is called that - e.g. [1]. Chzz  ►  01:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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)

It does not matter if you, personally agree with the term. It's a fact. And it is not appropriate to edit comments of other users even if they're wrong, unless they're nasty.

I do not think they should be called "SysOp" - nor "admin" - I think they should be called "janitor" or something. But that is not the point.

Still, I emphasize this is no big deal, and done with; I only mentioned it to try and clarify.  Chzz  ►  04:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: New Republic Brewing Company

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)

Speedy deletion declined: Royal Kerckhaert Horseshoe Factory

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)

Thanks, both taken to AfD. --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! Thomasbum98 (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Thomasbum98

If looking for a topic, I think every ship listed on List of largest container ships would be notable, most of them don't already have articles, and Google News should find independent third-party sources about the bigger ones. But of course, writing about cargo ships is not everyone's idea of fun :)

I'm not sure how long articles stay on Sams Wiki, since quite a few people seem to have the ability to delete articles there. So Wikia might be better. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved help needed per WP:UP#POLEMIC

Template:Uninvolved There is no discussion here to review - see the explanation/note provided, or let me know if further info is needed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(the "explanation" field can seemingly only be viewed here) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Demiurge1000. You have new messages at N5iln's talk page.
Message added 20:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

free speech flag ps3

Just thought you might want to know I got a response from the Arbitration Audit Subcommittee,

Full Discussion links are here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg

Thank you for your help Decora (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Now seeing it for the first time, I discover that it's actually just an arrangement of simple geometric shapes and text in a standard font - what an anti-climax! :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/180 Degrees South: Conquerors of the Useless

In light of multiple available sources and the continued expansion and improvement of the article, I would ask that you consider a withdrawal and close of your nomination. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Great job on improving the article! I've withdrawn and closed the AfD. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much for looking back in. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

From User_talk:Judae1 - I would say thank you, but I am also unsure of what this referred to. I read the citation page, but still don't know what I wrote. Can you link me to an edit and the change? Much appreciated. --Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Feel free - if I can add something of value I will certainly try. --Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael Wildes

I'd love to know what you believe to be improper about the Wildes article. If my knowing him is your only concern, you have a right to that opinion. Yet, Wikipedia policy is clear that I exercise caution and adhere to strict guidelines, but does not say that I may not do it. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. So more than just making a broad-brush declaration, I'd appreciate something more specific so to engage in a useful and real conversation/debate about it. Thank you.

--Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Email

Replied on your talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd tell you what I can. Let me hear your question.

--Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

didnt get an email. judae1 (at) hotmail (dot) com

--Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

OK I've just resent it to your hotmail address. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of The Center for Rural Entrepreneurial Studies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Center for Rural Entrepreneurial Studies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Center for Rural Entrepreneurial Studies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

unsourced and not notable

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Riccardo_Buscarini - This is a bit of a shame, not a single edit to improve , clearly not notable promo - Off2riorob (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirected. Riccardo_Buscarini Off2riorob (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Corporal punishment

Hello, your additions to Caning are appreciated. I just wondered if they wouldn't go better in School corporal punishment, since the aspects being discussed are not really intrinsic to the implement itself. Indeed, if we were going by the implement, material about prefects punishing younger boys in UK schools would belong also under Slippering (punishment) which in some schools was more common than caning. When I in consultation with some other editors created School corporal punishment and the other "corporal punishment" articles in that series (judicial, home, etc.), it was with the intention that what one might call the "sociological" aspects of the subject that are not implement-specific would go into the new series of articles, leaving the implement-based ones (caning, slippering, birching, flogging, etc.) for more technical details about their administration. I could envisage a dedicated subsection in School corporal punishment covering administration by senior students, including your new material. Any thoughts? -- Alarics (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

As you know, this entire topic area, despite being of considerable cultural, sociological, psychological, and educational significance, has consistently poor coverage because of its interlinked problems:

• There is a serious lack of scholarly sources, in some cases even basic information.
• There is an excess of fictional material (ranging from classic novels and major film festival winners to cruft and worse) that skews perceptions.
• There is an enthusiasm by certain interest groups to push non-encyclopedic material into the articles.
• There is a corresponding backlash aiming to reduce or remove coverage of the topic area, due to associating it with the interest groups.
• There is a reluctance amongst most editors to get involved in improving the articles.
• Parts of the topic area remain divisive and controversial, which amongst other things, skews what little modern coverage there is into pieces addressing the same few repetitive issues.

There was a recent AfD of Rulering (punishment) (a very poor article anyway) that hinted at a couple of these. The article had not been created to establish separate coverage of punishment with that implement; instead, bizarrely, it had been created in order to remove mention of such punishment out of the Ruler article! Even more bizarrely, one of the reasons given for deletion was that punishment involving being hit with a ruler is caning, even though a cane is not involved.

I spent quite some time thinking about trying to improve some of these articles, but always being reluctant because of the issues above, and also because I struggled to see what information should go where in the sea of conflicting emphases. The separate article for sociological aspects of School corporal punishment makes sense, but it has to a very large extent become a place to describe which countries or areas have and have not banned corporal punishment, or when they did so; and to focus on current practice (and current controversy) for those countries that have not done so. Equally, there is a lack of balance in the scope of the "implement" articles. In terms of coverage in sources, the cane vastly overshadows all other implements except arguably the paddle; the birch was popular too long ago for there to be much coverage of it, the slipper lacks coverage because of not being taken seriously, the tawse was numerically speaking little used. The majority of modern sources discussing caning in schools now do so in a historical context; the majority of modern sources discussing paddling in schools (and judicial caning) still do so in a controversy/abolition debate context.

Unlike the birch and slipper, the cane spent well over a hundred years as a key aspect of Western education, with cultural nuances as a result. But despite all this, for years the Wikipedia article about it hasn't even made clear when it was abolished in the British schools where it was most commonly and most famously used, namely private schools (right now the article says it was in use in secondary schools only "until 1987" which is just plain wrong), and until I fixed it today, had unsourced waffle about the end of prefectorial use of the cane that was contradicted by the sources.

I think this reflects some of the topic area issues that I mention above. What I'm trying to do at the moment is to get some sort of basic overview of the usage of caning beyond the idea that we know it became popular in the 19th century and we know the dates it was banned in UK schools. I think the people entitled to administer it (headmaster only, or teachers only, or prefects) is relevant to this, as are the offences for which it was deemed appropriate and the frequency of use (available but never used, available but used less than once a year, used only for serious offences like stealing, used for poor academic performance, used for dress code violations, used for poor sporting performance, used for "team spirit" offences like not clapping loudly enough, used repeatedly for trivial offences as part of a "tradition" of doing so; I have more sources that talk about it being used once per day for every 1000 pupils, or at the other extreme, in the 1980s no less, prior agreement of a group of teachers to arrange to cane one boy from a class in each lesson for a full day by "finding" infractions.) This variety of circumstances ranges from some that the majority of the public would still support today, to others that even the most ardent of back-to-basics advocates would condemn as abuse. Swap caning for slippering (or a ruler across the knuckles), and the position might change; the significance would be different.

Right now, the additions are rather tending towards a wall of better-referenced text that really needs some more sub-headings and other structure. (It's also risking falling into the country-by-country approach that has given the School corporal punishment article too much structure to be readable.) Turning this into a coherent narrative will be a struggle - does one do it by century, by type of school, by country, by the group administering the punishments, by severity of punishment, etc.

I'm not sure that these details do belong in the School corporal punishment article, although I agree that there needs to be some mention there. Also I don't want to encourage any sort of feeling that School corporal punishment is "the serious article" and the others are just sub-articles that can mostly just be guarded from cruft while leaving them in their current partly-unsourced and inadequate state.

You are right that the material about prefects' powers has crossover with articles like slippering (punishment), but equally, it's just as relevant in the currently-wildly-undersized section in prefect, and probably also some of it in a theoretically required "British Public Schools" article that is not just a redirect to "Independent school (United Kingdom)". It would then also be difficult to give proper coverage of the tradition of prefect-administered beatings in the same section as explaining the much more restrained modern responsibilities of prefects, without risking a wild misrepresentation of one or the other just by juxtaposition.

As all of this hopefully gives an idea, the right place and way to cover this is a whole series of difficult decisions... I don't think it's just a question of sociological questions in one place and the exact details of permitted clothing, number of whacks, thickness of implement, position of recipient etc, in another. (In fact I remain convinced that the oft-seen commitment to lengthy discussion of "nursery" versus junior versus senior versus "reformatory" canes, etc, is in fact undue weight related to cruft.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Gosh! I hadn't expected such a long response. I will have to consider these matters. -- Alarics (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, only just today I read (or maybe re-read) Wikipedia:TPG which recommends keeping talk page messages under 100 words. Ha! No hurry on the response, but I'm certainly very interested in your thoughts. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)That is a ludicrous suggestion...I'm tempted to go edit that guideline as it conforms to neither common practice nor to common sense. talk page posts should be concise, but how long that will be depends entirely on the subject matter being addressed. <---That's 44 words right there; what if this were a real issue?Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean that guideline is ludicrous, not either of the two editors here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that part of the guideline may be more aimed at article talkpages rather than user talkpages. Now my ramblings above would admittedly be a bit over the ideal length for an article talkpage, but in practice that's about the length that most people do actually write on article talkpages when they're discussing something seriously; if there's an issue with an article that includes several aspects or examples, and each of the aspects is potentially disputed, one inevitably needs a fair bit of text to discuss them all, and breaking them into sub-sections just for the sake of it is silly. 250 words might be a better target to "aim at" for readability, but even then there are many situations where that's nowhere near enough. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Graduate School of Design at Ewha Womans University

Thanks for the heads up - I have removed the copyvio material and pruned the article back to a 1 sentence stub and infobox. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am OK with deleting it, but tend to be an Inclusionist, so I trimmed to a stub for now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that works just as well to deal with the copyvio (full reply below) although if the deletionist rage overtakes me I might go and AfD it later :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Gradate School of Design

Thanks for the detailed explanation; if I had understood this when I reviewed it, I would have deleted it. Since you'd not specified that the article had text from several different pages, I understood the template to say that everything was taken from the same page, and I knew that the URL you gave me didn't have the intro text. You may be interested in the article's present state; Ruhrfisch has cut it down to a stub and moved it to Graduate School of Design at Ewha Womans University. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah the website is a little bit clever, the URL you see is still the front page even after you click to go to one of the sub-pages. (It's also set up so that you can't copy-paste the text from the website - which is both ironic and rather dumb, do they not understand how search engines work?) This is probably why the automated tool didn't find any apparent copyvio, although actually it's not infallible even without those obstacles. For future ones like this I'll probably post a full explanation where twinkle just asks for the URL.

I'm fine with it being stubbified rather than deleted - it deals with the copyvio issue so we are covered. There's no time to check and rework every single article when doing WP:NPP though, as there are hundreds with issues. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The signpost

Thats brilliant! Always nice with a little recognition. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry. I just hoped she got it.

--86.147.135.230 (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I went to Wikia

I made a Wikia account, I emailed the creator of Pepper and Kad, and I share the account with him. We called it Animationpedia which we copy and pasted the Pepper and Kad onto it. Thanks for the message, even though it was a while ago I decided to try wiki. Have a nice day! Thomasbum98 (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Thomasbum98

Ah, you mean Wikia (or more exactly, http://animationpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Animationpedia_Wiki ... strangely enough, http://animationpedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Characters.png looks very similar to the cast of characters that turn up when there is a Wikipedia get-together in London... I'm the cat/pig/giraffe wearing the pink T-shirt.)

Also please be aware of this ... best to do what Wikipe-tan says, as she can get quite mean sometimes :)

I hope you're still going to try and do some work on Wikipedia articles sometime too. It probably needs to be an article that already exists, though, so that you know it's notable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It has to be notable on Wikia too? Also yes I will still make Wikipedia articles, I found a perfect article to make, but someone made it just before I did. There is a Wikipedia get-together in London? That seems nice. Floppy (The creator of Pepper and Kad) and I will do all we can do to make sure Animationpedia does not have any vandalism, the main goal for Animationpedia is for animators to write about their animations on there, even though they can be the most popular, or the least popular. Have a nice day!Thomasbum98 (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Thomasbum98

I don't know much about Wikia, but my understanding is that notability is not required there. My comment about notability was with regard to Wikipedia only. Animationpedia sounds like it's going well - maybe you should approach animators on youtube and offer to help them set up pages there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

For wikipedia UK, see http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Events - for example, there is some kind of London meetup on 8 May.  Chzz  ►  02:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Advice

Hi Demiurge, Thanks for your advice and help. It would be great if you could find some stuff. I already have made a copy of the article onto my userspace. I don't know if you have followed what has been happening to do with me (I don't mean to be horrible or only thinking about myself, its just some people often do), but if you did do you think I'll get out of all this mess without any problems? '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you will need to be punished very severely :)

No, actually I think things will be fine if you take things calmly and change your approach to things. A certain other rather similar user with very similar interests had much more serious problems but is now unblocked and benefitting from mentoring.

The suggestion for mentoring is actually a good one, how would you feel about that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have applied to Worm That Turned for adoption and have been accepted. I think its a good idea, but the only thing I'm not sure about is what they actually do? Would you mind explaining that, please? '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 10:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A quick explanation is that there are lessons (to read) and then short sets of questions (to answer). The lessons come one at once so you can take it in easy stages. But also at the same time, there is discussion about what your aims are, what problems there might be with editing or arguments with other users or whatever, and how to deal with them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Good. I hhave just been ask by the user you mentioned (who also got banned) to help him out with his page. Thanks for you help. I'm going off to find you some kind of suitable Barnstar!'''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks so much for all your advice and help! Really appreciated! '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Adam! Glad to see you are making good progress as well. I will be keeping an eye on you :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

C & F Agent

C & F Agent (clearing and forwarding agent): Refer Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 (of India) - Section - 65. Clause - 25 - Definition of Clearing and forwarding agent.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

 Adwiii  Talk 

I got a new siggy. Just thought i'd let you know (i really like it). Adwiii  Talk  22:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thanks for removing the tag, my last name is "Bum" which I think that is funny, since I learned what "Bum" is commonly referred to. All I know is that the "Bum" part of my name does not mean anything inappropriate. Thanks for the help!Thomasbum98 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Thomasbum98