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.

Re Something to add

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks --The Σ talkcontribs 19:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

And how do you get DYKs? Where do all your ideas come from? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 05:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(adding) I'm wondering because my only attempt for one failed miserably. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 05:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well I have written two DYKs: G.L. Pridgen, and James B. Dudley. I only made these because, for example, Pridgen is a congressman and had been following the congressman before him and when he was elected I realized there wasn't an article so I created one. The one about Dudley I made because I also made the article on The Academy at Lincoln, and the high school that is across the street is named after him. This is where all of my DYK ideas have come from, I have a few more articles in the works as you can see here, these each have a reason as to why I have started to work on them, mostly the articles I write are about things I have at least a vague connection to. Like the article I am working on about Noteflight, I began working on this because I use Noteflight. In my searching of things to create I have found that most things are covered on Wikipedia, if even only barely, although I have been able to find things to write about. Hope this helps,  Adwiii  Talk  11:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a common problem that many of us (including myself) spend quite some time on Wikipedia but are still wondering "what new article can I add, that has not been already been made?" I spent months wondering about this, and even creating an occasional draft that I later realised would not really make it into article space, much less be a suitable DYK. One of the important things to remember is that it's fine to create a userpage of your own and just add refs there, until you decide whether that particular draft is going to be a worthwhile exercise or not. This takes a lot of the time pressure out of it.

My first DYK was largely because I was personally interested in Operation Pedestal (an amazing undertaking that came close to rivalling the Battle of Midway in some respects), and I discovered just by reading the Wikipedia article, that two of the medal-winners did not have their own articles. (Remember that you don't have to wait for a redlink, to decide something is worth doing.) Lots of googling later, the article was ready. My newest article creation Tammy Locke was because she signed onto the IRC help channel to discuss an article about herself, but she couldn't make the article because of her conflict of interest and difficulties with phrasing. I realised that she is in fact notable, and writing the article myself was an easy solution to the problem. She was in no great hurry, although she did write two versions of it herself (which both got deleted) while I was in the process of writing my version.

Examples like this are just a few of the articles out there that are waiting to be written - some guy turned up on the help channel recently about his grandfather who had made 76 appearances in significant UK football games (and even one of those appearances, as I understand it, would make him notable), and multiple appearances at international level. Although in that case there seemed to be a dearth of sources, but anyway you get the idea. There are many redlinks even where the text is black. All ships are, in theory, notable, so why are there so many blacklinks at List of largest container ships? (Don't do the 3rd entry - it's spoken for!) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you know ... that Tammy Locke started acting when she was 2? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 21:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oo, thanks, I hadn't actually thought of using that! Now starting to run out of time, so here is an unformatted text dump of other proposed ideas for the hook, comments from talk page stalkers welcome...

• … that Tammy Locke was called "an especially endearing little dumpling" for her performance in 1960s Western show The Monroes, but her antics on set included giving a live frog to the show's hairdresser?

Disadvantages: exactly 200 characters, slightly ungainly hook trying to present two facts. Advantages: Quote is eye-catching (albeit not unusual), gets across idea of child actor without needing to say it, frog fact is unusual.

• … that Tammy Locke's antics as a child actor playing Amy on the set of 1960s Western show The Monroes including giving a live frog to the show's hairdresser as a gift?

• … that Tammy Locke's career as a child actor included a scene of her comforting her blood-soaked and dying father, which she objected to on the grounds that her mother would be angry if her clothes got dirty?

Disadvantages: 204 characters so too long, no context of which shows are involved, which is what would draw many readers in.

• … that when the script for Once a Thief required child actor Tammy Locke to talk to her blood-soaked and dying father, she objected on the grounds that her mother would be angry if her clothes got dirty?

Disadvantages: 203 characters so too long... also not sure if there is a source that explicitly confirms that's the movie this happened in.

• … that Tammy Locke was described as "an especially endearing little dumpling" by the Christian Science Monitor for her performance as Amy in 1960s Western show The Monroes?

Advantages: Short, punchy, eye-catching quote. Disadvantages: Not unusual – people say things like this about child actors all the time.

• … that Tammy Locke was described as "an especially endearing little dumpling" for her performance as Amy in 1960s Western show The Monroes?

Advantages: Even shorter and punchier, eye-catching quote. Disadvantages: Not unusual – people say things like this about child actors all the time.

• … that Tammy Locke's various childhood acting roles involved her being a family member of characters played by Robert Redford, Diana Hyland, Ann-Margret, Alain Delon and Jack Palance ?

Advantages: The names dropped are well known, people like celebrities I guess. Tammy will love it. Disadvantages: Will have to do some work to confirm exactly which source confirms each actor being a family member of her roles, and may not even be able to find sources explicitly confirming all of them. Is it unusual enough – can't lots of people claim similar circumstances? Is this sort of name-drop mania acceptable?

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I like mine, your first one, second one, and third one. And does the expansion time for a DYK count if you expand it in an invisible comment? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 03:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by invisible comment. The DYK rules refer to text that's "readable prose" - so for example, I think material in tables, image captions and so on are excluded. I'm sure that would exclude comments as well.

For the DYK, I am going to go with my first suggestion for now, but I keep having second thoughts :) Anyway it's good that I think I met the 5 day (8 day in Swahili) deadline. There's still time to change it if opinion swings in favour of a new and better hook. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

By invisible comment I mean that if I did the main expansion in an invisible comment like here and removed it, when did the expansion start? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 02:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's still not clear what you're proposing. It would go by the spirit of the rules, not the letter of them, don't you think? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Juan Larrea

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

Thanks for being so helpful

I would like to thank you for all you do for Wikipedia. I think you are a good role model for other editors! You ask politely for people to do things, and i think that is great! Thanks Again- --Winning79 (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ditto,  Adwiii  Talk  11:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! Just doing the best I can... after all, we are here to build an encyclopedia, and to do that, people are required - so people matter, and so does how we treat them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

feedback on WP:YOUNG and some on civility

hmm i’ve just read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guidance_for_younger_editors. you said I could give feeback so ok.i think that a lot of it is common sense especialy the"Your safety and security." but I did find "If you write a new article about a subject that really belongs on Wikipedia, you have improved our encyclopedia, which is why we are all here. Some new articles are deleted because they are unsuitable. People are often confused about what should be in an encyclopedia, and the place to find out is at What Wikipedia is not. If your work gets deleted, please don't be discouraged or take it personally: many of our best editors have had some of their articles deleted." helpful. it realy does make me feel a LOT less antagonized "Help clean up. Because it's easy to edit the encyclopedia, some people think it's funny to do stupid things to it. We don't think it's funny, and we call it vandalism. If you see something that is obviously very silly or rude and shouldn't be here, you can go ahead and delete it. When you get more used to which kinds of articles are allowed and which aren't, you can join the discussions that decide which articles should be kept or deleted. You can also offer your opinion on whether some of our policies should be changed, or which editors should be made administrators" i definitly aren’t someone who messes around and i don’t want t o destroy anythin here. but i do kinda feel that Σ did exactly that. he deleted cecilia grace. without telling me "Wikipedia isn't MySpace, Facebook, or Twitter" but i though it was. it’s a place to tell others about yourself plagiarism, libel i understand, as well as being polite and advice. i think that i’ve lerned a great deal just by reading this. even though i disagre with some stuff, it IS rather helpful about politeness again i don’t think Σ did that he was totally rude to me "And now, the ultimate question: Why?" and he told me to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMPETENCE that was rude to Administrators - can you help me become one. i think it would be a cool fun job. do I get paid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan (talk • contribs) 17:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's nice to see a positive coments about our advice pages. Now read: User:Kudpung/Advice for RfA candidates. Don't let it put you off, but I think you won't be ready for it for a long while, at least until you remember to sign your posts ;) And no, we don't get paid for being admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The essay WP:COMPETENCE has been nominated for deletion before, and the most important reason for keeping it was that it is a piece of advice for those considering blocking or banning people in certain circumstances, not a link to be given to a person one feels fits those circumstances. If the essay is mostly used the latter way, then the essay deserves to be deleted. So yes, Σ was wrong to give you that link, if that's what he did (I haven't re-read it all in detail).

I am really grateful for you taking the time to give your thoughts about the Guidance for younger editors essay. It gets seen by a lot of people, and that's important not just because it might help some of Wikipedia's future contributors in their first steps, but also because it gives many people ideas that are useful on other internet sites too. And that could be a lot more important than just benefitting the encyclopedia.

As Kudpung has said, the requirements for being an administrator on Wikipedia right now are rather high, but still administrators don't get paid. Also I doubt it is very much fun to be an administrator - administrators are appointed to carry out menial tasks and to be abused by the more fortunate editors who are not administrators :-) ... so how much fun can that be? I think the important thing is to have fun making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia in areas that you know about, and if someone later tries to persuade you to become an administrator, fight them off at that time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

About the edit war

Hello, the user that I was reverting has now been blocked, but his edit remains, could you undo his edit since my hands are bound by the 3RR? Also I do think that I am an exception to edit warring because I was reverting certain vandalism (user continued to blank the section even after multiple users discussed that it was not the right thing to do on the talk page)... That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 21:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't become "certain vandalism" just because one or two editors think the material is suitable for inclusion. Equally, the other editor could argue that he is not bound by 3RR because he is removing material that is in breach of WP:BLP - an equally weak argument in this case. There is no rush to re-include this rather weakly sourced and disputed material into this BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Demiurge1000. You have new messages at Talk:Alex Day.
Message added 23:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Half Price 23:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Tammy Locke DYK Nom

Hello! Your submission of Tammy Locke at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Silverseren^C 08:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I replied and it's still a tad too long. Silverseren^C 09:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A really weird thank you...

		The Special Barnstar
		Okay, this is a bizarre reason for which to give out a barnstar, but I, Thecheesykid, thank you for your warning and for your message advising me to slow down. It helped me see some sense. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 18:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Sent you an email per your question on the AHA article, and due to privacy issues, can you maybe remove your question (and my answer) from the talk page of the article in question? I am glad to resolve the issue, but I don't want to have my identity accessible via wikipedia, and the question could lead there, albeit indirectly. Thanks  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 18:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, and I'll send a reply to your email later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Groovy. Can you (you are an admin?) remove the comment/answer from history altogether or not? Montanabw^(talk) 17:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't, but I have just emailed oversight to request it. I won't have time to reply to your email properly until tomorrow, incidentally, but don't worry since the reply won't say anything very exciting :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, oversight said no. I'll ask about RevDel when I have a moment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Okey dokey. I won't fret. Montanabw^(talk) 20:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Revdel is now done, also including some edits that needed it here and several other places. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all involved. Wonder if the COI template is needed on the AHA article? If so, I won't get my unders in a bunch about it, but seems a bit much as in that article's context, I'm not of any importance to the organization whatsoever, really. Montanabw^(talk) 19:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Archival of templates

MizlaBot archived your talk page without tl'ing a template, so I did that and left a note here. --Gryllida 01:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree it would be a good idea for the bot to do that when it archives.

On the other hand, maybe the request for uninvolved help template itself should be deprecated, if it regularly fails to generate a response for several weeks, as happened here. As a possible way round that, I notice that templates like helpme and adminhelp are noted and advertised by Helpmebot, so perhaps it could do the same for the uninvolved help template. A lot of helpme and adminhelp requests are actually quite esoteric conduct and content questions, rather than simple editing questions or admin housekeeping requests, so the additional requests probably wouldn't be too tricky for helpers to deal with. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Amaranthe

Userfied per your request.[1] Thank you for stepping up to the plate. Risker (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tammy Locke

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(Head explodes) --The Σ ^talk_contribs 07:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oratory School edits

The Oratory School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, at least you aren't as downright officious and dismissive as SudoGhost.

Re my desire to see the Terminology and Sland section included: these aren't just MY recollections, nor just the recollections of those who have contributed to that section, but they will be, as I say, the recollections of each and every boy who has attended the OS.

I think my point is very valid: the section provides an extra dimension to the OS entry, in that it helps to convey the character and ethos of the school. British public schools pride themselves on their unique character and that is not just PR bull for would-be parents. The OS did have a certain character and the various entries, including the Terminology and Slang section, do convey that. That is something SudoGhost and you don't, perhaps appreciate. (Are you British? Did you attend a British public school? I notice SudoGhost remains schtumm on the matter. There is far, far more to a horse than it being merely a herbivorous quadruped.

I would also repeat my point about spurious 'sourcing': take a look at the entry for the game of Spoons and explain to me how well it meets the apparently rigid Wiki requirement of sourcing. I would say that it doesn't even start to do so. And that is just one example I have chosen at random (because the game is as far removed from the OS entry as can be). In the OS entry itself, I should pont out that the Introduction itself ('The Oratory School aims to assist parents in fulfilling their obligation to educate their children in accordance with the principles and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The School educates boys . . .') isn't 'sourced'. It might well be true, but how can that information be verified in such a way that charmless committee men like SudoGhost are satisfied?

Finally, how and why did the Terminology and Slang section survive for quite a few years if, according to SudoGhost it so badly fails to meet Wiki's strict requirements? Were not others previously offended by the section's irregular nature? Apparently not, or it would have been removed far, far sooner. (BTW it was there when I first came across the entry years ago. I didn't originate it.) Pfgpowell (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a great many opinions on this (I'm British and did not attend the school in question) but my opinions should wait until I reply to emails that I'm supposed to have completed days ago. Talk page stalkers are welcome to offer opinions in the meantime. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, let's begin. First of all, you do nothing for your argument by describing people as "officious" or "charmless committeeman" just because they disagree with you. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines for content, and although editors in general are free to ignore all such rules, they do exist for a reason and editors do attempt to apply them to articles.

Your argument that some editors are unqualified to make decisions on this topic area because of their nationality or background, is a familiar one. Editors do indeed have differing perceptions of particular questions of content due to their background. Recently a U.S. editor was dealing with enquiries from a representative of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, and I found it interesting that the U.S. editor seemingly had no particular idea that the significance and reputation of such an organisation was greatly different from the steady stream of wonder-cure quack medical organisations and spammy internet marketing organisations that they had dealt with the same day. Equally, I regularly see British editors criticised on the grounds of "but you're British, how could you possibly make a decision about whether the renowned Hicksville, Alabama Bingo Club deserves its own Wikipedia article???"

So we need methods of dealing with such differences in viewpoint. One means for doing so is that we have policies and guidelines that provide a way of assessing the suitability of material regardless of a particular individual's viewpoint or knowledge of the topic. So for example, for the existence of articles we have the general notability guideline, and for the inclusion of material we have the policy on verifiability. You may regard this as all very bureaucratic, but it's necessary precisely because we need an objective means of assessing such questions.

The other means of dealing with such widely varying viewpoints and perspectives, is that we make decisions by concensus, and thus there will be a range of different people that can offer their views on it.

Now, where does this leave our disputed material? First, there is the issue of verifiability. As you rightly point out, a lot of material in Wikipedia is not backed up by references with inline citations - or by any references at all. However, the existence of such material doesn't mean that we want to introduce more unreferenced material. It just means we haven't quite finished yet. Verifiability is a core policy on Wikipedia; it is required. The policy says "editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references" - well in this case, you've now had years to find references, but your view seems to be that you simply don't need to find any.

In particular, the OS article currently lacks adequate references even after the deletion of the disputed material. That doesn't make the disputed material any more acceptable. One of the problems that you face with the disputed material is that it is a huge section of text that is all unsourced, and this adds to the issues it has with relevancy, which I'm about to cover.

The point about relevancy is that although there are no practical limits on the quantity of information that can be included in Wikipedia, it is still an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. What proportion of the disputed material is actually encyclopedic content? I would argue that a large proportion of it could only ever be of possible interest to former pupils of the school. You argue that the disputed material is important for demonstrating the character and ethos of the school. However, the school has been in operation for well over 150 years, so how does the frequenting of a particular shop by pupils for just a couple of decades in the twentieth century reflect the school's character and ethos for the whole of its history? I appreciate that boarding schools, and British public schools in particular, offer hard-to-quantify advantages beyond just ordinary secondary education, but does it really help with that, for us to document that the pupils buy products from a Londis corner shop just like pupils of hundreds of other schools all over the UK?

The disputed material is distinctly dated - while some of it is in the present tense, much of it is in the past tense, and seems to be referring specifically to a set of arrangements in a narrow period of the latter half of the twentieth century. "Classes were also held until 7pm"? Well, are they still? When did this change? Was it the case from the founding in 1859 onwards? And so on. I do feel that you have a perception that the ethos and character of the school, which you quite reasonably seek to emphasise, was in fact defined by how things were run in that one particular historical period. A golden age, so to speak. It's natural for pupils of any school to feel that way, and even more so for pupils of a boarding school with a distinct ethos. However, a Wikipedia article on a school can convey a sense of the school's whole history, its ethos and its character, and even brief coverage of unique aspects like local slang, while still remaining encyclopedic and providing proper sources. Take a look, for example, at The Avery Coonley School and The Judd School.

Now, I'd say there is a place for some of the disputed material. It's entirely reasonable to have a sentence mentioning that the school uses (or used) slang particular to it, with a few examples (bratting, beating, refectory and its pronunciation, or whatever). It's entirely reasonable to mention when bratting (and indeed beating) was formally abolished. It's reasonable to have a detailed description of the more significant aspects of the layout of the school, mentioning the relocation of the old entrance pillars for example. I would even suggest that Wikipedia has some articles (prefect and caning for example) that are so direly in need of additional properly referenced information, that brief mentions of OS slang for these, or OS approaches to them, would be well worth adding.

Clearly, like many other people, you feel that British public schools have a particular importance and role in greater proportion than their mere numbers. That should be easy enough to establish and verify with references; but British public school merely redirects to Independent school (United Kingdom), which talks mainly about independent schools generally, rather than public schools in particular. If the ethos and character is as important as you and many others think, then what should be happening is for referenced information to be put into an article explaining that, rather than unreferenced trivia being added to articles on individual schools.

However, going back to verifiability, rather than relevancy, again, for any of this material to be added, it does need a source. And why should it be so difficult to find one? If the school is of the importance you suggest, then presumably someone has written a history of it? Such a history would almost certainly be written by an ex-pupil, and thus would surely mention many of these aspects that you see as key to school life. Even if there is no such history, if the school is significant then it will have many significant alumni, and their biographies or autobiographies would be suitable sources for some of the material.

Hopefully this makes clear to you why it's reasonable to demand sources for this material, but I will also answer your specific points about why you feel it sources are not necessary. The disputed material was not in the article for "many" years; it was in the article for a moderate period of time, a few years ago. Standards for verifiability were lower then; they have improved. The article was not paid much attention back then. Unfortunately, this is common for school articles. But the interest in the article increased, and the disputed material was challenged. To go back in, it needs sources. You also mentioned that other parts of the article are unsourced, for example the fact that it is a boys-only school. Yes, these statements should be sourced too (although if material is sourced in the body of the article then it does not need sourcing separately in the lead); typically, citing the OFSTED report would be the most common way of doing so.

I think all of the disputed material is worth preserving for posterity - just, not all of it has a place on Wikipedia. Perhaps http://www.wikia.com/ has a suitable place for hosting such things, or could provide one. I believe http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/ has a facility for posting memories of a particular school, and similar material. These types of sites are ideal for that sort of material that cannot be sourced, or that is unencyclopedic - but would still be of interest to former pupils, of whom I guess there are quite a few thousands in this case. However, improving the quality of Wikipedia articles with sourced encyclopedic material is, in my mind, much more worthwhile.

You mentioned escalating the disagreement to whoever makes decisions on such things. The starting point for this is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Loredana Brigandì

Loredana Brigandì (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What shall we do about this article - did you have a look at the possible copy vio? I only found that article and her website bio is also a similar article..? Is she notable? Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection as a first step. I've not had time to look into notability, but if there isn't much out there then we should AfD it. If the non-controversial current content of the article is directly copypasted from her website then you may wish to stubbify it in the meantime anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I reported the IP at the vandal noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal website from 2004 - http://web.archive.org/web/20070107093413/http://www.loredanabrigandi.org/id19.htm - similar to say the least.note - stubbed back.Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs 12th Finance Commission of India Swansea Blitz Gary Namie Characters per line Extreme Circus Big Bend Community College Pompallier Catholic College Memorial High School (Tulsa, Oklahoma) Ewart College College of Home Economics LiberKey Groundwater sapping Anti-Bullying Day St. John Fisher College (University of Tasmania) Metropolitan Community College (Omaha) Shomie Das V. G. Patel Julian Sturdy Hans Blokland (ChristianUnion)

Cleanup Strapping (punishment) Identity management Wesley College, Bristol Merge E-mail art Bully (Farthing Wood) Family and consumer science Add Sources Ralph Keyes (author) Philip Hammond Marist College Emerald Wikify Sip-and-puff National Youth Choirs of Great Britain Security principal Expand Dave Chappelle Judiciary of France Feuguerolles-Bully

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge1000, can we talk via some real-time chat now? Maybe I'll be lucky enough to convince you that I am a normal person and you will then persuade That Ole Cheesy Dude to talk to me. 78.128.185.9 (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)