User talk:Demiurge1000: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:45, 11 November 2011

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This is Demiurge1000's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21: 17 days

Creating new article about eminently important Artist of our times

Hello Demiurge 1000 ! It would be important to create an article about an eminently relevant artist, who is leading a movement as artist and philosopher after a brilliant career of academics. There are books by him and newspaper articles about him, as well as homepage. I am looking for a wikipedia user and person who is interested in helping to create this page on wikipedia. The complete text for wikipedia has been already composed. It just so happened that there was a false positive report after the initial creation of this wikipage. To avoid it to be repeated, I am asking for support. We would appreciate your support and advise. Kusum Bhagavat (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Misclicked on my phone and didnt notice!Worm^TT · (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, now I see it, now I don't! Or, umm, the other way round. Initially I thought that you'd misinterpreted the above section (which of course was about peace and disarmament), and assumed it was at odds with Kusum Bhagavat's message of "idealism and courage as well as peace and non-violence". Now I see that all is well! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's just me being an idiot. Luckily I checked my watchlist a second time before heading off, and saw that I'd made a change! Worm^TT · (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kusum Bhagavat, sorry for the slow reply. Your article seems to be progressing, but one thing you need to do is to add inline citations to show how your sources back up the statements that you make in the article. Check the links in the template at the top of the article, to see how to do that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

editing "off line"

demiurge,

realizing that i am not supposed to edit my own bio, I see that, in the last footnote (which references real estate casses i have handled), it might be appropriate to add one other: "Meckler v Schnell, http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/CaseDecisionNY.jsp?id=1202471675866&slreturn=1." I assume it would be frowned upon if I made that edit? is there any way I could propose the edit "off line"? And, if so, how do i go about doing.

also, i confess i still am confused about talk pages, user pages, etc., and their respective functions. i obviously need to read more on this.

i am now commenting on your "user page"? does this comment really belong on your talk page and if so, how do i access it?

thanks

Mikesiris (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, this is actually my "talk page" - that's why it says User talk:Demiurge1000 and "This is Demiurge1000's talk page" at the top. I suggest you re-read the section User talk:Demiurge1000#Differences between user pages and talk pages. And more!, above, to get a clearer idea of the difference.

Yes, it is generally frowned upon to edit your own biography (i.e., the article about you). The best way to propose the edit would be to suggest it on the talk page for the article. You could also add {{Request edit}} when making the request, to draw attention to it and hopefully get it dealt with sooner. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

messages from skateboarder Caswell Berry

Thanks for your help on the Caswell Berry page, i was under (the real) Caswell Berry before only to try and fix the same problem, but couldn't remember the password. I'm new to all this, I just don't like the dramatics it brings. Now what happens when i confirm that it's really me because i don't really want to be on here having to check stuff, I just wanted to fix the problem. Thanks again. Hailsatan666 (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

My girlfriend is mentioned on The Tiltmode Army website on this page, http://tiltmodearmy.com/?m=201004,You scroll down until you see Kings Court. If this can help that would be great. Thanks. Hailsatan666 (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main advantage with being "identified" to the volunteer email address, is that we can then deal with anyone else who edits the article claiming to be you. It can also (sometimes) be useful if there's any dispute over what the article should or shouldn't contain.

Hopefully you shouldn't have to be checking the article all the time - Wikipedia is quite strict about biographies of living people, and if people carry on fooling about with the article after the semi-protection expires this time, then it will probably get semi-protected for much longer, or permanently. Which stops people adding silly things.

Unfortunately I don't think the tiltmode army piece will be accepted as a reliable source, but I've gone ahead and asked here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#tiltmode army about skateboarder Caswell Berry. That's one awkward thing about Wikipedia; even when something's obviously true, it can't be included unless it can be verified in a reliable source.

One extra thing I wanted to ask, is if you have a photo of you (or could get one taken) that could be licensed freely, and we could then add it to the article about you. Wikipedia's requirements for free images are quite unusual, so it's best not to use an image that your sponsors wouldn't want freely splattered all over the internet and used by other people. If you might be able to provide one, please let me know and I'll talk you through what's needed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a photograph. Can that too be tampered with?Hailsatan666 (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that depends what you mean by "tampered". A Wikipedia article about you, is not "your" page in the same way that your Facebook page would be "your" page. This is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", and sometimes, unfortunately, that includes idiots and troublemakers. But, Wikipedia does everything possible to try to make sure troublesome edits to articles about living people, are kept to a minimum.

However, as far as images are concerned, this is a bit involved, so please bear with me while I go through a few examples.

One thing that sometimes happens to Wikipedia articles, is that someone tries to add a photo of the person that isn't actually the right person. I've seen this happen a few times - it usually gets fixed as soon as someone notices. It's not likely to happen to the article about you right now, because that article is currently semi-protected (new editors can't edit it). However, in general, having a free photo of the right person on the page, discourages passing idiots from putting in a picture of the wrong person.

Another side to it is this. The Wikipedia article about Edward Furlong (notable for starring in Terminator 2 and American History X) is currently illustrated by the very unflattering photo of him on the left. Why? Well, it's supposedly the only freely licensed image of him that exists. We can't use promo images or shots from movies because of Wikipedia's copyright rules, and neither him nor his agent have provided us with a freely licensed image. So, although I and other people have said we shouldn't be using that image, we don't have any choice. This is one reason why it can be an advantage for you to provide a freely licensed photo; in a sense it means that you'll be choosing what photo gets used.

Now, as for who can do what with a photo that you freely license; that is decided by the license. So for example - and this is quite important for someone in your line of work - the license says that other people are not allowed to use the photo to imply that you endorse a product that you don't endorse. However, the license does allow other people to make money from the photo. So for example, if someone wants to make big glossy posters out of the photo, and sell them for $10 each, they can, and they don't even have to tell you about it. (If that's a problem, the easiest way to deal with it is to make the photo fairly low resolution; so it'll look fine on a web page, but not on a poster.)

Extreme option - deletion of article

One thing some people request, is the deletion of the article about themselves on Wikipedia. This isn't usually possible, however if someone's notability is "borderline" by Wikipedia's standards, then normally their personal preference will be taken into consideration when deciding whether the article about them can be deleted. Requesting deletion of the article about oneself seems like a bad idea to me (it's not exactly good publicity!), but it is an option that might be possible, so I thought I'd mention it.

Veronica

No-one has replied to my question as to whether tiltmode army is a reliable enough source to use it to put Veronica's name into the article. However, someone did suggest, on the talk page of the article, that one factor that affects this is that while you're "somewhat of a public figure", Veronica (presumably) is not, which means there's additional protection for her privacy. It may be easier just not to mention her in the article, for the time being, until there are other sources - but at least the incorrect information will be kept out. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sedimentary rock

Hi Demiurge1000, I definitely don't want to start any drama over this, but your summary, that the article appears to be in US English, doesn't seem quite right. The section on 'colour' was added nearly 2 years ago and was spelt that way. An IP changed it a some point, although I know that I reverted at least one change to the US spelling based on WP:ENGVAR before that happened. As to the article, it's mixed unfortunately - it uses centimetres and meters (although there are more of the former) and 'sedimentary dyke' and both 'palaeogeography' and 'paleontology'. Overall I would score it as slightly more British than US, but I may have missed some. As I say, it's no big deal, but I wondered why you had a different view. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. I'm not very familiar with the article, so when an IP address wandered in and made an ENGVAR change, I just looked over it quickly, saw multiple uses of "-ized" spelling, and... assumed. I don't mind either way (I use British English myself), but it'd be nice to pick one or the other and then make the article consistent. Otherwise we could end up with change to "colour" just as the UK school day starts (which is what happened this time), and then "color" when the US school day starts, until eternity. What do the main contributors to the article normally use? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice rocks! This is a real minefield isn't it? The 'Colour' section was added in November 2009, then changed to 'color' by an IP in September 2010, which no-one picked up at the time - it had been reverted four times at that point. I'm not sure that anyone minds deeply, the slight preponderance of British English (-ize is a difficult one, what with Oxford spellings) dates from a major expansion by User:Woudloper two years ago. I'll take another long hard look at this at some point - I don't have the time right now, and there's certainly no rush required. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for this,[1] I appreciate it. LK (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I didn't know "mainstream" was an insult these days :) If the angry IP address should return, please give them some punctuation, as they seem badly in need of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spire Federal Credit Union

Hey Demiurge,

I was wondering if you could share your thoughts at the AfD for Spire Federal Credit Union - I despammified and decopyvioed and rewrote the article; though I decided to send it to AfD as I wasn't sure if it met WP:ORG. Thanks,

HurricaneFan 25 16:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting, I'll try and get chance to type out a proper comment there later. Tempted towards a second Weak Keep at the moment.

Good job sorting out the messy article issues! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

something something Brutus Magnus something something eh what?

someone protected The Mickie james Brutus Magnus Wikipedia We Can't Edit It now there is some wrong info on there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickiefan2005 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well no-one has changed the Mickie James article since I took out the disputed statement about the relationship. Is there something else wrong? (If so, Talk:Mickie James is probably the best place to discuss it.)

The disputed statement is still in the article Nick Aldis, so perhaps that's what you mean. I'll go and make the same change over there too, unless there is a consensus against removing it over there.

Is the other fellow named after Brutus of Troy or Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger or Brutus Greenshield or none of the above? Actually, never mind old Roman statues, there's always a need for more pictures of female wrestlers on this page, so here we go. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pulled the bit out of the Nick Aldis article for you. Tabercil (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Caswell Berry page...

Question (and answer) moved further up the page with the other section. Sorry for the slow reply. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem

Why the heck do you keep changing the things I type, what is your problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeyheyMJ (talk • contribs) 04:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you a message but have no idea how to track if you have replied. lte me know when you want to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeyheyMJ (talk • contribs) 06:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should be posting messages at Talk:Lisa Marie Presley in order to explain why you believe your edits should not be reverted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. HeyheyMJ, I see you have now posted over at the article talk page, thank you for that, I'll try and add a comment there later today (and I imagine others will get there before I do). However, just briefly, and being rather blunt, I think there is a problem here that either you have extremely strong negative opinions about Lisa Marie Presley, or you're copy and pasting in material from elsewhere. Either way, it's going to cause problems; we need to work towards the article having a neutral point of view. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the Caswell Berry page...

How do i go about getting the picture up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hailsatan666 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quickest way is probably if the photographer (or whoever owns the copyright to the pic) emails me at demiurge1000.wikipedia@gmail.com and I will then reply with the license information; they can then reply agreeing to the license and attaching the pic, and then I'll upload it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

Sp33dyphil has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!

If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

--Sp33dyphil © • © 05:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I look forward to making a positive contribution to the Wikipedia community.--Namk48 (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

caswell berry

What if it's just a picture we have that we took ourselves? Can i send you that? Hailsatan666 (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's fine.

But, the complicated part is this. Normally, whoever took the photo, owns the copyright to it, so it's that person that needs to agree to the license. So, unless you took the photo in a mirror or with a time-delay or something, that person probably isn't you.

Anyway, if whoever-it-is sends me an email at the address above, I'll send you the license text and we can take it from there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity

About Wikipedia's article on the F-15 Eagle air superiority combat aircraft, pictured here in a little video from the USAF

Have you read that book? If you did, why did you revert me here? Word for word, that's not what the book says, hence WP:SYN.
It does not have to be "word for word", for obvious reasons. — Joseph Fox 10:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I've templated the guy with a level 1 is a good indication of my AGF, only the stern warning was added to make sure people like you and me will verify facts before reverting others (per WP:Verifiability). So, had I been over-reacted by issuing a level 4 template to him, you could tell me off for not adopting AGF.
He added no new facts in the link you warned him with, merely subtle rewording. — Joseph Fox 10:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the big picture before you jump the gun next time, and yes we all make mistake sometimes. Mine was just a little quick on the finger to apply rollback when I was meaning to click undo, you do know that rollback once clicked cannot be undone, right? And that's why I applied the level 1 template there, so that nothing else can be mis-construed as me not adopting AGF from the start. Hope this note finds you well, best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added my comments here. — Joseph Fox 10:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any reasonable person would've AGF because the user was trying to copy-edit, not introduce original research. I don't think anyone would support you if you did drop a L4 warning on the user's talk page because 1) the user has not vandalised before and 2) the edits in question do not warrant such actions. --Sp33dyphil © • © 06:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kiefer.Wolfowitz

[2]. Just so you are aware. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Elen. Yes, I don't imagine he's going to desist from this sort of thing anytime soon. But we can always hope for the best, I suppose. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You want to have a go at the lotto numbers next :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this discussion was about one of my edits, but seemingly it wasn't.

User:Jimbo Wales

I edited the User:Jimbo Wales page (user page for Jimmy Wales) to add the "co-" to the claim that he is the "founder" of Wikipedia (so it states that he's a "co-founder"). You reverted this using an automated tool, leaving the (intentionally vague? so as not to indicate what the reversion was about unless one investigates?) note that "He's asked for it not to be changed to that." Where, exactly, did you he ask this? I'd be most interested in seeing this for myself because I don't see it anywhere on the page, and the "co-" bit is noncontroversial according to all the credible sources I've been reading. Clearly this is a matter of some importance to you, as you've actually set up a JavaScript tool to automatically remove this "troublesome" (and apparently persistent, if you'd bother automating it) fact. -- Glynth (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page stalker) The page you edited was a user page. This means that if he so wished, Jimbo Wales could claim he was the first man on the moon and nobody should remove it because an editor's User page is their own. It is therefore considered rude to alter it unless there is something that goes against the guidelines on userpage content or they have invited you to do so. If in doubt about whether to add something to a userpage, ask on the relevant editor's talk page.--Mrmatiko (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it was a user page, but that's irrelevant: Mr. Wales has apparently invited all users to edit the page. I did so. Have you visited it recently? Either someone has inappropriately placed that invitation on the page, or it is a valid invitation; therefore, I kindly ask that you either remove that inappropriate invitation or kindly not lecture others for doing what they were invited to do. I was not "in doubt" of what to add as there was no reason for me to believe that he personally requested any such omission. So, once again, will someone please tell me: Where did he ask us not to insert the "co-" bit? I want to see it for myself. -- Glynth (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant discussion is User talk:Jimbo Wales#Co-founder or sole founder? where he quite clearly says:

"This issue highlights for me some of the problems that Wikipedia has in achieving neutrality. 
Wikipedia is not supposed to take a stand on controversial issues, but in this case it does... against me, of course. 
This is mostly due to trolling, in my opinion."

Showing that he disagrees with the classification of co-founder.--Mrmatiko (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort, but the link doesn't work. Sure, the page exists, but that text does not, likely due to edits. Do you perhaps have a working link, perhaps to a place in the wiki history, or perhaps even better, some other credible source? Or can you give some idea as to when that discussion occurred so I can check? Thanks. (I could also be a stickler and also point out that he doesn't actually ask us not to make that edit in the quote you offer; you can infer that he'd prefer us not to, but he does not ask it.) -- Glynth (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, User talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive 36#Co-founder or sole founder.3F should work. --Mrmatiko (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. -- Glynth (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few additional points;

Until very recently, User:Jimbo Wales had a comment in the wikicode asking people not to change "Founder" to "Co-Founder". I believe this was added by Jimbo himself; you can check the page history if you want to be sure.

I've not set up any automated tool to revert things on User:Jimbo Wales - Twinkle (TW) is a semi-automated tool only.

My edit summary was sufficiently detailed to inform anyone interested of the reason for the edit. It's only two more clicks to see what the edit actually changed. You can read more about recommendations for edit summaries at Help:Edit summary.

There are one, or at most two, people in the world to whom the Founder versus Co-Founder dispute is of "some importance". To me, like most other people, it's merely a source of mild amusement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take this as an accusation, but I must say that you, like everyone, are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. This applies to, among many other things, the enumerating of just who finds the matter to be of "some importance" - but it all depends on what is considered "some importance," doesn't it? (I'll assume, then, that your phrasing was more figure of speech than attempted statement of fact.) To me, it's just an anecdote, but it's a rather interesting, and telling, one. It feeds straight into the criticism of Wikipedia as a whole. (Though, maybe it comes to mind sooner for me since I just recently saw a PBS piece on the issue. No, not on the "founder"/"co-founder" thing; that's separate. It was about endemic and systemic bias brought about by vague (if not outright ignored or badly interpreted) policies and the biases of the most active editors and admins.)

It's not proof of much, if anything, especially since we're talking about a userpage (where opinions can go) and thus what's there is not part of the encyclopedia proper (where facts should go)... but it's not just any userpage, and not just any random user's opinion, now is it? Mr. Wales's own comment on the problem with achieving neutrality (quoted above) is pretty ironic, given his defense against such charges to PBS and given the fact that the "controversy" is not considered controversial by credible sources - in fact, explicitly stating the exact opposite - who simply side against Mr. Wales and his characterization of history. (In short, it's "controversial" mostly to Mr. Wales, yet that seems to be good enough to qualify as "controversy" even on the encyclopedia-side, where editors avoid "taking sides," yet I can point to numerous real controversies where Wikipedia has no problem taking sides, and it's rather predictable which side they'll take, of course.) I'd love to see PBS do a followup with Mr. Wales and other parties that incorporates this little bit of drama, but I doubt they will. -- Glynth (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Present

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your efforts to resolve a delicate situation quickly, quietly and with good faith. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, a second WMF barnstar... maybe I need a separate cabinet to keep these ones in :) Thank you for your thoughtful and reasonable approach in handling the aftermath, too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O......kay

No idea what this was all about, but I found it absolutely hilarious. :P Swarm ^X11|11|11 18:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Haskell's Wikipedia page

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am not experienced at editing Wikipedia articles and have tried to follow procedures as best to my understanding. I will try an explain the situation:

Under the Personal Life section of James Haskell's page it describes an incident at Wellington College. This is not true and did not happen. The newspapers that are cited in the article have written retractions and there is an injunction against publishing this story.

Please can you explain to me as to how I can remove this libellous and defamatory text. I don't understand why it keeps on being reverted to when it is not true - surely people can't just write whatever they like on Wikipedia, espeically as there is an injunction against it.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Oli Ball — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.185.177.226 (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have twice posted my father to the Cheshire Acedemy website as a noted alumnus - only to have you remove it

To whom it may concern:

My father is the author of 75 international business articles, solely owns 22 private corporations in 15 countries, most recently adopted 2 main thoroughfares in Sarasota county FL (in the last week alone) and was about to donate upwards of $1 million dollars to the Cheshire Academy General Fund in 2013. His net worth is approximately a quarter of a billion (with a B) dollars after successfully anticipating the 2008 financial crisis and retiring. I decided to add him to the noted alumni page by citing one of his corporations, a news article from Malaysia, and a few simple citations. Regardless, you keep removing him despite him being the co-founder of AGBA, the Academy to Advance Global Business. Is there something that I am missing? I would think that any one of these would be a more valid citation than a wkipedia reference. I am not about to cite corporate ownership data links to get approval. Rather, I thought that the world press, a decade of academic publications, and over $10 million, thus far, donated to charities would qualify him as a "noted alumnus."

Please add him to the list of noted alumni and respond with whatever other citations that you would like since he is a noted alumnus in both spirit and in his deeds.