User talk:Demiurge1000

GOCE drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors January 2012 backlog elimination drive GOCE January 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graph Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors January 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here is your end-of-drive wrap-up newsletter. Participation 45 people signed up for this drive this time; of these, 35 participated. This is similar to the number of editors who helped out in November. Thanks to all who participated! Barnstars will be distributed in the near future. Progress report Recent drives have been focusing on the oldest three months in the backlog. During this drive we were successful in eliminating our target months—July, August, and September 2010—from the queue, and there are less than 300 articles remaining from 2010. End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here. When working on the backlog, please keep in mind that there are options other than copy editing available; some articles may be candidates for deletion, or may not be suitable for copy editing at this time for other reasons. The {{GOCEreviewed}} tag can be placed on any article you find to be totally uneditable, and you can nominate for deletion any that you discover to be copyright violations or completely unintelligible. If you need help deciding what to do, please contact any of the coordinators. Thank you for participating in the January 2012 drive! All contributions are appreciated. Our next copy edit drive will be in March. Your drive coordinators – The Utahraptor talk, S Masters (talk), Diannaa (Talk), Stfg (Talk), Sp33dyphil (talk), and Dank (talk)

GOCE March drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graphs Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter. Participation: We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far. Special thanks: Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (talk), Stfg (talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

RE: Suggestion - mentoring

Well, I would like to try. Pdiddyjr (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That's great! Please see my reply on your talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Please remember to give the mentoring course a try sometime, preferably soon! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A beer (and a hug) for you!

Just because :o) Pesky (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Can never have too many of those :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ocaasi! What a great initiative! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Marlowe Academy

I've reviewed the nomination and there are a couple issues. Could you reply there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

All fnixed I think. Thanks for your review and help! --Demiurge1000 (talk)

Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair

I deleted the page and its talk page, per your statement at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection that you intend to have it deleted. Additionally, this seems to be the consensus of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair. Not sure why it stayed un-deleted. Let me know if you have any questions. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 06:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with this thorny and (apparently...) controversial issue. Incidentally, your deletion rationale and comment here does not seem entirely correct, because the consensus at DRV was that the page should be kept. That, however, is probably irrelevant now, since I think this entire page and controversy is now long past all possible usefulness or appropriateness.

I note that another administrator, User:Nikkimaria, has partially undone your deletion by copying 14,203 characters of the most recent revision of one of the pages back onto Wikipedia in this edit. I do wonder if this is rather against the spirit of Wikipedia:User pages#Excessive unrelated content, which says about userpages (and, by extension, user talk pages), "...Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used". (my emphasis)

The "laundry list of wrongs" aspect is particularly concerning given that the content in question has now twice been used to attack User:Coren in the context of arbcom elections, and that the content as pasted by Nikkimaria does not indicate that the paragraph beginning "Giano, your paranoid delusions" was in fact immediately retracted by Coren, and that its presence in the copy-pasted text was only because Giano chose to restore it (in defiance of accepted standards for refactoring others' comments on talk pages.)

I am uncertain why User:Nikkimaria did not make that clear when partially undoing your deletion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Demiurge1000. You have new messages at WheresTristan's talk page.
Message added 14:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Finished your userboxes, left you a message WheresTristan 14:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! They look great, I will be adding them to my userpage momentarily. Thank you very much. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so a while to respond. I was actually waiting for your response on my talk page. Thanks, If you need any adjustments, feel free to ask! Also, if you are thinking about asking me in the future to make you a userbox, this is my "love" userbox, please display if you choose . {{User:WheresTristan/UBX Gallery/lovetristan}} WheresTristan 22:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Iostat

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Ready for the test. Leave a note on my talk page please. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 22:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Replied there. Great job with your answers so far; I've seen your latest replies to my replies about lesson 1, I will get back to you about these as soon as I can. (I guess you have the page watchlisted.) Good progress so far! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

really?

Since when is a standard wikipedia tag "content"? [1]? -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If a template makes a claim that a living person "may not be notable enough", then that statement is content about that living person, and thus falls under WP:BLP. Attempting to force such content to remain prominently on the article for years at a time, is unacceptable. Not to worry, though; notability is simple to determine, one way or the other. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khurshid Ahmad (Professor of Computer Science). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

GOCE May copy edit drive

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their May 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate January, February, and March 2011 from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Khurshid Ahmad

Hey, I felt bad about the comment I made at WP:BLPN when you took this fellow to AfD. Then, on top of that, I missed your two follow-up comments (if only we could watchlist topics). Whenever I make a comment that is even remotely negative about an editor I respect, I get a bit upset. Then, compounding matters, my comment often comes out as convoluted in my attempt to say what I want and be nice at the same time. Hopefully, your second follow-up comment means you didn't take offense. So far, your AfD hasn't resulted in any backlash against you, anyway - you must be made out of teflon. BTW, is there really such a thing as a "procedural nomination"? Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay in replying. It's no problem at all - it's my opinion that you talk complete hogwash occasionally, but it's also very obvious that you do so in good faith and that you're doing an awful lot more good in managing how WP treats BLPs than most people are.

Now, as regards the hogwash (I forget the details and don't have time to look them up :) ), the notability tag is something that one puts on articles when one plans to either establish that sufficient sources exist to establish notability, or AfD the article. I use it occasionally, and that is exactly what I mean by it. It's a warning, "I am seriously considering AfDing this article, and you have a few months to improve it." (Sometimes, I even really do go out and add proper sources to a BLP that is lacking them totally or partially.)

One cannot put the notability tag at the top of a BLP and intend it to mean "I challenge you to prove notability before removing this tag, and if you don't then the tag will stay forever". Think about it a little. If I went to a random BLP and added, completely unsourced, "Some people think he's not very important" right at the start of the second sentence of the lead, would that be acceptable? Could it be edit-warred back in, if I had nothing else to justify it than "I think it's an issue"?

As for the particular case, I think it's a pity that a bunch of clearly ill-intentioned unregistered editors basically got what they wanted by templating and edit-warring and !voting on some fairly shady grounds against an article about someone they don't like. A borderline case as far as the rather hard standards of WP:PROF are concerned, but a bad outcome as far as basic decency is concerned. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Your response raises more questions for me than anything else. In no particular order:

1. Why would you support my becoming an admin if you think I "talk complete hogwash occasionally"? (Okay, maybe I put this one first because it rankled.)
2. On the issue of the notability tag, I don't agree that those are the only two options. I also think that a notability tag, just like many tags, can remain in an article until it's resolved, no matter how long that takes. Thus, if an article on its face doesn't establish notablity of the subject, the tag can be added. If nothing happens to change that fact, the tag can remain. Is that a good idea? Probably not, but neither is retaining incredibly low-quality articles just because, theoretically, the subject is notable.
3. As for AfD, I still question the existence of a "procedural nomination". I thought you were very lucky to get through that AfD with little damage. It doesn't matter whether an article doesn't establish notability or whether an article has been tagged and then after some time elapses still doesn't establish notability. It is - unfortunately, in my view - the nominator's burden to justify his claim that the subject is not notable, which is why we have so many barriers to deleting articles, i.e., WP:BEFORE, and so few barriers to creating them.

--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

1. There are admins who don't occasionally talk complete hogwash?
2. You have it back to front. We remove articles because the subject is not notable (as far as we can tell). The solution to low-quality articles is to improve their quality. (Anything beyond that is an exclusionist/inclusionist/eventualist debate for which I don't have enough time and am not even totally sure of my own opinion on.)
3. Sorry, was going to reply to that one. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Bridgestock is the only procedural nomination that springs to mind right now (I particularly liked "This Machiavellian genius appears to have been running the country during the late 1970's, controlling everthing! Yet he has only a single Wikipedia biography to his name"). There's a better example but I forgot what it is. "Little damage" ? - WP:IAR works. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

1. I knew you would say that.
2. Sorry, but I don't get it. I guess we just disagree, although we may also be talking at cross purposes.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Example helps. I've left a message on GB Fan's Talk page. The truth is I want there to be such a thing as a procedural nomination - I just don't think there is. Hopefully, I'll be proved wrong. I hate WP:IAR, and that's without even getting into its inherent paradox.

--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Marlowe Academy

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

AGF

Then he began to call down curses on himself and he swore to them, "I don't know the man!" - Matthew 26:73–75. Up to four times now, but where is that rooster?

You're accusing me of lying? [2] Truthkeeper (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you lie? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me be clear. I don't like liars. Not at all. Excuses and pretences are not going to cut it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

TCO - two different threads. I've never interacted directly with him & I'm not bothering to waste any more of my time proving it. You've now accused me three times of being a liar. Until I saw 28bytes' comment I had not idea there was history between the two of you. I'll got back to writing an encyclopedia now. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

By god, I hope you will. Do not ever post on my talk page again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Test

Answered. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Want a break from drama?

Hi Demiurge, if you want a break from the drama that has been swirling around for the past couple days, I saw on your talk page that you do copyediting from time to time and I have an article that I hope to get copyedited. The article is Lynching of Jesse Washington, it contains some disturbing content, so I've been reluctant to ask people to copyedit it. I'd like to push it up to FA eventually, but I have a little more research to do before I can say it's a comprehensive look at the literature--although I probably won't have to change too much. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark, thanks for the suggestion! Interesting article, in fact I think I had read it a year or two ago. I'm going to have to decline your request for now, as I don't normally copyedit articles for FA. You should probably submit it at the WP:GOCE requests page while noting that the requested copyedit is for FAC. You may have a long wait, but I'll see if I can get involved if it isn't taken up reasonably soon. However, from looking quickly over the lead and a few segments of the article, I do have a few thoughts.

First, parts of the article are quite heavy on emdashes. For example, one paragraph has five. Emdashes indicate a rather emphatic or abrupt break in a sentence, so over-use of them can be distracting for the reader. (I guess whoever eventually copyedits it will tweak this somewhat anyway).

Second, a couple of things in the lead. "...city leaders later suppressed racial violence" doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the article, so probably shouldn't be in the lead (it may have been an attempt to add some balance in order to make the article more acceptable to modern audiences).

Also, "many children left school to witness it" - this put me in mind of some modern British schoolchildren taking entire days off school without official permission (but perhaps with parental encouragement) in order to travel significant distances to attend protests against the government; but actually all that happened here (according to what's sourced in the article) is that local children used their lunch hour to attend. Possibly just needs re-phrasing a little to clarify or remove the implications of "left".

Finally; "A group of children snapped the teeth out of Washington's head to sell as souvenirs. By the time that the fire was extinguished, parts of Washington's arms and legs had been burnt off" - events seem slightly out of order here, as the children presumably waited until the body wasn't still being burnt before collecting their souvenirs. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, I'll make changes to the passages you mentioned--definitely things I overlooked. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Demiurge1000. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Tboii99 ✉ 00:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Got your email, thank you and good job. I'll send a reply and some extra recommendations when I have a spare moment. (There's nothing urgent.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

An extra-special treat for you

Enjoy a Virtual Meal on the Pesky Express. (Guaranteed calorie-free!) personalized WikiLove by Penyulap

I sincerely hope I haven't been getting on your nerves, at all! I'm sure we're both wise enough to be able to disagree agreeably about things. Have a freebie hug to go with the calorie-free meal and scenic journey. Pesky (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Pesky, nice locomotive! (But where's the train???) No, it's quite all right. Although, I do think you rather lost perspective on this issue, and in fact, though you may not appreciate me pointing this out, I think your original behaviour on KW's talk page actually contributed to his getting his talk page access removed. More in response to your other post (below!) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

tomtom

Hi... Are you mentoring/adopting/guiding User:Tomtomn00? Honestly, I think he needs to seriously throttle down on his work here. As near as I can tell (and, yes, I watch most things he does), he's only interested in bling - lists of articles created, DYKs, etc, etc. In my opinion, he really needs to settle down. For the most part, I watched from the sidelines, but the DYK nom here and subsequent editing patterns says he has no interest in improving the encyclopedia and every interest in puffing up his stats.

The latest problem is, to me, the most serious,.. I think he's taking credit (or was, until I called him on it) for other editors' work [3]. He's since walked that back a bit, but, really, someone needs to tighten the reins a bit. To me, he's not the least bit interested in the project as much as he's interested in bling. Anyway, ... just thought I'd give you a heads up as it appeared on Worm's page that you had adopted him. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Tell me what I have to do, and I'll do it. In trying for 95% edits next month in the article namespace so I do some work. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 22:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have, tomtom.. I have told you what you need to do. Go to the Joe Rosentover article. Fix it. Research it. Make it right. That's the kind of work that needs to be done on the project. YOU put the article up there. You can't just do that and expect other editors to come and do the work for you. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for giving Tom advice on not taking credit unduly, I think that's good advice and I'm glad that he has taken it on board. (Incidentally, I would argue that reviewing and accepting an AfC candidate, if done properly, is a lot more than "just moving a page", but that's rather tangential.)

I'd agree with that. Sometimes I compress concepts for the point. Wikipelli ^Talk 23:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

However, most of the rest of your comment is rather missing the point. Bear with me while I try to explain why I think so.

A year or so ago, I acted as "online ambassador" (or somesuch title) for a group of middle school students whose teacher had asked them to improve a particular article as part of their Wikipedia-editing classroom work. From what I remember, the teacher's aims included the kids potentially getting the article up to GA standard(!). What actually transpired is that, after some months during which some (but not all) of the students just barely learned to use talk pages in a rather confused manner, the eventual output of their group project was merely that their group suggested two sentences, each with a supporting reference, that they proposed be added to the article. At least one of the proposed additions wasn't appropriate for the article; I explained this to them (gently) on their talk pages, but never got a reply. And that was it.

Now, there are secondary school class projects that have achieved far, far more than that, but the ones I'm aware of are with older students (15 to 18) who are more self-selecting and who have considerably greater support. The reality is that writing Wikipedia articles is, these days, actually quite difficult, and doing it properly is something that is beyond the vast majority of younger kids.

The other side of the problem is that all kids in the developed word will be exposed to Wikipedia, at increasingly young ages, and that WMF, while preferring to recruit older age groups as editors, will do their best to encourage all readers to edit. The brightest and most inquisitive of these young minds will be the ones that start editing, but at the increasingly young ages, they're not always ready. Now, what do we do with these editors when they mess up their first year or so of editing? Well, what I've seen so far (from contact with bright kids in the later stages of High School who would now be the right age to start editing properly) is that bright kids who start editing in their younger teenage years or before, end up getting indef blocked, usually in a fairly nasty way. Does that matter to the serious business of creating an encyclopedia, some might ask? Why, yes, it does, because the response I get from those brighter kids when they are a few years older and intellectually ready to start contributing, is "Wikipedia? Ha, no way, I've been banned from there so many times." (That's an actual quote from a 17 year old star student.) Our response to the good-faith blunders of our youngest editors, is destroying our future as an actively edited collaborative encyclopedia project.

Now, I'm telling you all this because I can see from your userpage that you think that schools should be doing more to make use of Wikipedia as an educational tool. But the problem is that you are transferring this hope onto Tom, in an unrealistic way. Like I said, not all editors are instantly ready to create a complete brand new article and take it all the way to DYK properly (my own first one took months). Remember there are plenty of editors who contribute very usefully to Wikipedia, but do tasks like vandal-fighting, categorising things, creating article talk pages, and so on. Some of them will be better at article creation work after they've spent some time doing other tasks, some will not, but you cannot force them into article creation just because that suits your mental picture of what they should be doing.

Do you see what I mean?

I do see what you mean and, actually, I agree wholeheartedly. My thing, though, is that if you are going to be part of the community, you need to recognize first how the community operates, what the expectations are, and spend (in my opinion) considerable time watching and learning before becoming a 'bull in a china shop'. Contrary to what you might think, I have no animus towards tomtom (or any editor that I can think of), nor do I think that an editor should be forced to make an article. I think that if they DO make an article, they should see it through at least to the point where it is viable and can be left for other editors. I absolutely do NOT feel that any editor should be forced to article creation. Since you use the example below, I'll borrow from it. The Joe Rosentover article was one that Tomtom created. The subject was notable (in my opinion) but the article was an unholy mess (sorry, Tom). The links were bad, it was clear that Tom didn't know what sport the subject was involved with and, yet, it was proposed for DYK. Why? Because, again, in my opinion, Tom's goal was ONLY to get a DYK. When it went bad, the article was dropped. Now, again, I don't care if an editor (new or old, young or not) makes articles. There are other ways to improve the project. My admonishment/suggestion/encouragement was that, if you're going to make an article, make it right. Do it well... or don't do it at all. The end result was an article that other editors need to come in to salvage it. Granted, that's how the project works (collaboration), but this was more a case of having a very poor article that really needed to be fixed. Wikipelli ^Talk 23:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and while we're at it, Tom has received some rather similar advice here that focusing on article work is not necessarily beneficial for him right now. (He does seem to have gone back to article work, but that's his choice and it's just fine.)

Just fine as long as creating articles - viable articles - is the goal. That's a fine point where I think Tomtom misses. Wikipelli ^Talk 23:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Now, your subsequent comment was that Tom should have completed the Joe Rosentover article. Well, there's something to be said for that point of view, but the reality is that plenty of people start things that they don't get round to finishing. So for example Template:Did you know nominations/Tim Guthrie is one of mine; it was a good idea at the time, but it never got finished for what seemed (to me) to be good reasons.

Once again.. I don't care about whether Tom creates articles or not. I am of the personal opinion, though, that you should not start something (badly) and then just move on to other things. That's just me, and, you're right, my values, maybe not his. And, my goal there was to suggest that tomtom slow down with his quest to create as many articles as possible (11,000, I read a couple of times) and make sure that the articles that he DID create had at least the barest minimums of standards for a stub. (seriously, baseball? football? soccer? the article was all over the place) I really just wanted tom to realize that it was better to put up articles that had the minimum basic information correctly. Wikipelli ^Talk 23:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Now, the bling thing. For whatever reason, the entire culture at Wikipedia rather revolves around bling, from the little bronze stars on FAs downwards through the little green GA blobs and the barnstars and the gazillion other things that editors decorate their userpages with. Is there anything wrong with that? Well I'm not sure; there's no reason editors shouldn't keep track of what they've done, in fact my userpage has my own rather detailed collection, although it's all neatly hidden in collapse boxes. You say you most respect people who have nothing on their userpages, but then you don't follow your own advice! Tom has a bit of a recording-of-things enthusiasm going on, which may be an aspect of his personality or just a reflection of what he's seen others do on Wikipedia; I'm really somewhat lost as to why you see it as a big problem, especially since careful recording is actually useful in some situations (CSD logs and the like). And it's certainly no excuse for implying he has no interest in the project per se. That's really rather rude.

Of course I don't follow my own advice! (though, it wasn't really advice). I smoke, drink more than I should, etc, etc... But, to address your point. I agree wholeheartedly that the culture does involve 'bling'. I like it. I loved putting the GA symbols on my page and the DYK things. But the difference is that they were byproducts of things that I did. I wanted to create really nice articles about things and, hey, turns out they were good enough for a GA - bonus! I believe, and I could absolutely be wrong, is that tom's goal is to get the badges, stars, whatever... and that creating, editing, developing is a means to an end, not the end in itself. My thing is that I'd rather have an editor go out and fight vandals, copyedit articles, develop stubs because that's what's important.. and then they get the badges after and, yes, that's cool. I don't like editors who edit with the goal of getting a DYK at the expense of quality editing. And let's be perfectly honest here... can you read tom's messages and not come away with the idea that the mindset is, "I have no interest in this topic whatsoever, I just want to get another DYK"?

And, sitting here thinking about it, what's the difference? If the result is an article or two, who cares why an editor does it? And that's a perfectly valid argument, except that, along the way, too many mistakes are made and there's too much disruptive editing. New editors are slapped down, experienced editors are wasting time at AfD on articles that shouldn't have been made in the first place. Wikipelli ^Talk 23:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You've summed up these various problems (not all of which are actually problems, as far as I can see) by saying that "someone needs to tighten the reins a bit". I don't see how this makes sense. Yes, he does need to slow down and think more carefully about what he does, but he already has one adopter, plus me, plus a variety of people hanging round his talk page, all telling him that (quite often in contradictory or incoherent ways); plus a mentoring course which hopefully can give him a broader insight into things over time. The only thing that would be more restrictive would be formal editing restrictions, which would be completely nonsensical at this point. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe my metaphor is bad but if you agree that he needs to slow down and think more carefully, then we're on the same page.

I might be relentless, I'll cop to that, but I've not been (to this point) abusive (I hope). No AN, no warnings (to speak of). My only message is, and has always been, to say, "you have a great interest in Wikipedia and that's great, but here's where I think you went wrong, here's how you could do better". I'm not an expert by any means and I've said on more than one occasion that tom can do whatever he wants but here's how I feel about it. Take or leave it. Tom started himself off in a bad light, I think, with requests for every right under the sun (admin, crat, rollback, etc), the church image problem (claimed it was his and then changed), claims off-wiki that he was an admin and crat on WP... it's a bad start and makes people suspicious. (there are still claims on his userpage at simple.wikipedia about GAs and FAs) (now removed). You start off that way and you're often under a microscope for awhile. I'm willing to let the mentoring/adoption run its course and give tom the benefit of the doubt for now. Wikipelli ^Talk 23:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Bling: My userpage doesn't really 'revolves around bling', I tried to make it simple, with enhanced elements. Simple.
• Logs and Rubbish: Yeah, I did like to keep a log of things, like my UAAs, AIVs and SPIs – I ended up later deleting a long list of them due to the fact they were mostly offensive.
  I keep an article creation log, because the toolserver thingy doesn't load on my current computer, wierdly.
  Keeping things like Logs are useful in later times, example, with RfA, I haven't looked at a passing RfA where the user has not got a CSD log.
• Quote: "no excuse for implying he has no interest in the project" – I am intrested in the project, and want it to be at it's very best.
• CSD: I might have had a few issues/minor slip-ups, but my success rate is still around 93%, which is quite good. My other mentor's RfA passed with a CSD rate of 89-90%, and not that many CSDs.
• DYK: I see on your talk page, Wikipelli, that you say you wasted an hour of your time just because I wanted to expand something fivefold. Technically speaking, that can be any number in the five-times-table (heh...). I want fivefold for the article because I want all of my articles to be 15kb, which turned out to be fivefold, in that case. Suggesting I want DYK without asking is kind of annoying, but I don't mind that much.
• CSD notices: I don't like them on my talk page, as they create too much lag, around 2kb a piece. I still watch all of the pages I edit, after Feb. 2012.
• Rights (I thought I'd bring this up): I've had issues with requesting too many userrights before, which was just me being an idiot-kind-of-thing. I had restrictions put upon me not to request any rights on any Wikimedia project for a whole year, around a month ago. If I wanted to, I would have to reach concensus at WT:PERM or WP:AN (not AN/I).
• Articles: Yes, I said I wouldn't make any more rubbish articles, which I seem to have done. CBTA ( class) is in DYK Prep 2, and pending a GA nomination after good feedback, hopefully to become an FA. Going back to the quote above, I wanted that to be one of the best articles I will ever create.

Yeah, that's my speech-kind-of-thing. Thanks! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Read, appreciated, enjoyed... will respond with an absurdly long reply later. (the boys are cooking dinner for Mother's Day and I fear for the kitchen!) Wikipelli ^Talk 21:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, please don't mind any typos' in my absurd speech. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions)

Pretty please?

Hmmff, someone called me spiky?

Demi dearest, have some snuggly granny-hugz, beers, and all that stuff, for starters. Then, could you possibly do me a huge favour? I'm really trying to work hard with KW, and he has improved, though (once we're adults!) this kind of thing takes time. Could you possibly, for at least a few months, try to bite your thumbs, or whatever, and quietly walk away from both KW and any mention of him, and not join in? I'm sure that, in the long run, there's a good chance you'll both end up OK with each other (though I appreciate that neither of you is likely to believe me right now!) But, just for now, it would make my life so much easier if you could tiptoe away from the temptation to comment, or to join in any discussions. You and KW both feel very spiky and defensive and wossname with each other, and some breathing space would be good for both of you.

I'm very fond of you both; I will always be grateful for the way you so totally understood me and stuck up for me back in December; yours was one of the voices that kept me hanging on. You're probably not really aware of the huge beneficial impact you had on my mood levels back then, but you did. Things would have been much tougher without your support and input; this is one of those times where I'd like to call on your support again. Not for KW, but for me. Is that OK? I hope we're cool here, I'd hate to "lose" you, as it were, when I'm so fond of you. Hugz and cuddles'n'stuff. Pesky (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Pesky Pesky Pesky, whatever were you doing? The last thread about KW in which I'd participated had died down quite some days (best part of a week?) before you popped this little reminder on his talk page. It really does KW no favours to prompt him into calling someone a cur and likening them to a mass murderer and giving away that one of the things he enjoys on Wikipedia is "the prospect of violence expressed with some verbal wit".

You're also more than a bit off-base here when muttering about "pretend that there's already a formal interaction ban". There's not going to be a formal interaction ban. I am not the cause of KW's problems on Wikipedia. Worm is not the cause of KW's problems on Wikipedia. TFD is not the cause of KW's problems on Wikipedia. Neither Elen nor Salvio nor Good Ol’factory nor BrownHairedGirl nor SW nor Sarek, nor that Werner guy, nor that guy who edits lots of categories, are the cause of KW's problems on Wikipedia. None of these people, nor anyone else with whom KW has had blazing rows or demanded interaction bans, are the cause of KW's problems on Wikipedia.

Just to throw out an example, as regards KW's third block, I didn't participate in any of the ANI discussions involved, nor any discussion after it, and I don't think I participated in any of the various discussions and disputes leading up to it either. I would suppose that his angry references to IRC are some attempt to convince himself that the reason all these problems occur are the determined scheming of some off-wiki cabal or agent provocateur. Again, this is fantasy - what occurs on IRC is a huge amount of mindless drivel, of which less than 0.00001% ever relates to KW. Far as I can remember, I've only ever once raised the subject of KW on IRC, and was immediately told that IRC was the wrong venue and I should head to ANI instead. I think you of all people know on what topics I spend most of the energies that I devote to IRC.

What KW needs to do to solve his problems, is to stay somewhere within sight of the basic social norms that those working on a collaborative project follow. He wouldn't get away with how he behaves towards others in real life - or at least, not without becoming an expert in just-not-quite-audible muttering - and there is no reason well-intentioned and very valuable contributors should have to put up with it here. And I'm not afraid to say so - here, ANI, or anywhere else. I know it wasn't your intention, but attempting to change that is a little too much like the censorship that you were recently (and I thought, rather over-dramatically) complaining about.

When you and I were both involved in a squabble about something said at ANI last December, we and others "kept on about it" even when key players suggested that our seeking of "justice" when nothing substantive could be changed, was wasting time that should be spent on more important things. That more-than-close similarity in thought to certain historical events (and dramatisations) was exactly why this got created. But the important thing there was that an injustice had clearly been done; the consensus was clearly not in favour of what was subsequently claimed. By contrast, the latest KW event(s) that you were up in arms about, saw a very clear consensus - on several issues! - and you just insisted on overturning it, not because any clear wrong had been committed, but because you were busy in your "well I must train him and you must all get out of my way" role.

I think, underneath, you do realise how silly that is.

On a positive note (I am going to really try here, tee hee)... First, I think a lot of what you said to KW really was accurate, and just fell on deaf ears. Second, and contrary to what some of what has been said elsewhere, I think KW really has improved since the RfC/U. Insulting category-tweakers and those who defend them and those who try to discourage personal attacks is not good, but fevered BLP violations in retaliation for perceived political slights, and what nearly amounted to harassment of individual teen contributors, was much much worse. That latter behaviour has (pretty much) stopped, so the RfC/U really did serve its original purpose even before all the recent drama.

I do think that you should suggest to KW that he try out posting on WR or Wikipediocracy. Not just that he might be able to share time with some similar souls (sad though that may be), but also at least he can have a few rants with much less chance of being penalised here for it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring

Hio! I've added answers to User:Demiurge1000/Mentoring/Tomtomn00. Thanks! Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

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

Stubs			Cleanup
	Unifacial cambium			Vascular cambium
	Kotma			Bully Hayes
	Karen Alloy			Sulfuric acid
	Marc B. Shapiro		Merge
	Robert Hagan			Köräş
	Oleg Vidov			Dominance versus overdominance
	Endoskeleton			Knout
	Something with Bite		Add sources
	Camp O'Donnell			Stele (biology)
	Jim Simpson (director)			Massachusetts General Court
	Hypothesis Theory			Collin Klein
	Joseph Davidson Qualtrough		Wikify
	Wauconda Community Unit School District 118			Toxic workplace
	Zion Elementary School District 6			The Revealers
	Ejnar Mikkelsen			LGBT rights in Guam
	Amanda Walker		Expand
	Hawker's Cove, Cornwall			Naval history of the Netherlands
	Pericycle			Outline of chemical engineering
	David Ladd (attorney)			Futaba Channel

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) 16:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

About references

Thank you for sending the message i would have added the references but i had no idea and was orriginally just going to copy and paste the links lol but thanks for sending me that link to how to reference stuff have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.251.77 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, you too! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania 2013 in Hong Kong

I'm a bit disappointed that you have such a misconception, and please be assured that the Great Firewall of China does not apply to Hong Kong! Indeed Hong Kong is so set to be on the outside of the GFW that most websites hosted in Hong Kong are inaccessible from mainland China! One of the items on the Wikimania 2013 agenda is how Wikimedians in Hong Kong and Southeast Asia can help with the situation of internet censorship just over the border. Deryck C. 16:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There's certainly one thing that Wikipedians from different parts of the world can do: Go protest at Chinese government's liaison office in the colony when Wikimania takes place. 203.145.92.193 (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for clearing this up. In fact, I think clarifying it on the signpost page has probably been helpful as well, since certainly some other people perceived it the same way that I did. Personally, I would still have reservations, since one is still supporting the regime by going there regardless of whether the particular problematic restrictions apply to the exact place (still controlled by the regime) that one is visiting. (See Sun City (song)).

However, the WMF does not appear to take such things into account, judging by past experience, so my making a fuss is probably counter-productive. I hope all goes well for the event and for any demonstrations in support of the majority still suffering from the firewall. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It's basically an occupied territory or a colony. You can help by supporting the local people to defend their shrinking autonomy and liberty. 203.145.92.214 (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Question

Could you take a look at the Compton-Belkovich Thorium Anomaly article I created. The DYK hook has been ticked and the GA review is pending. :D Also, I saw the mentoring page. :) --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)