User talk:Demiurge1000

GA review of King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge

Following your edits to King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge I have asked a question at Wikipedia:Good article help#Review - not sure if process has been followed. about the process and would appreciate your input.— Rod ^talk 17:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you take another look at the article & if you still feel there are problems put any comments on Talk:King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge/GA2?— Rod ^talk 20:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

While I see the delisting from GA in the edit history for the page, it is still listed on the talk page. Yoninah (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Catherine Bosley

This discussion relates to an edit you made. [1] Niteshift36 (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Soviet Storm

Hi there, friend. I noticed you twice removed the text regarding the documentary's reviews and regards because you claim it's POV pushing and unsourced. The latter is true, but the first is not. I don't know if you are an historian or have watched a great deal of documentaries regarding World War II, but please believe me when I say it's very common knowledge among series historians and experts. Of course this claim must be cited, but I have yet to find the prober source. It would be like deleting a sentence that said: "Adolf Hitler was a bad man" because it didn't, at the currently time, have a reliable source. You should not have deleted the sentence. Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an historian (or at least, I have post-graduate level qualifications in history from a leading university), and yes - somewhat coincidentally - I have watched a very great quantity of documentaries regarding World War II. Our article on Adolf Hitler does not make any unsourced assertion that he "was a bad man" because unsourced statements of opinion are not useful in an encyclopedia.

When you find the proper source, please put the sentence back in. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That "Hitler was a bad man" sentence was just an example, not that his article does say that. If you haven't watched Soviet Storm, you should, I'm convinced you share the common belief then. Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

... which would be WP:Original research. We don't decide that a particular commercial product is "the best" by trying it out ourselves. Please cite the expert historians who have publicly said that it is widely considered (one of) the best. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk - my book

Hello Demiurge1000,

Thanks for the explanation. Whilst I understand the point that I am "affiliated," surely promoting my book for interested readers to seek out is not a biased action.

Shameless marketing, yes, but "conflict of interest" ?

Christopherwils (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for marketing or promotion.

If your book becomes widely regarded (by academics, not by booksellers) as a definitive work on Atatürk, then someone without a conflict of interest should add the book in the appropriate places in Wikipedia articles. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Mounted Troop 290

Demiurge1000, Our BSA Council is in possession of Mounted Troop 2's flag, an unpublished account by CAPT O'Connell of his time in the mounted troop, and his obituary. Perhaps I erred in haste when changing "oldest" and "only" in the original article, but those are absolutes that may not end up being true. If you leave my note alone, which highlights that there may be another earlier mounted troop in BSA history, I will agree that the original text in the article should stand - for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASBoyes (talk • contribs) 20:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Demiurge1000: Thank you for the cookies, and I have a lot of learning to do. (Well Appointed (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC))

A pie for you!

Thanks you for your help!!! PercyJackson.12 (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your help!!! PercyJackson.12 (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PercyJackson.12 (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for all the help!!!!!!!!!!!!! PercyJackson.12 (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge/GA2

Following your comments on Talk:King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge/GA2 about grammar errors, several editors have now copy edited King John's Hunting Lodge, Axbridge. Would you be kind enough to take another look and detail any outstanding issues which need to be addressed. Thanks.— Rod ^talk 15:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• I wondered whether you had a chance to take another look at this review?— Rod ^talk 08:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Jarekus Singleton

You accepted this AFC submission. Another editor found copyright issues with it. You may want to see the discussions at User talk:Joe Decker#Jarekus Singleton update? and Talk:Jarekus Singleton. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I apologise for any inconvenience I may have caused in the process of alleged vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.5.210 (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

adelstein

Someone questions their competency being questioned

Stop posting copy-pastas on my talk page; if you really think I'm violating the blp policy, please do pursue that further at an appropriate venue. There is nothing to preclude mentioning goto in Adelstein's article, as it's a significant incident, as demonstrated by its coverage in sources, and yes, those written by authors other than Adelstein. As I said on talk page. And please don't simply revert while ignoring points made on the talk page, per 3rr. bridies (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC) If there are independent reliable sources sufficient to satisfy WP:BLP, please include them at the same time as restoring any controversial material about Goto to that or any other page. Anything less will result in poorly sourced controversial material being removed - again - per WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC) They are in Goto's article, and the claims took all of 10 seconds to verify. And closer to 10 minutes to format on a touchscreen, cheers for that. bridies (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC) WP:NODEADLINE is an essay worth reading. Put in the reliable independent sources for controversial claims about living people at the same time you put in the controversial claims themselves. (That's what WP:BLP says, and it isn't an essay.) It's up to you to choose what device you're using when you choose to do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC) I like how you keep calling this controversial when it's not, as evidenced by the multiple years it's been in the article and the multitude of sources which cover it. I like wp:sofixit - as in, for example, copy-paste one of the several refs you've been pointed to - and wp:dick. bridies (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Well that's the second time I've had someone cite WP:DICK to me in recent months, and once again it says more about the person saying it than the person they're attacking. Learn to read Wikipedia policy. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Since you have indicated that you do not comprehend, or do not agree with, this policy, it is appropriate for every single edit you have made and subsequently make to be scrutinised for BLP problems and reverted without hesitation if possible issues are found. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Ah, the second time of late is it? Ho ho. Yes, I'm sure it couldn't have anything to do with you... It's you that doesn't understand policy. The info was verifiable per wp:v, as I demonstrated on the talk page, a lack of citations does not preclude that. Also, as I said on the talk page and you ignored, if the issue is the libel of goto then Adelstein, as an expert on Japanese organised crime with a book published by a third party, is a reliable source. Your no-discussion quote does not allow you to continue to remove sourced content and refuse to engage in discussion when that discussion, and defence of status quo sourcing, has begun. bridies (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Verifiable it may be, verifying it is what you have to do. The onus is on you. I hope you've managed it now, and I won't have to waste more of my time on that particular article. As for the requirement to examine the rest of your contributions now that these problems have been uncovered, it still stands. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Entirely spurious: verification and citing are not the same thing. I provided verification, and you could easily have cited it yourself (I argued it was unnecessary). God forbid you should waste time editing the article space, and perish the thought you might have to add to it. And you are still - still - ignoring my point regards Adelstein being an adequate source in the first instance. When a talk page discussion begins, respond if you have an interest. Ignoring a good faith, civil (and it was, at that point) argument and instead responding with copy-pasted block threats is an amazing - and unique, IME - assumption of bad faith (you'll be familiar with the relevant policy). Lastly, stop questioning my competency. As with your fatuous block threats, please do go through my history - you might even learn something about content creation - and mention it next when you have something of substance. bridies (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
25		Mr Smith (The Sarah Jane Adventures) (talk)						Add sources
32		Mediterranean Expeditionary Force (talk)						Add sources
128		Battle of York (talk)						Add sources
229		Maha Shivaratri (talk)						Add sources
4		Grigory Tunkin (talk)						Add sources
815		AIM-9 Sidewinder (talk)						Add sources
15		The Crossley Heath School (talk)						Cleanup
22		Naparima College (talk)						Cleanup
8		Steven Weil (talk)						Cleanup
90		Clitheroe (talk)						Expand
255		Jawaharlal Nehru University (talk)						Expand
17		Kids for Cash (talk)						Expand
137		History of the Royal Navy (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
15		Christianization of the Rus' Khaganate (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
87		Long Live the Kane (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
496		Fandom (talk)						Merge
29		Daughter language (talk)						Merge
231		Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee (talk)						Merge
398		Timeline of LGBT history (talk)						Wikify
22		ComRes (talk)						Wikify
286		Kilmarnock F.C. (talk)						Wikify
26		CENTAG wartime structure in 1989 (talk)						Orphan
3		Harendra Singh Malik (talk)						Orphan
10		St. Anselm's North City School, Jaipur (talk)						Orphan
16		Kaibōkan (talk)						Stub
55		Volodymyr Rybak (talk)						Stub
62		Amphibious Command Ship (talk)						Stub
38		Tokyo Vice (talk)						Stub
15		The Kingsway School (talk)						Stub
61		Airwatt (talk)						Stub

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) 23:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments on paid editing

Gosh, I wrote asking for help and Demiurge1000 was very mean and nasty. Uncalled for, if I may. Okay, we give up trying since the wiki people/employees seem to be very nasty. GreenLips (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, you are correct that my comment was unnecessarily mean, and for this I apologise.

Having said that, Wikipedia is WP:NOT for promotion, and certainly not for "my biggest client". Editors with a conflict of interest are welcome to submit material at articles for creation (which is preferable to adding it directly), but if that promotion is going to take significant time and work from volunteer editors who could be working on encyclopedic topics instead, then it's not a particularly positive thing.

Good luck with your article submission. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

.

I think this is a parallel to this. With the exception of this, I might need help, here, I don't know the process. Hafspajen (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, won't be able to help with this until I have more free time. The process for SPI is described at WP:SPI, but it's not particularly intuitive as to what to do in which circumstances. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No need for help, sigh. Thanks anyway. Hafspajen (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Reason?

Is there a reason you decided to leave a snarky, unhelpful reply on BN? The thread had nothing to do with you; it was a legitimate, innocent, and perfectly legible question, and BN is not a grammar test. Please take it somewhere else. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It was an entirely helpful reply, especially for anyone who was interested in how people might react to requests for adminship. Some people react as I do. Some people do not. You may react as you see fit. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

And while we're here, when you establish consensus that certain editors may not comment at BN (or anywhere else) because it's "nothing to do with" them, please let me know and I will cease commenting there. Until then, Wikipedia works on a consensus model like it always has. That means everyone can comment. Learn to live with it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The OP wasn't asking about how people might react to a request for adminship or anything like it; they were asking about how 'crats assess consensus in an RfA or RfB. So no, your comment was completely unrelated to the OP's question and was thus unhelpful. I didn't say you couldn't comment; of course you can. You would have been (and still are) welcome to give any kind of reasonable answer to the OP's question. But since your comment had nothing to do with their question, and instead just belittled them for making a minor grammatical mistake, and the question was not directed at you or about you at all, there was no point for you to make your post other than to be petty and a jerk to this editor. But thanks for telling me I can react as I see fit; I'ma go remove your post now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You appear to understand neither the question nor the response, which is something of a "double whammy" in this case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:St Johns College Preston logo.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:St Johns College Preston logo.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Stefan, now fnixed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 --- Bill Haney

you my friend are a first class jerk. Why Wiki let's you rep. them is beyond me. The subject has been retired for 12 yrs. Yes, he was an important client...now a mentor, and has a lot more class than you could ever dream of having. Of course no money is being exchanged as there isn't enough money in the world that could pay me to be exposed myself - or deal with - mean spirited losers like yourself. I'm doing this out of my admiration for the individual and his philanthropist ways of reaching out to help authors self publish. He does a lot for any one who asked for his help in writing or getting a book produced. FREE OF CHARGE. Something selfish self-centered jerks like you wouldn't understand, I'm sure. GreenLips (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

He sounds like an absolutely splendid fellow. An inspiration to us all, I'm sure. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation/user:GreenLips/Sandbox

Not sure why you're picking on me. Something small people do, I guess. Yes (NO) --no money is being exchanged for me trying to help Mr. haney be posted. It's my way of thanking him for several years of his mentorship (FREE mentorship) he has given my company since his retirement some 10 - 12 years ago. Thanks. GreenLips (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:DTTR

Thanks for the heads up at Kevin Barrett but I was just reverting an odd edit by a IP editor, not adding poorly ref'd material to a BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Did your edit add poorly referenced material to a BLP?

WP:BLP is a policy.

WP:DTTR is an essay.

There is a difference. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I appreciate the difference. DTTR allows us to collaborate more civilly, not an unknown difficulty here. Often a simple note is enough for regulars to identify and fix problems. Templates can be annoying and off-putting, I find. I appreciate BLP policy very much and so was attentive to your heads up. As an aside your edit at the article did not fix a problem, it merely inserted a different unref'd sentence into a BLP. I have now re-added the original ABC news ref that an IP editor had removed. Thank you again. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

But it seems that "DTTR" is not in fact allowing us to collaborate more civilly; on the contrary, it merely seems to be an excuse to ignore a valid criticism of your edits. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I do appreciate your valid criticism and am attempting to fix the article by going back into the history of the lede. You have slapped a template on my talk page and seem not to care that it was not a very friendly approach. I have now googled the link for the ref. I have found the reason why it was not live. The ref is from a book about 9/11 conspiracy theory, the author mis-identified the company. CBS Evening News not ABC News. I have the link (via the internet archive) now and will restore it unless you have additional problems. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:TTR is a far more useful essay the panda ₯’ 22:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Ha! That essay made my day. Thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

RC711 Message and Questions

Hello, Thanks for the note welcoming me to Wikipedia editing. I have been selecting pages using "Random Article" and making minor changes to them.

Variety of Links One thing I see is a wide variation in use of ref, See Also, References, Notes, and External Links. It is awkward to manually enter ref /ref in the text. It makes it hard to read the text without previewing. At least the references are gathered under reflist, but some editors will manually place items under References, using a variety of styles, or they will enter links under Notes.

• Is there a way to automatically process the source pages of Wikipedia articles? I think it would not be hard to write a parser to put these various link formats into a common form. Perhaps something that could be run as an option for a page, something like the old "pretty print". A human editor can edit the page after cleanup.

Standard Order of Sections On a broader front, is there any effort to standardize the order of Notes, See Also, References, External Links, Further Reading and other common divisions? It seems like that could be automated, at least well enough to make a difference.

• Perhaps we could run an automated survey to count the common divisions, their various orders, and the type of contents of each to provide a statistical basis for setting standards.

Sections in Biographies In the particular instance of biographies, is there a standard order and selection of sections?

Template Programming Language I tried hard to find the syntax for the template language. I managed to create one template, but I would like to use the IF statement and other features of the template language to broaden its use. RC711 (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@RC711: Sorry for the long delay in replying. That's a variety of interesting issues, and you are right that Wikipedia could handle some of them better! I will try to work through them one by one.

First, one does not have to enter ref /ref manually. In the editing window there is a "Reference" button which will add it for you (it seems to be a graphic that looks like a book, and only says "Reference" if you hover your mouse over it and are using a setup that supports browser tooltips). There is also User:Dispenser/Reflinks which will convert a bare URL into a "standard" format of reference. Personally I never use either of these methods - I am used to typing ref and /ref, and I don't like the end results that Reflinks often produces. Instead, I very quickly got used to the Wikipedia:Citation templates that I liked, the parameters allowed by each, and the fact that none of the templates care what order the parameters are cited in (thus making it a lot easier).

Thanks for the specific pointer to Citation templates. I will read it and start using it. I would like to extract all the strings from all the pages on Wikipedia and look for patterns. A fairly simple parser would read them and put them in standard format. Massively rewrite every ref in every page, then it will be done. Popup a window to enter refs while editing and store them in standard format. That sort of thing. RC711

So yes, that is our "pretty print" equivalent. You are also eager to standardise, in some sense, how references are formatted. As I'm sure you remember, "something is not a standard unless you can tell me where it is written down!" The place it's written down is WP:MOS. Although even that does not cover everything...

I will keep reading and reading. I am eager to know everything about the workings of Wikipedia. I am used to thinking about how all of the visitors on the internet interact with it to find what they are looking for. I am applying the same approach to Wikipedia. Certainly the various search features offered on Wikipedia now could be improved. RC711

One can often get an idea of the "best" way of doing things by looking at Wikipedia's Featured Articles; WP:FA.

I would ask, though, must all articles about people be forced to use a standard set of headings? If so, why? Surely a biography of a military commander might have sections called things like "Gulf War" or "Battle of Salamis", whereas a biography of a pop singer might have sections called things like "Third album" or "Jail term".

I would like to be able to scan all the biographies and count the various section names. Many are probably only used once in specific bios, but some are used again and again. Listing them, descending, by count would show the most common section names first. I tend to look at things statistically. RC711 (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I am fairly ignorant about the template language, but does Help:Template lead to anything? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies!

Apropos my recent edits on Doon School page: would just like to apologise for blanking the Alumni section. Was whipped up by the utterly humiliating defeat of Rahul Gandhi, in the recent Indian general election, 2014, one of the many not-so-illustrious alumni of the said institution. But, I was rather proud of my word play on 'Modifying' in the Edit symmary, wouldn't you say? 137.73.126.183 (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that joke passed me by completely. Although I think I'd seen Modi's name on a few news reports, my knowledge of and interest in Indian politics is almost completely limited to Rajinder Kaur Bhattal. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

GOCE May 2014 barnstar

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Demiurge1000 for copy editing articles totalling over 12,000 words in the Guild of Copy Editors' May 2014 backlog elimination drive. Thanks for participating! Diannaa (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Does behaviour of RHaworth

…in encouraging junior User Launchballer (please skim carefully his User page, [2]) to reply to queries directed at this Admin, simply odd, or does it rise to a level that it should be discussed at whatever level Administrators are supervised? You guidance kindly appreciated. RSVP here, I will watch. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: The reply made by RHaworth to your query, this reply in fact, was entirely unexceptional, unsurprising, and not odd at all. It also provided you with some much-needed advice, in addition to educating you about some Wikipedia norms that also appear to be followed by RHaworth.

As far as I am aware, administrators are not supervised in any manner other than the one that I jokingly mentioned on RHaworth's talkpage. They are subject to intervention by WP:ARBCOM if they become a problem, but that is a different matter.

I will observe your future ramblings on this subject with considerable interest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

To raise a frequent objection of your friend RH's, your link above was so vague as to be entirely useless in discerning your point. And, per the those I have consulted here, every group at WP potentially can serve in oversight of an Admin who breaches trust, through uncivil behaviour or otherwise, and certainly the stewards can and have acted when necessary, to ensure that the principles of respect laid down in the pillars are followed, regardless of level of the User. Cheers, best wishes to all involved, should you choose to press this forward in a one-sided manner. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

In reply to your warning

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:RHaworth. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Your warning is laughable in the context of RHaworth's page, which is a veritable catalog of incivilities against other editors, in particular against IP and new editors. Feel free to list specifics you wish me refrain from, and I will reply with a list, matching point for point more egregious incivilities, against ones less experienced and having every reason to deserve better from an Admin. No, your warning simply cannot be taken very seriously, given the context. Please, though, elevate this, and let my and RH's behaviour see the light of day. I will gladly have any entry I have made at his page, along with the rest of his page, brought under close scrutiny of those who supervise the Admins. Reply here please, if you wish. I will watch for it here. Cheers. Le Prof

Am a fan, by the way

...of your copyediting, of the mil history articles in particular, but also in general. I am just not a big fan of individuals standing by when other editors display incorrigible behaviour to new and IP editors, in particular when the WP policies clearly state that... "Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another… if an administrator finds that he... cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct." If your RH is leading by example, then your template message is near meaningless; users are already deterred, and WP is already damaged. Bottom line, the Admin you are defending, and so encouraging (instead of looking to the litany of uncivil behaviour evidenced at his page against new/IP editors) is also acting regularly against WP policies. Please, begin to redact those instances, or otherwise deal with that disciplinary issue, if you are fair-minded. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If you do actually have legitimate concerns regarding RHaworth's actions, your behaviour here and elsewhere is certainly not the best way to address those concerns. Your behaviour is increasingly becoming disruptive.

I also note that you attempt to second-guess my intentions or aims in your comments above. Judging by those comments, such attempts fail and will continue to fail. Save yourself - and me - the bother. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

WIll do. (Save myself the bother.) Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation

Demiurge1000, I would like to take this moment and thank you for taking part in my RfA that happened a while ago. Although it didn't turn out as I had planned, I certainly appreciated all the comments and suggestions given by you and other people. I will learn from all of them and will hopefully run again someday when I'm fully ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

• New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
• TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
• TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
• New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The John Lyon School - Removal of names of past pupils

Good Morning, you have removed names of past pupils of The John Lyon School, deeming then not notable as they do not have their own page. I am authorized by the Governors of The John Lyon School to include those names and I would respectfully request that you undo your edit. Many thanks. (M L Gascoine (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC))

(talk page stalker)You have a conflict of interest and the school governers do not get to control Wikipedia.--Charles (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Good Morning, Thank you to you and others on Wikipedia who are giving me such well needed guidance. I am understanding the intricacies of editing Wikipedia more and more and the points that have been made with regard to COI. Your support is appreciated. (M L Gascoine (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC))

@M L Gascoine: I notice that Wikipedia does not yet have any pictures of the school. You may wish to take one or two yourself and upload them to Wikimedia Commons and let us know so that we can add them to the article. I don't think it would be a problem for you to aim your camera at the more flattering aspects of the school, since photographs of architecture rarely dwell upon refuse disposal areas and the back of the bike sheds etc. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale

Dear Demiurge, how are you? It's been a while since we last talked! Not sure if you remember who I am, but you helped me way back in September when I was trying to have Ashley Tisdale promoted to FA. I'm willing to nominate it again but before I do that, I want to make sure this time it will be promoted! I had three failed nominations and I definitely don't want a fourth one. Overall, I think everything is good with the article overall but I may need a copy-editor who has experience with FA articles. Do you know someone that could help me with that? The biggest issue in all three nominations has been the prose and I want to make sure it is perfect before any new nomination. Thanks a lot!! decodet. (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Decodet. Yes of course I remember, although I have to admit that it took me a few seconds to remember exactly which pop star was involved.

I will ask a few people who might be able to improve the prose to FA standards if they could help.

In the meantime, given that it can often be difficult to find FA commenters even when few problems exist (see section below!), you should consider;

• How are you going to promote awareness of the candidacy?
• What will you use as an enticing nomination statement?

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I really didn't think of that yet. There are definitely two things I need to consider before nominating it again. I am going to give it some thoughts. Thanks so much in advance! You've always been supportive. I've been trying to have this article promoted since 2009 - five freaking years!!! - and I won't give up on it! Let me know if someone can help please. And again, thanks a lot! Hope you're having a nice day! :) decodet. (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Greed

Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for your continued support of this article for such a long time. You were the one who first suggested that I attempt to promote the article to FA in the first place and deserve a lot of credit for its progress. I have no idea how to bestow Stars, if possible please consider this my version of one.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Deoliveirafan: Thanks! It has been, I think, just over a year and a half since I first began copyediting Greed (film), for a GA review at the time, so not quite so long as McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II, which I first worked on in August 2011 and was finally promoted to FA in January 2014.

I remember that I did most of my original work on Greed in the most heavily guarded building I have yet worked in, which also had the annoying quality of having wildly over-exuberant air-conditioning. A very strange time in my life, as that nice guy in Fight Club said.

I should also thank you for the chance to work on the article, which I wouldn't ordinarily have stumbled across, and which I think was the most interesting article I have copyedited so far. And of course for your own persistence with the FA process!

Persistence is a great virtue, and I often remind myself of the words of Annibale Bergonzoli, who said upon being asked to defend Bardia "to the last", "I am aware of the honour and I have today repeated to my troops your message — simple and unequivocal. In Bardia we are and here we stay." Actually he didn't stay, but inspiring words nonetheless.

For Greed, I even went canvassing a little bit, though not with any success.

For historical reasons, barnstars can't be produced by clicking the star at the top of the page (which would be most obvious), but instead can be produced by clicking the heart icon (which opens up the much-derided but quite convenient "WikiLove" menu).

You may want to watchlist Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ashley Tisdale/archive4 (a redlink for now but you can still watchlist it) and/or help out with the continuing efforts to improve Ashley Tisdale - see section above for someone who has been trying the featured article process for even longer!

And finally, there is also WP:TFA. The 90th anniversary of Greed's premiere will be December 4 this year, I guess? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Deoliveirafan: I've added it to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending, listing you and me as the contacts. Apparently this is just for preparatory purposes; someone would still need to add it to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests nearer the time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Banc De Binary

I don't know how much - if any - interest you have in the page, but there is currently a discussion here about whether the article should be restored to a prior version. The page was protected after an edit-war, so a consensus needs to be built before an admin can consider making the Edit Request. CorporateM (Talk) 04:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Warwick

Hey I responded to you on the talk page of Kevin Warwick. I didn't want to add too much unsourced material, but the state of the article at the moment is just awful. Mysekurity 19:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)