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.

The image you added at WT:RFA

Could you please consider reverting this? I don't think it's very helpful, truthful or otherwise. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

As I've said to you off-wiki, I think it's very truthful. I've removed the patronising material posted here by someone who should know better, and he can perhaps refrain from commenting on my actions until he understands them. Should I go to great lengths explaining them, one thing at a time, by email or something? I'm sure my patience might one day extend to it, if my schedule allows enough time for it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind if there are straw man arguments or not, calling the thread out about it in such a manner is just apt to inflame things further, which is particularly unhelpful when so many folks do not know better. More constructive might be to either try directly to get folks back to reasonable arguments or just get them to back away and leave the entire thing, since it ain't going anywhere pretty, though at this point I'd suggest you do the latter as well. -— Isarra ༆ 07:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"Leave the entire thing"? This is my user talk page, and it's you guys - several of you! - who are coming here spouting bullshit. If you want to "leave the entire thing", it shouldn't be so very difficult for you to work out how to do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the image - it was clearly inappropriate and you should know better. Dougweller (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice piece of censorship. Congratulations. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Putting that picture up was not only a personal attack, but it was beyond immature and inappropriate. Not admitting to the fact and self-reverting was doubly so. And Dougweller is quite correct, you most certainly do know better. Trusilver 04:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

On whom was it a personal attack? Have you actually read the thread? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Well it looks like you haven't, so I suppose I will have to read it out to you. One little piece at a time.

Kudpung started a new section at WT:RFA, in which he said "Particularly interesting in the light of some suggestions that RfA voting should be restricted to admins only... a staggering 40% of the supporters are sysops... If this is a new trend, it's a very welcome one, and RfA might indeed be on the way to recovery". (He also mentioned that it was encouraging as a possible indication that fewer admins were inactive.) He did not suggest that he thought that RfA voting should be restricted to admins only, nor did he put that forward as a proposal.

Less than two hours later, Kudpung clarified what he meant, including quite clearly saying "What I do welcome is the apparent increase in admin participation in the system which may help counteract the unresearched and often unqualified votes of new and less experienced users, and/or those who vote with an agenda". This left absolutely no doubt that he was not suggesting that only admins should be allowed to vote.

Despite this, over the next 36 hours, three separate editors objected to Kudpung's non-existent proposal to limit RfA voting to admins only. (Two of them did so via sarcasm, one marking it as such, but both used the form of words that if the admins-only voting proposal were carried, other obviously ridiculous things might follow). Such comments were strawman arguments, and while they may or may not have been disruptive, they did nothing to promote constructive discussion of Kudpung's observations, and the entire thread rapidly foundered into accusations and recriminations of various sorts.

I was irritated at the unconstructive nature of this, and duly indicated my view of the comments by posting the picture and caption we're talking about. Including a link to strawman so that anyone who was even slightly unsure could understand what was meant.

I have absolutely no idea what cogitative processes occurred in the minds of no less than three different editors for them to see that picture and that caption, at the top of that thread, and come to the conclusion that it was a personal attack. You see a picture, and you see the name of an editor mentioned as part of the caption to that picture, so you think the picture is intended to depict the appearance of that editor? Come on, really? What on earth?

I'm so baffled by your weird responses that I've had to rack my brains to work out what else you might mean - I've no reason to imagine that any of you are really that limited in comprehension. The best I can come up with is that some of you may have thought that just saying that someone used a strawman argument is, in itself, a personal attack. I shouldn't even need to point this out, but no, observing that someone's comments are a strawman argument, or any other logical fallacy, is not a personal attack.

There may also be a side argument that you think images should not be used to make points in that way. (Again, I'm scrabbling to work out what, if anything, any of you are on about.) Sorry, but while it may not be the best possible form of communication, and I've sometimes found it irritating myself, it's still a valid form of expression. And did Dougweller's censorship of it put the discussion back "on track" in some way? No, what followed, was yet another response to the supposed proposal that only admins be allowed to vote in RfAs, complete with, ironically, a picture at the top of the new sub-section, helpfully likening the proposal Kudpung hadn't made, to the ancient Roman class system.

Now, I'm willing to accept that Kudpung may have been dealing with a lot else at the time, may have been annoyed that "his" thread was somehow being defaced, and may have jumped to the ridiculous conclusion "the caption has my username in it, so it must be an attack on me". What's the excuse for the rest of you?

That doesn't apply to Isarra, who apparently merely believes that it's inappropriate to deal with an outbreak of strawman arguments by pointing out that they are strawman arguments (she just happens to be wrong, but being wrong is not the same as being inexplicably rude, presumptuous, sanctimonious, and failing to assume good faith), nor wctaiwan, who just has some view on it whose reasoning remains utterly obscure to me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Formatting

I tried to fix it, but I'm not sure that's how you wanted it to look. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 21:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a distinct improvement on how it looked before. Thanks!

I think the perfect formatting might be to have a # mark at the start of each paragraph, but sadly I don't think we can do that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

New to this assignment

I am new to Wikipedia. I have to select an article for editing review. Any ideas how to pin point an article to review?

Thanks for your help!

Ellenizgellin (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Ellenizgellin 10/17/2012

Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been pre-occupied with various things. What sort of review do you mean? One project that is always in need of reviewers is DYK. So you could read through what's at WP:DYK and see if you can find a nomination to review. Feel free to ask again if you need more help! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

GOCE fall newsletter

Fall Events from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events: The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best October copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC). Voting is in progress for the September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest. Everyone is welcome to vote, whether they have entered the contest or not. NEW!! In the week from Sunday 21 October to Saturday 27 October, we are holding a Project Blitz, in which we will copy edit articles tagged with {{copyedit}} belonging to selected project(s). For the first blitz, we'll start with WikiProject Olympics and WikiProject Albums and add more Projects to the blitz as we clear them. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded. November 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in 2011 and to complete all requests placed before the end of October. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Blitz sign-up <<<         >>> Drive sign-up <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

GibraltarPediA Options followup

You participated earlier in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options, in which a proposed moratorium on Gibraltar-related DYKs was rejected and a set of options was agreed. There is currently a suggestion from editors who did not participate in that discussion that a moratorium should be imposed, overturning the earlier agreement. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Time-sensitive DYK nomination. Prioryman (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I may be a little late now, but I'll try and have a look there this evening. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For cleaning up my talk page :) Mark Arsten (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Very welcome! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocks

I hope you don't mind, but rather than load up Stephan's page some more I'm replying here. Right, but, as Stephan has made clear, that's not why he blocked in this instance.; I don't follow entirely. Malleus' only uncivil comment (and indeed about his only edit) following Stephan's warning was to reply with an insult. I could get on board if he took the warning then followed it up by going after MONGO again, but that isn't what happened. As to notoriety; Admins should exercise caution then for their own sakes :) It would be nice to have a community where notorious editors, and admins :P, could be treated the same way as the other 99%. Sadly it doesn't work that way - as is evidenced. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, no problem with moving it here, my talk page is a haven of calm and tranquillity. Well, with the occasional exception :-)

I think the misleading assumption here is that Stephan's initial post to Malleus' talk page was, as you put it, a warning. With that assumption, then we have a sequence of events like this; Malleus insults Mongo, Stephan warns Malleus, Malleus insults Stephan, Stephan blocks Malleus. With that sequence of events, it does indeed follow that the block was a result of the second insult not the first.

However, Stephan's initial post to Malleus' talk page didn't specifically say "please don't insult other editors again" (a warning), but rather it suggested (requested) that Malleus retract his insult to Mongo. Malleus chose not to do so, and he chose not to do so emphatically. The only conclusion Stephan could draw from Malleus' response, was that Malleus would indeed insult Mongo again the next time he felt like doing so. (A conclusion that, unsurprisingly, turned out to be accurate, though that was later.) Therefore Stephan imposed a preventative block, based on the indication that the first insult (the one to Mongo) would be repeated.

If it helps to clarify, consider other possible responses Malleus could have made. If he'd replied with "No I certainly will not retract my comments, and I'll carry on making people aware of Mongo's nature every time I feel like it", then that would've made his intentions clear equally emphatically, and Stephan would still have been justified in blocking even in the absence of further edits that insulted Mongo or anyone else. In other words, the block was due to what the second insult made by Malleus indicated about the first insult made by Malleus, not due to the second insult itself (or its target).

Now of course there's lots of other things in question - whether Stephan's initial post was worded to make clear enough that it was a request for retraction not a warning about future edits, whether I'm interpreting Stephan's meaning correctly, whether the block was justified, whether admins should never make requests for retractions of insulting comments, and so on. But to me the post hoc ergo propter hoc assumptions about the block are clearly flawed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

More pie for T

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixG1995 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I was just thinking of contacting you, as I have important news. Sainsbury's are selling Jaffa Cakes for £4/yard! I bought a yard (60 cakes) yesterday. It's relatively rare that provisions get measured in yards; yard of ale is the only other example I can think of. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary was cut off

So what else did you mean to say here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes. The truncated word was "discussions". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

something about members of Indian National Lok Dal

Hello Demiurge very good day to you I am very thankful to you for stopping user - Sachkasamna1972 for editing article " Om Prakash Chautala " living person biography. Article is the National President Of Political Party name - Indian National Lok Dal, india based political party. user - Sachkasamna1972 is doing same for article - "Ajay Singh Chautala" User belongs to opposition party, thats why user is posting fake material in articles. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.71.146.6 (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've now watchlisted that article too. I do wish you people would email me so that we can talk about having properly freely licensed pictures of these various very respected politicians, that we can use on the Wikipedia article about them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thought you should know

Hmm... I wonder... This is the author of Manic Miner. He is a sensible fellow who doesn't say obviously untrue things in public, nor threaten to slit people's throats. Can you do as well as him?

It looks like you're under attack by Wikipediocracy now. There's a thread on you now. I just thought you should know. Silverseren^C 01:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Looks like that got deleted quickly. Interesting. Silverseren^C 05:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I saw this the other night. I was terribly excited, and was seriously considering staying up watching for responses :-) but actually just went to bed instead.

I'm not hugely surprised that it was "swiftly moderated", just as the original boxcutter comments were. Quite apart from the "amusing" attached video probably not being very amusing for people with real life psychiatric problems who need to have ECT treatment, there's presumably a more rational subset of the Wikipediocracy staff who don't see this sort of juvenile 4chan-style "you suck" behaviour as helping their cause, just as the boxcutter threats didn't help their cause.

They need to portray their forum to outsiders as containing rational discourse, and that's difficult enough when a significant proportion of contributors there use adjectives like "evil" to describe WP editors in all seriousness, or label people like WTT a "brain-washed cult member". I regularly attempt to recruit new members for Wikipediocracy, but it's not uncommon that I get the response (as I did the other day) "what on earth did you give me that link for? That's obviously just a crank site!" --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw it too. It was made by lilburne. He linked yo your post about boxcutters and called you "manic". You should upload the screenshot you mentioned to Flickr, and publish the link to it on Wikipedia because otherwise it is really hard to believe that you are not manic and that somebody really threatened "to slit a few throats". 71.198.215.115 (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, unregistered editor number 115, and welcome to Wikipedia! Congratulations on making your way here to my talk page. This is where we discuss my editing on Wikipedia, and things that I might want to be informed of. It's not where we discuss things that were randomly claimed about me on random forum websites that then subsequently got "swiftly moderated" anyway.

However, I'm sure it's much easier to find evidence of my being "manic", than to try to pretend that the Wikipediocracy staff member with the username "EricBarbour" didn't say what we all know he said.

For the record, the exact wording of the sentence was "It just makes me want to fly to London, get a box-cutter, and start slitting nerdy little throats." In the screenshot I have, the immediately subsequent posts are from a certain "professional journalist" (I wonder if this is the so-called "Wikipediocracy trustee" that Kolbe recently mentioned on Jimbo's talk page) 26 minutes later, and Kolbe himself (the other Wikipediocracy "Global Moderator") sometime after that. Neither of them express any disapproval or concern about the boxcutter comment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Kindly stop lying by omission, Demiurge1000. What happened was that I posted the following exchange from the uk.wikimedia watercooler site in the Gibraltarpedia discussion thread on Wikipediocracy:

There have been changes here - can we get Robain's report to the Board on September 8th up here, linked from the board meeting reports? From memory, the project will now be managed by a new Welsh non-profit company, who will get this and any future grants or WMUK money for this project. Originally we were going to manage it & now we won't. One reason is that a specifically Welsh body can help with getting grants. The project remains well within WMUK's mission, & I think the limited support given so far, plus some future support, is an appropriate use of funds. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying it is an appropriate use of Wikimedia supporters' donations to pay travel expenses for a Wikimedia UK director (and/or other Wikipedians connected with the project) so that he can get a £17,500 grant for himself? Andreas JN 20:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Then another user posted:

Sorry, can I just clarify if I am reading this right:

WMUK paid expenses for a WMUK trustee to work on getting a grant from elsewhere that will not go to WMUK, but in fact will go directly to the trustee?

O.o

Granted you could probably argue the expenses claim was a microgrant by WMUK in order to achieve a goal that they have an interest in seeing happening... But ethically that's dodgy as fuck...

In response to that Eric Barbour posted:

I gotta stop reading this thread. It just makes me want to fly to London, get a box-cutter, and start slitting nerdy little throats. These bastards simply aren't worth the effort.

That was followed by another post by someone else, saying:

They seem to be doing a fairly efficient job of slitting their own throats. Might as well stay home.

The last two of these comments were redacted. Cheers, Andreas JN466 05:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

So the "someone else" at Wikipediocracy (I suspect they are in the screenshot I have, but haven't checked) managed a more sensible tone than Barbour, who is staff there. (Is he one of your "Wikipediocracy trustees" that got treated to a copy of Jimbo's private email to you, I wonder?)

And then, by the sound of it, someone at Wikipediocracy decided Barbour's comments were clearly beyond the pale. Which they clearly were.

Careful who you accuse of lying, you who spend your time plotting with your little band of "Wikipediocracy trustees". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:38, 7 November 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
	Second Epistle of Clement			Laura Wright (singer)
	Acts of Peter and Paul			George Fisher (scientist)
	Chicken Run (video game)			Referendum
	SPNEGO		Merge
	Bill Foster (basketball, born 1936)			Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008
	Operation Bretagne			Ramil Safarov
	Pluggable authentication module			Amputation
	Frank Hübner		Add sources
	Portrait of Guidobaldo da Montefeltro			Injection fraction
	Tibesti-Jebel Uweinat montane xeric woodlands			Florida
	Giancarlo Parretti			UK Independence Party
	John Giannini		Wikify
	South Saharan steppe and woodlands			British University in Dubai
	French cruiser Algérie			Howrah station
	Wikidata			Historical population of Banja Luka
	Vibe Tribe		Expand
	Sir George Barlow, 1st Baronet			Beta Israel
	Sublime Text			The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care
	Charenton-le-Pont			Franz de Paula Adam von Waldstein

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) 12:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry about that - indeed it was a misclick.--ukexpat (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all - thanks for the note. It might've been a moment to have a BLP-war, but perhaps best not :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Changed it

Polybius, fl. 2nd century B.C.

I changed the unnecessary change you did on thearticle of separation of powers and i just want to talk, why did you change my previous correct statement?--User:Slurpy121 (talk)

I reverted your first edit to the page because you did not provide a reference to verify the information that you were adding. In addition, you added your material into a paragraph already referenced to a source, and that source contradicted what you added. Finally, you didn't include an WP:EDITSUMMARY to explain what you were trying to do. I have opened a discussion on the talk page of the article, Talk:Separation of powers#Montesquieu is not Polybius, please contribute your thoughts there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Montesquieu, fl. 18th century A.D.

If you read the whole thing carefully, then you would realize that the reference i stated is in fact supporting my satement, and wikipedia is a place to add information to articles that need it, and thats what i'm doing, thank you ;)--User:Slurpy121 (talk)

Sacha Baron Cohen, fl. 21st century A.D.

That is exactly what i'm going to do with you! you only reverse my statements because on the article says that the separations of powers of montesquieu was inspired by the british constitution but when in fact, Polybius had a great impact on Montesquieu but you refuse to accept that because you yourself are british! so i find it pretty childish and ingnorant of you to reverse my actions for such a petty purpose, thank you!--User:Slurpy121 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Is it becos I is Bri-ish? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

RE:WP:AFC

Hello Demiurge. Sorry about my typos in the declination by the way. My first language is not English. I have revewed your article, and have accepted it. It has some big improvements. It is located at: Cesar Balsa.

Thank you for your time, Jr Mime (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The "typos" were not the problem, nor is it "my" article. Thanks though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

notification

A misguided discussion has been opened on WP:ANI about the Separation of powers -- the newbie editor is being redirected to the article talk page where you've been attempting to start a dialog. NE Ent 03:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Heh, it seems so often these things boomerang to completion while I'm still asleep! I've added some illustrations above. Thanks for letting me know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment placement

Demiurge, is it possible you misplaced a comment of yours (the one starting "Sounds sensible ...") on Jimbo's talk page? I 'think* you were probably replying to Corporate's or my post about the COIN noticeboard; instead your comment ended up a couple of paras higher up. Cheers, Andreas JN466 19:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, yes. Moved it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If the template makes sense, should we use it? I'm game for BRDing the template until someone complains ;-) Corporate 16:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't the obvious immediate application of it be to put it on the talk page of every single BLP? That number of hundreds and thousands of changes might be a bit too bold. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The feedback so far has been not to use it for BLPs, just companies. Our prior discussions were to start with an experimental sample. For example, we could use it on a dozen closely-watched company articles and see what the reaction is. Corporate 17:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sounds sensible to me - try it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

What?

In case you were wondering, the level two header added was the name of the subject's most recent album. I would have done the same. Thanks. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 20:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

GOCE November 2012 copy edit drive update

Guild of Copy Editors November 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 31 people signed up for this drive so far, 22 have copy-edited at least one article. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Template:J Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive. We have reduced our target group of articles—November and December 2011—by over 50%, and 34 of the the 56 requests made in September and October this year have already been fulfilled. However, the rate of tagging for copy edit has increased, and this month we are just keeping the size of the backlog stable. So, all you copy editors, please do come along and help us! The September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest was won by Baffle gab1978 for his copy edit of Expulsion of the Acadians. Runner up was Gareth Griffith-Jones for his edit of I Could Fall in Love. Congratulations to both. The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight November 30 (UTC). You don't have to make a submission to vote! November 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight November 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin. Seasonal oversight: We had a slight fall from grace in the title of our last newletter, which mentioned the season in the northern hemisphere and thus got it wrong for the southern. Fortunately an observant GOCE member was ready to spring into action to advise us. Thanks! In future we'll stay meteorologically neutral. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Charles Jaco

Hello, Demiurge1000 I'm going to have to ask you to revert youre most recent edit to Charles Jaco, as you changed it after I had made a reference point. I thank you for notyfying me on my talk page of this but as you can see in the history there is a reference. Cole132132 (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Check the separation of powers talk page

I have replied to you in the talk page of the article.—Slurpy121 (talk)

Thanks, will reply there later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

D Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

ME NO ORBISTON

a wider body

You imply that I am Orbiston. I am not. Though I have read his entry (and the Stuart Murphy history) very thoroughly indeed and I agree with a lot, though not all, of what he says (I note that he is now barred from Wikipedia). There seems to be a bizarre wall of steel around mention of Stuart Murphy's sexuality, and I share Orbiston’s suspicions that his image is being protected by PR people probably in his or his company’s employ. It is well known that top TV people have PR accounts. If Mr Murphy is having the references to his sexuality removed, then I find this paradoxical. He came out to Broadcast Magazine and subsequently The Guardian, so why would he care? And where is the shame? And what do you mean by saying the entry is “not helpful”? Again I agree with Orbiston. It Is as if there is a deep level of homophobia going on here. Take Stephen Fry’s entry. That deals in some detail with his homosexuality. So why should Mr Murphy’s on-the-record statement be ignored? He is a highly influential man and for young men who are homosexual but who feel they cannot come out, the announcement Mr Murphy made about his sexuality could be vitally important to them. I am amazed by the ferocity of Orbiston’s censorship. Take a look at the history. True to say he is a little frantic, but he makes some good points. The more so in the light of recent published revelations where PR people have been caught in the act of editing Wikipedia pages for money (and apologised). This sort of thing does happen, and the revisions on this page point very much to that aort of activity. So, in the spirit of Stephen Fry’s page, I am changing the category to Personal Life and replacing the text. If you wish to censor this again, you should refer it to senior, fair-thinking editors who specialise in BLPs. I am new to Wikipedia, so will simply sit back and watch the process with interest. And I think if there is much more of this, the whole history should be examined by a wider body. And my single point on the user page was a slip and should not be interpreted as anything else. As I said I am new to Wikipedia PRDISTORTION (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

More paragraph breaks would be nice. I am not a "PR person" nor have ever worked as one or for one. Nor has anyone asked me to make any changes to the article about Murphy.

Your conspiracy theory doesn't make sense. If Murphy or his company were having the information removed, why would he be openly presenting that same information to newspapers and magazines?

I don't see the connection with homophobia.

I also don't see that "young men who are homosexual but who feel they cannot come out" would ever even have heard of Murphy (I hadn't, and I'm from the same country).

I'm also a bit puzzled that you are "new to Wikipedia" but still managed to find Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orbiston within less than an hour of its creation, despite not being notified of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

“More paragraph breaks would be nice”? Well, Fewer patronising remarks would be nice too. Criticising the poor layout from a Wikpedia neophyte is unworthy of an experienced editor. Imagine a paragraph break here. I am not accusing you of being a PR person. I am saying that the history of edits on the SM page come from various people many of them “one offs” and that Orbiston’s (more often than not) reasonable attempt to do no more than mention SM’s sexuality has been dealt with in a disproportionately aggressive way by some of those people. That said, I think Orbiston showed signs of a grudge. Accusing me of conspiracy is also unworthy in the light of recent revelations about paid PR companies editing Wikipedia pages. Imagine a paragraph break here. I notice that you choose not to tell me why my edit contravenes Wikipedia’s policy on Biogs of living persons, nor do you address the analogy I make about Stephen Fry’s page which is littered with references to that living person's sexuality. You are correct. It seems bizarre that Murphy might be behind this aggressive censorship (for that is what went on with Orbiston). But, let us imagine a scenario where, earlier this year, SM sniffed a tabloid exposé (disgusting but they still happen even post News of the World)about him leaving his wife and child for a gay lover. Could he have perhaps come up with a solution whereby he decided to come out and give a “spoiler” interview to a trade mag (Broadcast) in the hope that it would all go away? But now there it is in Wikipedia and he doesn't like it (or maybe his bosses don't). If so, he shouldn’t have given an interview in the first place. Imagine a paragraph break. By the way you still don’t define what you mean by “not helpful”. Finally, any young person, male or female wanting to get into the media would know Stuart Murphy well. He runs many Sky channels. To a gay person, young or old, his coming out would be significant. And finally finally, I didn’t find Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orbiston “within less than an hour of its creation”. I am a journalist (not the exposé type though I am getting very interested in how Wikipedia works) and was contacted by another journalist who is following this activity. If my entry is removed again, I trust you will be fair (you seem to be a reasonable person) and refer it to the biog of living persons community and I will follow that process closely. PRDISTORTION (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Fry is quite clear about his opinions

You have absolutely no evidence to suggest that I am a reasonable person, so I suggest you withdraw that insinuation.

Also, you have been blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orbiston.

Now, as for my not having replied to every single one of your points, well yes, when you present me with a wall of text of that nature, brimming with implications and assumptions and accusations and who knows what, I will indeed pick out the specific points that spring to mind. I'm not here to write essays explaining things to you. And in fact, much of this discussion should be happening on the talk page of the article, not here. But, since the template I used invited you here, I will entertain your questions here for a little while.

First, I don't see any "bizarre wall of steel" around Murphy's article. I see a single-purpose account (Orbiston) repeatedly and determinedly trying to insert negative material, and a small selection of other accounts and IP addresses (some of which were single purpose accounts, and some not) dealing with that. Orbiston was neither being "reasonable", nor trying "to do no more than mention SM's sexuality", nor was he willing to abide by Wikipedia's policies. That's why he got blocked - not "aggressive censorship".

I haven't used the word "conspiracy", so I have no idea where you got that from.

The Wikipedia page Stephen Fry mentions Fry's sexuality with due weight - I think one or two sentences out of a very lengthy article that has more than 150 references, as against 5 (currently) for the Murphy article. Also, Fry has publicly campaigned on gay rights and related issues - he deliberately makes it a part of his public persona and his internet fame. Murphy has not done so.

Now, imagining for a moment that your postulated scenario is correct, that the only reason that Murphy's sexuality was mentioned in published sources was that a "disgusting tabloid exposé" was planned, then I don't need to explain to you that such material is not the sort of thing we use to evidence commentary about a living person on Wikipedia.

I'm making this reply on an "I'm started so I'll finish" generosity basis, but really you have no right to make accusations of this nature, here or anywhere else. Don't do it, please.

As you are an investigative journalist, I recommend to you the website and forum http://wikipediocracy.com/ - that site has amongst its "trustees" a number of individuals who consider themselves "professional journalists" in the USA, and I am sure that many of them share similar concerns to yourself about places where young gay men can express their feelings.

Please don't make silly "might be behind this aggressive censorship" accusations here again, or I'll have to remove them without comment. I really am quite busy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

24 hour block for personal attacks

I have blocked your account for 24 hours for repeating your personal attacks. I have explained my reasoning here. Fram (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or submit a request for unblock to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

Since I specifically said I wasn't going to repeat the statement, you're out of line.

24 hours, though? That sounds like an ideal opportunity to spend time looking for the diff - and your statement at ANI suggests that you think I should post it right here on my talk page when I find it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You repeated it at the ANI discussion, which was more than sufficient. And any further accusations of sockpuppetry should be filed at a WP:SPI, not here. Fram (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making any accusations of sockpuppetry. Are you seriously saying that you blocked me for not posting the diff, but are also now telling me I shouldn't post it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You are accusing another editor of having made an impersonator account. How are you then not making any accusations of sockpuppetry? And I didn't block you for not posting a diff, I blocked you for repeating unfounded personal attacks, while making it even worse by claiming that for one, you had a very good source which you just couldn't reveal, and for the other, you had a very good diff which you just couldn't be bothered to search for.

Now, if you want to search for that diff anyway, keep it off-wiki, and either you feel that it is solid evidence of sockpuppetry and you present it at SPI (althoug if it is old, there is very little they will be willing or able to do anyway), or it is insufficient as evidence and then you simply don't mention the accusation or the diff again. But posting it here will serve no purpose but getting yourself blocked for longer. Fram (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Fram, I disagree with the "let's brush this under the carpet" mentality - I know the history here, I'd rather see this in the open and sorted. Rather than alluding to stuff, I'll just post the diffs I know about. Discussions at Malleus talk page and at your talk page. In summary, you and Malleus had a disagreement in July and August 2011, culminating in this comment, an hour later Demiurge10 was created, made one edit (an Isreal-Palestine rant) and was blocked 4 minutes later for abusing multiple accounts. I do not know who it was a sockpuppet of, but I hope you have more evidence linking it to Malleus than his comment. If that's all youv'e got - you need to drop this. That Malleus mentioned Demiurge100 last week, a clear typo of Demiurge1000 and unlikely to have anything to do with Demiurge10 given context, does not prove anything and gives the impression of extreme paranoia.

Regarding alternative accounts - I have a vague recollection of Malleus making some sort of comment like "I could have an alternate admin account, but you wouldn't know" in the past two years, but have no idea where or indeed if he said that. Even if he did say that, it doesn't mean he actually has one and based on other information, I would be surprised if he did.

The long comment on your page was not appropriate, it was a personal attack. You went on to repeat the allegations without evidence at ANI, even if you were stating that you would not repeat them further. I'd suggest you drop the accusations and stay away from Malleus. If you can't do this voluntarily, a formal interaction ban might be the best option, I doubt Malleus would object. Worm^TT(talk) 13:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)The comment I was thinking of was in reply to "Malleus has never had admin rights" where he stated - "Perhaps you assume too much. Certainly Malleus has never been an admin, and never will be, but I'm not Malleus. That's just the name of this account." Worm^TT(talk) 15:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I did some alternative research in the meantime, and Demiurge100 (instead of Demiurge1000) has also been used by jc37 here, SandyGeorgia here, Kiefer Wolfowitz here, and, coincidentally, Worm That Turned here. Using that as evidence for any sockpuppetry case is not really convincing. Fram (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly an interesting list of users.

As regards the threat diff, you don't need to try to prevent me posting it here, because Worm has already posted it. Yep, exactly sixty-one minutes between Malleus' threat, and the imposter account being created. I draw no conclusions from that coincidence at all, of course. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

So the accusation is all based on that coincidence? Nothing further that links Demiurge10 to Malleus Fatuorum? Worm^TT(talk) 13:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You're aware of my views of that coincidence. But, as I've said (repeatedly), I'm not making any accusations. This seems a bit WP:DEADHORSE over a single edit that I made more than three days ago. As I already said at ANI, I am prepared to accept Dennis' reassurance that nothing untoward is (or was) going on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Demiurge10 (talk · contribs) account is a duck sockpuppet of JarlaxleArtemis, who is completely unrelated to Malleus. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. As to my other question, would you agree to a voluntary interaction ban with Malleus Fatuorum? Standard stuff, don't comment on him, discuss him or reply to him. As laid out here. I'll ask for the same from him. Worm^TT(talk) 13:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)There was only one diff to look at, and it was easy to see that the 100 account WAS a sock, but a sock that hated Palestinians (looking at the RevDel'ed edit), and the edit was a copy/paste of a hate article and they had an obvious goal. It was very clear that it wasn't Malleus. I take socking quite serious, which is why I have spent 6 months learning the craft of defeating socks. I promise I wasn't just dismissing your claim and used the same diligence and respect I would have used in any SPI case. As for the "hidden admin account", there is no way to prove a negative, my comment was only that the claim was bizarre, and it is. Hopefully we can just move forward from here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm aware of the content of the revdel'd edit, although I don't necessarily share your conclusions about it. But I don't (and didn't) doubt your diligence at all. The comment Worm remembers Malleus as making about admin account access was indeed a little bizarre, but it's a funny old world. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I will add, though, that it's a little less bizarre when you consider that there's at least one currently active administrator who has in the past given access to his account to someone else who was not an administrator, who then used the admin tools extensively on that "shared" admin account. There was also at least one other admin who did the same in a related incident, so it's not beyond the bounds of belief that there are other such incidents that we don't know about. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• WHO? Never heard that before. If true, I would like to see the diffs so I can demand an emergency desysop.MONGO 14:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Dealt with a long time ago. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, before the drama unfolds any further, can we verify a couple of things: a) although accusing someone of being a sock (even repeatedly) is uncivil, but not usually a personal attack (admitted, YMMV), b) the real Demiurge has identified that the intent was not to WP:PA, c) the real Demiurge has identified that the behaviour (even if it was perception) will not recur, is there any actual value-added reason for this block to continue in terms of protecting the project or its members? Yes, a voluntary IB might be called for here, but I don't believe it's overly germane to what actually occurred (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • "the real Demiurge has identified that the intent was not to WP:PA"? Demiurge has made claims that he didn't intend to accuse anyone of socking, while actually doing nothing but. The original post here, amongst some other backhanded PAs, contained things like "One too many coincidences, I feel. The leopard shows its spots." when discussing Malleus, Demiurge 10, and the Demiurge100 typo Malleus made one year later. Here, after the block, he continued with statements like "I draw no conclusions from that coincidence at all, of course." You may be convinced that that is evidence that he didn't accuse anyone of socking, and that he didn't want to attack anyone, but to me this reads quite differently. I saw plenty of reasons to block, and see no reason to modify the block or its length here. Fram (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A fish

Why do you read "I draw no conclusions from that coincidence at all" as meaning the opposite of what it says?

Come to think of it, why do you justify your block at ANI by saying that I didn't post the diff (or, in fact, I said I'd find it later), but then here on my talk page you tell me I shouldn't post the diff here?

Something fishy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I have revealed myself now, I am in reality the secret admin account of Malleus. Apart from that fishy smell you so expertly found; for the last time, that is not the block reason, and not what I said here. I repeat: "I didn't block you for not posting a diff, I blocked you for repeating unfounded personal attacks, while making it even worse by claiming that for one, you had a very good source which you just couldn't reveal, and for the other, you had a very good diff which you just couldn't be bothered to search for." And I continued to state that if you want to repeat the accusations anyway (straightforward or hidden in rhetoric), do it at the appropriate noticeboards (in this case, at SPI), not on your talk page. If you still can't see the problem with what you did, nor the correct way to handle such a thing in the future, then there is even less reason to lift the block. Fram (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Now that Worm has posted the diff (above) where Malleus himself openly and specifically puts forward the idea of him possibly having access to admin rights on an account other than the Malleus Fatuorum account, it's clear my comments were not unfounded at all, so your rationale for the block no longer applies. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Weaving

• Demiurge1000, the key here is that your claims are unreasonable when compared to the evidence. Your post wasn't just saying "I wonder if MF has a second account", the entire post was a rant, assassinating the character of another person. I think you have to reflect a bit and admit that your personal opinion of Malleus got in the way of your better judgement and that the entire rant, not just the one claim, was uncalled for. You are taking minor unrelated statements and weaving them into something bigger than life. I think your emotions have gotten the best of you here, friend, and your good judgement has taken a back seat. The purpose of the block is to prevent further disruption, and this is accomplished by having the block for a period of time long enough for the actor to reflect and understand why the block took place, to reevaluate their actions, and figure out how they can conform to community norms. I think you need to pause here and reflect, to understand why you were blocked, so the same mistake isn't repeated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not weaving anything into anything, but Fram is certainly weaving a rather imaginative tapestry of things that I haven't actually said. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should being a bit clearer instead of relying on innuendo and "coincidences". Fram (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

So you pressed your little block button for the cardinal sin of not being clear enough? Very neat.

Meanwhile I'm now less puzzled by your diving in here and repeatedly twisting my words. I'd been wondering where it was I'd seen your username before, and it turns out I commented multiple times - and rather strongly, too - in opposition to your recent proposal to ban a prolific contributor from DYK. A proposal that failed to get community support, but that you still don't seem to have given up on. I think you should find something more constructive to do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Gotta say I disagree with this block, at least for the reason given. Yes, Demiurge was intemperate and attacked Malleus on thin/no evidence. The thing is, it looks to me like 1) he was told his assumptions were incorrect and that he was jumping the gun madly, followed by 2) he said "ok, well, I heard that accusation from someone else, but since it seems to have been baseless, I won't bring it up again", followed by 3) he was blocked for a personal attack. Let's review that again: he said that he wouldn't bring up the attack-ish theory again...and he was blocked for an attack. Prior to that comment by him, you could certainly have defended an NPA block. But blocking after he said he was no longer going to beat the horse seems like a very bad call unless there's something huge here that I and the ANI thread are missing. Dropping the stick and not pursuing the dispute are good things, not things to block over. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If that was what he had done, obviously it would have been a bad block. What he did say was that he read the statement by Dennis, but that he had a better authority for his claim, and that he stood by his sock claim, but that he couldn't be bothered to present the evidence and might perhaps put it on his talk page later. I don't see any "oh, apparently I was wrong", neither explicitly nor implicitly, only repetition of his earlier attacks. Fram (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I see acknowledgement (albeit with a rather sharp edge of sarcasm) that the admin account accusation has been rebutted and that he wouldn't pursue it any further. As for the impersonation accusation, I see a comment along the lines of "Fine, ok, not pursuing this right now either. If I find the evidence for it later, I'll present it." Could he have recanted that more strongly? Sure. Did he nevertheless say that he's not pursuing this matter any further? I think that was his intention. At any rate, presumably this can be cleared up fairly easily by asking Demiurge to make a definitive statement about his intentions: Demiurge, do you intend to continue pursuing these accusations about Malleus, on ANI or elsewhere? That would include anything from starting ANI threads to making insinuations elsewhere, without presenting valid evidence for the reality of such claims. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

ETA, on re-reading this talk: I managed to miss a little ways up on here where Demiurge asserts that based on what Worm said, he was clearly right to accuse Malleus. Demiurge, we're definitely going to need you to pick one or the other at this point: either you get that your accusations were flimsy and you're not going to keep pushing them, or you continue to believe you're right and you intend to pursue them. If the former, the block isn't necessary. If the latter, your choices are basically either to stay blocked, or to tamp down your temper and request an unblock on the grounds that you will file a very neutral SPI, wait quietly for the results, accept the results, and end things that way. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I do find it necessary to state clearly here, it was Malleus himself that openly and specifically put forward the idea of him possibly having access to admin rights on an account other than the Malleus Fatuorum account (diff above). Having made that statement, no, I will not now raise, mention, bring up, or refer to (even obliquely) either that comment of Malleus', nor the interpretation of that comment previously provided to me by a third party, nor the conclusions I based on that, nor the Demiurge10 or Demiurge100 accounts, nor any assumptions I may have made about those accounts, anywhere on-wiki. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"but that he had a better authority" is twisting my words somewhat. I was quite specific that I accepted Dennis' assessment of the situation; my statement that I had heard it from another source was an explanation (inadequate or otherwise) of where I heard about it from, not an assertion that my source was correct and Dennis was wrong. You are, again, putting words in my mouth, and it's getting increasingly difficult to AGF on your reasons for doing so.

"he stood by his sock claim" is twisting my words a lot. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not he was blocked or is unblocked, he needs to understand why this is disruptive to Wikipedia as a whole, as it creates a hostile environment. Not as a condition to be unblocked, but simply because that kind of conduct is detrimental to the project regardless. For that matter, had he said "Yeah, I was mad, I shouldn't have said that publicly" then he would have been unblocked by any number of admin. The whole of the statement, not just the sock claim. I didn't want him blocked to begin with, which is why I tried to handle the situation with a firm but respectful admonishment on his talk page. Had he paused and reflected a bit instead of going to ANI with a statement that was reinforcing his previous attack more than admitting that it was improper, then we wouldn't be here. Once you notice you are in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Understanding is absolutely the ideal, but in most cases we're willing to settle for "May not agree that they were wrong, but nevertheless won't do it again". We can't really control - or try to control - what people think, we can only make it clear that no matter what they think, they have to act according to our policies and guidelines. In this case, that would mean we want to see Demiurge (even if he still privately thinks Malleus is doing something wrong) acknowledge that given that there's no evidence that Malleus is doing anything wrong, he can't go on acting and talking like Malleus is doing something wrong. He can think that if he likes, but he can't bring it onwiki. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That is consistent with my comments. I wasn't asking Demiurge to admit his conclusions were wrong, but to recognize that his methods were, posting the entire section that was attacking another editor. He is free to conclude whatever he wishes, but he isn't free to publish an attack. Like I said, if he had said "Yeah, I shouldn't have said that publicly", this would be over. This doesn't dictate what he thinks or says in private, only what he publishes onwiki. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Fram doesn't seem to be around, I've unblocked as he has stated he understands and I'm inclined to believe him and I don't think anything is gained from laboring it further. Again, I'm not telling anyone what to think, nor discouraging anyone from emailing a CU or filing a report, nor from simply having an opinion. The key is avoid "crossing the line" into attacks, and not digging in, and instead being open minded when an objective party tells you that you have crossed the line. You're a smart guy and good contributor, and I hope we can all just put this unfortunate situation behind us, and get back to writing articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all for constructive and thoughtful input on this. As an additional mildly entertaining coincidence, it was actually as I was trying to add a comment to BWilkins' talkpage (unrelated to this) that I first ever saw the "you can't edit Wikipedia right now" (or whatever the exact wording is) message. An interesting moment!

It seems the discussion continues elsewhere, but I think I'll leave them to it on this occasion :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's talk turkey

Yes.

Yes, I have been making edits to the Video Game Critic page, and you are probably wondering my reasons. Honestly, my main reasons are because I see more bias in his reviews than most do, especially in Mario Platformers and games staring non-humanoid characters. I have compared many games he has reviewed to each other, and I've found a lot of the games he has given high reviews to, B+ or higher, are generally mediocre games, where as a lot of his C+ or lower games are generally really good games. In my latest edit, I cited a few bits from his reviews explaining a few questionable remarks he made in some of his reviews.

And the reason I have never signed in to the Wiki is because I prefer to remain anonymous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.162.20 (talk • contribs)

Yes, but you need to cite to reliable sources that discuss his reviews being biased (or not) - "citing" one of his reviews and then giving your opinion that it's biased is not acceptable.

Incidentally, editing as an IP address basically makes you less anonymous, not more. But it's up to you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Some fish

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

for being a bit of a noodle with Malleus and allowing yourself to get Blocked. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 19:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• edit Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A noodle, you say?

Blimey... fish... noodles... turkey... it's all happening here! There's another fish further up the page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Did someone mention a turkey?

Mmm.. turkey! Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying can be of people who are not Wikipedia editors, and can cause DEATH or temporary loss of the esteem of one's peers

Thanks for diving in. I was standing far to close to it to be able to see the wood form the trees. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Some folk will miss the point even when it is applied to their throats, you know. I am grateful for the existence of such folk. They make me happy not to be one of them :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you ever amazed at the way some folk choose to be unable to grasp simple concepts? I love the alleged wisdom of crowds. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Crowd-sourcing is great for many things, however it always seems to let you down when you're least expecting it. It's also not a great tool for the management of a large project, as Thucydides would doubtless tell us we should have learned from the experience of the ancient Athenians.

I like your metaphor about points and throats :)

I think there may be some truth in the assertion that mention of Fae dragged the proposals discussion unreasonably off topic. Bizarrely, I'd not heard "LGBT themes in every obscure article they could get their hands on" cited as a reason that Fae was a problem, before. But still, "If an editor is harassing another editor" betrays a real lack of more than a few seconds thought trying to understand what the essay was about. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Some folk over reacted to Fae (etc). Some folk still do. Some folk are unduly shocked by homosexuality, Some homosexual folk see homophobia at every turn. I recently has a disturbing talk page conversation with an apparent bureaucrat that appeared to bring some latent homophobia into the conversation, or, more probably, it did not, but was just a disturbing conversation. I subscribe to Occam's Razor in one spelling or another :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have had it suggested to me that "Signpost" is a great way to promote this essay. I've created a draft document there under this heading where it is, currently, receiving comments. In view of the sensitive edits you made to the essay I wonder if you might both comment there and consider improving the article itself. I am sure, if you wish, there is a chance to take credit in the eventual article for substantive edits that you have made, though I am unsure of the rules there. Credited or not I find your eyes highly useful in this area. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That could indeed be very valuable. I notice you've already had suggestions of getting help from some of the top Signpost writers. I've watchlisted the discussion about it, although not yet the draft document. I doubt I'll have much time to do more there, but do feel free to drop me a reminder sometime if it needs some more work and I might be able to help.

I notice a WMF employee has helpfully improved the original essay a bit, and also followed links from it to fix nearby essays! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

We are making a ripple, albeit a small one. Enough ripples will make a small wave, and all that us needed is a small wave. THis is by no means the size of problem of alleged bias at Arbcom that rears its head from time to time, whether true or not, but it is an area where kids suffer. Wikipedia is to be enjoyed by all, and kids do not need to suffer because of WIkipedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Damned good thrashing

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I remember about 10 years ago, there was a drive by our local council to stop cyclists from riding on the pavement. The leader of the council contacted the local NHS Trust to find out how many people had been hospitalised by being run down by bicycles on the pavement - the answer - none at all. Alansplodge (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"A drive by" at a local council always makes me think of this kind of thing; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/975012.stm

Strangely enough, I was in fact nearly hit by some pavement-cycling child a few years ago. He was coming round a blind corner at maybe 15mph. I dodged by no more than a foot or so; his frantic braking and weaving and dodging and nearly falling off his bicycle reassured me that he had probably learned from the experience even without hitting me.

The reality is that most pavement cyclists (postmen or otherwise) move very slowly; collisions will be extremely rare, and serious injuries even more so. One does have some sympathy with elderly citizens who might be more brittle when hit even at low speeds, but by the sound of it those collisions are just not happening.

The postman was cycling slowly along the pavement on Friday morning as per usual, but I'd missed the chance to observe crossing patrol cycle etiquette. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk page

Why don't you move those comments to my talk page where we can speak more about the subject? I wasn't aware I was violating DYK guidelines at the time and I hope we can work collaboratively in the future so all rules are obeyed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see in the last few minutes, there's nothing to prevent us from speaking more about the subject in exactly the same place that you commented and I replied. I do see some people who would prefer me to be silenced, but I don't see anyone succeeding in silencing me for more than a few hours at a time (and if I'm at work at the time, that's kind of wasted effort for those kiddies).

If by some mischance my comments and/or your comments at that other page should be mislaid, feel free to copy them here if you'd like to discuss them further. I can't quite offer Nableezy's level of hospitality, but I will do my best.

If you're aiming to follow the DYK guidelines, then that's the important thing. I made a rather glaring mistake with them, a few years ago, but I survived :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It turns out you were right, and your and my comments were indeed mislaid, not to mention that our friend from that badsite seems to be back to his personal attack ways in his edit summary. I guess he might soon need to be sent back to the naughty step again, for rather longer this time.

Feel free to copy any of your or my original comments here, if there's anything more on the topic that's useful to discuss. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Chenevix-Trench

With reference to your voidance of amendments I made to Anthony Chenevix-Trench's biography.

You initially state I am writing about a living person, Anthony Chenevix-Trench. He is long dead. I accept that the comment that Richard Ingrams and Paul Foot harboured unremitting antagonism to ACT refers to a living person, Ingrams, and as such is not suitable and as such should be deleted. However, I have written testimony from Ingrams' biographer, addressed to me, which would substantiate such an assertion.

But what justification can there be for removing all the other references, which contrary to what you say, are sourced? I may have referenced them in the wrong format, but they are referenced. The four letters quoted, with names, for instance, were extracts printed in the Guardian on 4th September 1996. I quoted a letter I had written to the Daily Telegraph on 3rd September 1996, and referred to a Peterborough article of 31st August 1996.

I believe the current Wikipedia biography of Chenevix-Trench, as reinstated by you, is grossly one-sided and unfair, viz the four letters I quoted from the Guardian which put the other side of the coin. I believe I am well-placed to comment on this as much of the publicity against CT put out by Private Eye and Paul Foot ( and Richard Ingrams, but we can leave him out of it ) cited alleged mistreatment CT had meted out to me personally. However, there was no substance to their allegations at all and I never had any problems with CT. He was always fair and decent to me and I liked him.

To fail to put the other side of the case, and there clearly was one, and to quote almost exclusively salcious allegations against CT - allegations which were largely fed by Foot and Private Eye - is unprofessional and unworthy. Given the history Foot and Private Eye wrongly attributed to me, and which I have disputed on the record, I believe I am entitled to make edits to the current biography and to have them respected.

Hume shawcross (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be more useful to discuss this on the talk page of the article (I'll explain why in a moment) but I'll answer here to begin with.

You can't accuse Ingrams of things without backing those things up with reliable sources. A letter from Ingrams' biographer to you is not a reliable source (by Wikipedia's standards). The biography itself (has it been published?) probably is a reliable source.

Before you started editing it, the article did not mention you at all. The article does not exist to be a vehicle for you to publicise the fact that some material was wrongly misattributed to you elsewhere. On the other hand, nor is it appropriate for the article to contain poorly sourced statements about ACT (or about anything else.) That's why it would make sense to discuss what should be in the article on the talk page for the article - then we can look at what reliable sources we have, and consider what the article should contain based on that.

Letters from people involved, whether published in the Guardian or not, are considered very weak as sources on Wikipedia. That's not to say they can't be considered or mentioned.

You don't gain an entitlement to editing a particular article merely because you know the person involved and at some point were misattributed (not on Wikipedia) regardling some statements about him. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I understand your point about Ingrams. A few points: Paul Foot and Richard Ingrams launched thir initial attack on ACT in Private Eye by citing his alleged treatment of me. This was repeated in other publications over the years, not least in by Foot in the London Review of Books and the Guardian when he published a riposte to a favourable biography of ACT 'The Land of Lost Content'. My alleged mistreatment by ACT was a hook on which Foot ( and Ingrams ) hung their story about ACT. However, there was no truth to their allegations about me. I never had any problems with ACT and in fact I liked him. I am not trying to become part of the Wikipedia story, as you imply, nor am I seeking publicity. Rather, I see the completely incorrect story about me, which was put out by Foot as part of his life-long campaign against ACT, as an example of how ACT was, at least in some instances, unfairly maligned.

I quoted the favourable letters from the Guardian story - which the Guardian quoted to show that there was another side to the story - to illustrate that many people viewed ACT positively. The controversy about him was stoked and kept burning by Foot and Ingrams. It has thus passed into the ACT folklore but it has to be seen in the context of Foot and Ingrams' very successful campaign against him. He was a remarkable man, may indeed have had his faults, but it is unbalanced and unfair to have his Wikipedia entry dominated by the allegations against him without stating the backgorund to the allegations and that he was viewed favourably by others. My own experience shows that the demonisation of ACT was not always based on fact. I would appreciate working with you to try to put some persepctive into his entry.

Hume shawcross (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to try and find some secondary sources that discuss (or even mention) the campaign against ACT, as a campaign rather than as a list of things that people said about him. That would then make the campaign (and indeed any counter-campaign) a topic for inclusion in the Wikipedia article about him.

Regarding the various letters to the Guardian, I imagine we can perhaps justify mentioning, briefly, that a number (or a large number) of letters supportive of ACT appeared. We could then have a footnote mentioning extracts of what some of the letters said. This is slightly awkward territory, as these letters really are people's personal recollections and opinions about ACT, and thus are primary sources not secondary ones, but I would hope it's possible. (Many newspapers have published material by their various writers which stray into "when I was at school XYZ was common" territory, which really are just as much personal recollections as "letters to the editor" are.) If the newspaper printed something like "we have received many other letters similar to these", or any other even slightly editorial comment about the correspondence, than that's even better.

The Land of Lost Content is presumably a reasonably substantial book, so it could be used to produce a fuller Wikipedia article about ACT that would not be dominated quite so much by material that may have been produced largely by a campaign against him.

I will try and begin assembling a list of sources and possible approaches on the talk page of the article sometime in the next few days hopefully. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I will keep checking. I have not read The Land of Lost Content but I expect it would provide a useful balance.Hume shawcross (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree the article is unbalanced, with well over half the article at present devoted to corporal punishment, and that in a far from neutral tone. Foot and Ingrams clearly had/have a POV on this, as also Nick Cohen, whom we quote as saying "Even by the standards of England's public schools, Anthony Chenevix-Trench [.....] was a flagellomaniac". There we have Cohen freely admitting that he comes to the subject with a predetermined opinion. We on the other hand should not be appearing to take it as read that the public schools were full of flagellomaniacs or that ACT necessarily was one, as opposed to the possibility that he was simply doing what was normal in boarding schools in that era.

My recollection is that it was the publication of Tim Card's book in 1994 that caused the main media storm about all this, rather than Foot's activities in Private Eye. Ought we not to be including that as a source? At the moment we have it only as "Further reading" and obliquely quoted in a newspaper article that seems to date from before the book actually appeared.

I also agree with Demiurge that the article should be filled out with material from the Mark Peel book "The Land of Lost Content", which as his biography should surely be one of the main sources for this article. At the moment are citing only the Daily Mail review of the book and then only for a couple of isolated facts.

Demiurge would you consider shifting this whole thread to the article's talk page? -- Alarics (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Not this particular one, just in case Hume shawcross (if that should be his real name) might not want his views or concerns semi-permanently on display on the ACT talk page (which is likely to stay around unarchived a lot longer than this my personal talk page). I was going to add a new section to the article talkpage about this, but I got diverted into adding fragments of info from newspapers to the article itself. I'll add a new section to the article talkpage tonight. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Demiurge, for your concern about my name being displayed. It is my real name. I am not seeking publicity but as I was named repeatedly ( and falsely ) by both Foot and Ingrams as having been one of ACT alleged victims, and in that context was a hook on which they hung their original Private Eye story, I am happy to be quoted, on the ACT talk page or elsewhere, that there is no substance at all to the allegation. I see one of the contributors to the ACT talk page, Emeraude 16/7/2007, states that the Private Eye stories "were certainly verifiable". In as far they cited me, and this was repeated by Foot in the London Review of Books after the publication of Land of Lost Content, and in the Guardian, and quoted in the Daily Telegraph, these allegations were false. I had no problems with ACT, and wrote to the Telegraph to set the record straight. Based on this experience, it makes one wonder how much of the other rather sensationalist allegations were also embroidered. I note in your recent comment on the ACT talk page headed Neutrality, that you also consider the present bio to over-emphasise the negative. Amazon quotes a review by Martin Baird of A Keen Wind Blows: Fettes Story, which states of Fettes' headmasters that "ACT in particular was an outstanding but ultimately tragic figure". At the moment the bio does not reflect much of his positive side.58.8.12.35 (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Greed article.

Being handcuffed to a corpse makes it tricky to do anything at all to or with a dead horse

First, thank you for all the great edits. I care a lot about this article and just want it to be good. I was wondering about your opinions on the difference between Stroheim and von Stroheim within the body of the article. Its explained more fully in the Talk section of the film. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Having looked at it, I think we'd better go with von Stroheim. Personally, I find the shorter version easier and neater, but with most of the reliable sources using the longer form, along with some or all of the quotations and also at least one category, I don't think we can use the shorter form without it appearing to be a jarring inconsistency for the reader.

I'm planning to finish this copyedit sometime on Friday. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting DYK criteria.

Part of this is about this man from Milan

So after your (and Harrias) replies, and a bit of research on my part, you both seem to follow best practice when reviewing DYK hook/articles. Both in terms of the literal requirements of 'the rules' as well as the extra mile you go regarding quality. However from reading the DYK page - just a couple of sections down - other reviewers state outright prose quality is not a criteria they look at. I dont feel this is really acceptable for the main page.

What I am going to do later this week (probably weekend) is an audit of the hooks/articles reviewed and take a look at a few key (in terms of article quality) criteria - prose quality (basic spelling/grammar), sourcing (sources OTHER than the one related to the hook. I know at least two articles where the hook source was a legit high quality one, and all the others were completely unreliable.) and a couple of other things. Its only going to be a few criteria (3 or 4) as I dont want to be drawn into subjective judgements. Example: Plenty of articles have been promoted where they have (in my opinion) clear 'padding' to hit the character mark, but thats going to vary from editor to editor as to what constitutes padding. So I wont look into detail at that sort of thing.

I want to reiterate this isnt about blame & shame, this is about identifying which editors are reviewing and promoting good quality articles, then identifying their methods so it can be spread out amongst the other reviewers - hopefully by altering the DYK reviewing guidelines - thereby increasing the quality of the main-page linked articles. As you and Harrias appear to be following (IMO) very decent practices, I shall be using both yours as a baseline for some minimum standards. Once I have the data, I shall post on the DYK talkpage and hopefully start a productive discussion. (As I have mentioned Harrias, I will let him know about this here.) Any thoughts? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting and I have a number of thoughts on it. However, can you clarify what you mean by "just a couple of sections down - other reviewers state outright prose quality is not a criteria they look at"? Do you mean a couple of sections up the page, not down the page? I can't see any statement like that in sections further down the page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Literally a couple of sections below. The bit on Alfonso Litta, Hawkeye - "They are not reviewing the writing style. It is not a criterion at DYK, or for a Start class article." followed by The Interior confirming he (like yourself & Harrias) does look at things like grammar and changes/rejects, but that it is not part of the rules (and in his opinion should be added). From a basic cursory glance, it appears that the 'better quality' DYK's do seem to correlate with basic things like correct sourcing, grammar etc. Hence why I am going to do a more extensive audit. With some hard facts to back it up, a revision of the reviewing rules/criteria should be easier to argue for. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I use the Norman conquest of southern Italy as an example here

Ah, right. Now, Alfonso Litta in the version which went on the main page is a really good example here. Reading through it - think of this from the reader's point of view - there is only one point where it's not almost immediately obvious what the article is trying to say. That point is "because of his health problems and his clashes with the Spanish government he was thought to resign from the Archbishopric of Milan: he however never resigned but was not able to return to Milan".

All of the other problems (and there are many) do not greatly hinder the reader's understanding; instead they are exactly the sort of small errors (using the word "such" when the word "this" is needed, or "to" instead of "in") that might tempt the potential new editor to think "here's a small problem that I can easily fix, I will do it!" Remember, that's one of the purposes of DYK, right? (And, trust me, it works.)

Another point that struck me is that, remember my comments about machine translators; it's obvious this version of the article was not produced by a machine translation. It instantly reminded me of the way parts of Norman conquest of southern Italy read before I copy-edited it. Yep, a quick check will show you that the Alfonso Litta article was expanded by an editor who rather accurately claims to be "en-3" on his userpage - I'll assume his first language is Italian. There are quite a few regular contributors of DYK articles who do not have English as a first language; should we tell them that they are not allowed to nominate their articles for DYK until they have gone to GOCE to get them copy-edited - which would basically exclude them from DYK altogether because copyedit requests normally take weeks to be acted on?

So, that's one aspect of the "prose standard" issue. We really do need to be able to say "this is our newest content" with the understanding that it is all work in progress (even more so than In The News, and certainly more so than any other main page section).

Another aspect is the idea of adding "free from bad grammar" or somesuch to the DYK rules. How can that not be subjective? In fact, how is it workable at all? One man's GA is another man's "bad grammar". "Up with this I will not put" (Churchill) - is this bad grammar or just bad style? What Hawkeye actually said was "they are not reviewing the writing style" - and by the exact definition, he is right there - writing style is mostly out of scope even for GA. Alfonso Litta as it went on the main page was intelligible and waiting to be improved. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I was referring to the comments themselves, rather than as they applied specifically to the Alfonso Litta article, which I agree was not that bad compared to some I have seen. Which was rather my point, there are far worse ones that make it through - a couple of grammar or spelling mistakes here and there is forgivable. When its riddled with them however... Your above comments are noted though. I will stick spelling/grammar in the 'not absolutely necessary' column. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Precious

respect for living persons
Thank you for contributions to quality articles such as Battle of Radzymin (1920), for copy-editing, and for treating not only biographies of living persons with respect, but also editors, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Question about your edit /edit summary

Does this edit [1] mean that you believe that the notability criteria have been met or just that you don't like the notability template? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Feel free to AfD it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for fixing some errors in my page. Have a nice day! :) Mediran talk to me! 02:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Greed copy edit

Hi. I need to archive the request, which unfortunately will delete your comment. If not suitable to put on the IP's own talk page, perhaps on the article's talk page? Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, no problem, archive away. I will pursue the IP all over the place! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the copy edit and making the article ten times better than I could have. I'm just going to finish up the lead so it sums up everything and then submit it. Thanks again. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, does anything need to be added to the talk page to show that its been copy edited? --Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There's Template:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. I stopped adding this after copyedits a year or two ago, although I can't remember why. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Demiuge

Thanks mate for the message. I am new to this site so i will be looking around, practicing my edits in the mentioned sandboxes and i was wondering if i can get some tips for this site like for example how to edit articles properly, how to use wikipedia as a learning tool, it would be helpful and will be off doing some edits. And thank you again. (Simbass (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC))

That's great. As well as the links in the welcome message, you could also try signing up for SuggestBot. An example of the sort of thing it sends is below; to sign up, see User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 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
	Government of Punjab, India			Washstand
	Duke of York's Headquarters			List of Dacian names
	Kicking Bird			Chelsea pensioner
	German Bestelmeyer		Merge
	The Journal of Hellenic Studies			Zawiya (institution)
	Network Load Balancing Services			Extrajudicial killing
	Gabriele Angella			Internet security
	Vaejovidae		Add sources
	Hitz			Database
	Emigrant Gap			Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment
	Joan Standing			Black fax
	Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee		Wikify
	Front velocity			We Day
	Fallingbrook, Ottawa			St. Xavier's School, Godavari
	Cabinet Office Statement of Practice			Androw Myllar
	Holy Experiment		Expand
	Chaunax			Embassy of Germany, London
	Morleys (department store)			Email client
	French cruiser Foch			Antisocial personality disorder

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) 13:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

GOCE November 2012 backlog drive awards

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For copy editing in excess of 20,000 during the WP:GOCE November 2012 backlog elimination drive, I present you with this Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Thanks for all your hard work! —Torchiest talkedits 17:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

		Leaderboard Award: 5k Articles – 4th Place
		This Leaderboard Award is awarded to Demiurge1000 for copy editing two articles of 5000 words or more during the Guild of Copy Editors November 2012 GOCE drive. Congratulations, and thank you! —Torchiest talkedits 17:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

		Leaderboard Award: Longest Article – 5th Place
		For copy editing Greed (film), with 7,134 words, please accept this second GOCE Silver Star Award. Thanks again, and we'll see you soon! —Torchiest talkedits 17:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Chenevix-Trench again

Hi, just a small point, when editing Anthony Chenevix-Trench you overlooked, momentarily I am sure, the need to use the date format already established for the particular article. Since this is a UK article, the date format in use is DMY. I have fixed it now. Also, a perhaps even smaller point, the citation template style in use is "cite news" (etc.) not "citation", which produces slightly different results. -- Alarics (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alarics, thanks for fixing this. (Replied on the other points further up this page as well). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Read the sentence

Read the sentence,

"In Ayurveda (traditional Indian medicine) and traditional Chinese medicine, liquorice(मुलेठी, 甘草) is commonly used in herbal formulae to "harmonize" the other ingredients in the formula and to carry the formula to the twelve "regular meridians" and to relieve a spasmodic cough."

The latter and unreferenced addition of "Ayurveda ..." makes no sense because "meridians" are not part of Ayurvedic medicine.

Now, liquorice may have similar uses in Ayurveda, but if so, then it should be a) referenced, and b) in a sentence of its own referring to the nadis; pingala, ida and sushumna.

Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)