User talk:Demiurge1000/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Demiurge1000. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Is that undated just so I can assume there is usually one there? ;) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Joan Gerber

There are other sources available for her death including IMDB, Voicechasers.net, and a non-linkable obituary. Those of us in the voiceacting industry were aware of her death, but it was kept rather low key in media.

Danileigh79 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danileigh79 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, things that are kept low key are often something of a problem for Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

A sober story

Thanks for that; I had forgotten that I had already reverted him once way back in July (assuming it was the same anon). I checked the link to the reference and it still works OK - so rather curious because it's a decent reference by a reputable historian . Personally, I like that type of fact in a very serious page because it attracts the younger and less serious minded and always try to include some amusing/trivial fact in a lead to drag them in and get 'em while they're young. Giano 19:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and good thinking! This is why I cite Shortlist (magazine) so much... it claims to be aimed at young professionals, but appears to be written at a clever 13-year-old sort of level really. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Warrior

Thanks for this. I can't believe I didn't catch that myself. --John (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries. A year or two ago I started not always noticing when "its" and "it's" were mixed up. What was alarming about this, was that it seems like only a few more years before that, I'd learned to use them correctly to begin with! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Response to Massacre Joke Edit

Sorry, it's just my social studies class is boring and I knew we were talking about the Boston Massacre in class so I thought on the off chance he went to the Wikipedia page, maybe my class could get a laugh. But I checked on my phone between classes and my edit had already been removed. 174.55.197.252 (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Yes things like that tend to get corrected quickly. It turns out that no-one is really worried enough by pranks like this to consider turning off "everyone can edit", so I guess it's not a problem :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a personal attack

Calling Nishidani out for being a liar (his retirement) and a disingenuous POV advocate with an explicit goal of slanting I-P articles is not a personal attack. I only called him retarded because it looks kinda like 'retired'. But, ya know, keep protecting your buddies from criticism =) 174.44.174.192 (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, Nishidani. Some guy that's interested in Shakespeare, right? Oh, and is on either one side or the other of the Middle East nonsense. I think that's about all I know about him, so "buddies" would be difficult. You might be thinking of Nableezy, who does allegedly think highly of him. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 16:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry, seem to have missed it. Congratulations to whoever won! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello im a new writer

Thank you for your welcome message, english is not my first language so the changes I have made on "english/american"- wikipedia are mostly to put in a picture from wikimedia in an article and simple texts to the images, I dont know if i should try to write any articles in english because my english grammar and spelling (I have an english spelling checker on my computer (or if it is in wikipedia itself) but theres so many words that sound alike but the spelling is different so I will probably use the wrong word and say something else than what I intended. My question to you is why I didnt get a swedish person to ask things like you said that that I could ask here. It would be easier for me because I think it could be tricky anyway so it would be much easier in my own language. Thank you for the advise to use the four tildes, it will be much easier now Jasmin Ros (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I think there are slightly less Swedish people available on English Wikipedia at the moment than there were, and apparently this is partly my fault! Anyway we mostly talk in English on English Wikipedia. But there's no problem with you talking in Swedish if you prefer - you might find a category of Swedish-speaking editors perhaps. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Cross-wiki harassment

This Komodo Dragon didn't take kindly to cross-wiki harassment either (sound is available in the Commons version) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're aware of it, but in case you're not, an IP has posted various allegations about you (mostly speculations about your personal life) on the talk pages of Jimbo Wales on Commons and Meta, as well as that of Sue Gardner on Meta. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I'm aware of it :) Thanks. (There's also an essay WP:IGNOREMETA.) As you've noted elsewhere, your noting it seems not to have been very well received in certain quarters! To deal with that, I suggest you not use your real name. Oh wait... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe the best way to deal with harassment is explaining your own actions. For example, Demiurge1000, why don't you explain why are you posing as a kid . Maybe you are a kid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.242.142 (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting. I just read that diff. It doesn't mention anyone being a kid at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

So you're an adult, yet you "keep your own parents well informed about your activities on the internet. It's quite unusual don't you think? What's the best advice your parents have given you, I mean concerning you Internet activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.240.1.32 (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's unusual at all. I keep my parents well informed about my culinary activities as well. Why would either be unusual? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

A little help

Hi! I need a little help and someone told me you'd be the right person to help me. I've been working on Ashley Tisdale for years - I nominated it for FAC twice in 2009 but it wasnt promoted because of some issues the article had back them. I spent the next years working on it and trying to make it the best it could be. So recently I decided it to nominated it for a third time. Some pending issues were resolved but the main problem about the article seems to be the prose. I tried the best I could but it still isn't good according to reviewers. And that's kinda frustrating to me because English is not my first language. One of the reviewers contacted me and told me you could maybe help me and give the article a look.

I'd be really pleased and thankful if you could do that favor to me. The promotion of this article to FA is one of my main goals here in English Wikipedia. Thanks. Decodet (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

My skills have clearly been exaggerated somewhere along the way :) As I've told others, my success in getting article prose to FA quality is only somewhere around 50%, with Greed (film) and McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II still not yet getting there despite my best efforts and the help of a bunch of other people. So, these days I mostly only copyedit for GA - and Ashley Tisdale is a GA already.

Having said that, I see it's not massively lengthy, and a quick glance shows a few things I could fix in the lead already, so I will do that first, and then you can ask for further help to take it the rest of the way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thank you so much :) I'm glad to have someone helping me on that. Decodet (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Since it's at FAC already, it would be better to start approaching FA copyeditors right away - these things take time. I've done a bit to the lead and also made some suggestions (at the FAC page) for things to cut from it - I'll probably make some more GA-prose-style tweaks to the rest of the article tomorrow. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The FAC failed but I'd like to thank you for your copyediting. It really helped and the article has improved a lot. Do you know any FA copyeditor I could ask to copyedit the article so I can nominate it again within the next months? I think it's getting closer and closer to promotion. Again, thanks a lot for everything! Decodet (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly getting closer, FA status is always very tough though! I will ask a couple of people when I get time over the next few days. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"in" vs. "on"

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashley_Tisdale&curid=2190438&diff=574929616&oldid=574929425

I think it's an issue with Spanish speakers writing English, not an English dialect issue.—Kww(talk) 23:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ha, thanks! There are a few AM-ENG things that still occasionally catch me out, so it's good to know this wasn't one of them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologize

I apologize for the comments about boxing, that I made to your page.71.127.137.171 (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries, seems to have been a justifiable misunderstanding on my part and then a curious reaction on your part. (I only just now worked out what it was about.) It also made an interesting change from the usual bizarre things that get posted to this my talk page.

Since the question is interesting (culturally and stylistically), I'll answer it anyway. I have never participated in boxing as an organised sport. I've been in a very few punch-ups, with only slightly more than moderate success. I've also not participated in any Fight Club-like events, although admittedly if I had done so, the first and second rules would apply. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2013 (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 suggestions. 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 on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
		Cattle in religion (talk)						Add sources
		Reformed Church of France (talk)						Add sources
		David Blunkett (talk)						Add sources
		St. Antony's Catholic College (talk)						Add sources
		Altrincham College of Arts (talk)						Add sources
		Child sexual abuse (talk)						Add sources
		Gone Home (talk)						Cleanup
		Arthur Drews (talk)						Cleanup
		Sanlaap (talk)						Cleanup
		Ernst Schäfer (talk)						Expand
		Complex post-traumatic stress disorder (talk)						Expand
		BK 37 (talk)						Expand
		Westlife (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
		Vertigo (film) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
		European American (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
		Attachment-based therapy (children) (talk)						Merge
		Strawberry Shortcake: Pets on Parade (talk)						Merge
		River bifurcation (talk)						Merge
		Domestic violence (talk)						Wikify
		Alex Beam (talk)						Wikify
		Homosexuality and psychology (talk)						Wikify
		Trauma Systems Therapy (talk)						Orphan
		Euskal Herriak Bere Eskola (talk)						Orphan
		Paolo Salvati (talk)						Orphan
		Willenhall School Sports College (talk)						Stub
		Sale High School (talk)						Stub
		Rebekah Staton (talk)						Stub
		Miles Sindercomb (talk)						Stub
		Coaling Island (talk)						Stub
		Somebody Stole My Gal (talk)						Stub

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day: Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
Quality: Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content: Is more content needed?
Headings: Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
Images: Is the number of illustrative images about right?
Links: Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
Sources: For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For your comments regarding parental controls, as highlighted on Jimbo's Talk page. Keep up the good work! Monty ₈₄₅ 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Monty! One wonders what would happen to some of these humour-challenged people if they were ever to stumble across something so satirically subversive as, y'know, a mainstream broadsheet newspaper. They might explode. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I can endorse --Demiurge1000's sense of humour; I liked very much "Going once, going twice..." :D Martin Georgiev (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

School Bullying

Demiurge1000,

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. I am a new user trying to work my way through and get involved in adding what I hope is good input for the masses. I have read over the section you tagged for me, thank you that was very helpful. I believe I am not in violation of any of the areas, but if you see something I may not be familiar with please feel free to point them out for me. I am just wanting to add good value as to what I believe an encyclopedia should have available for the reader.

Are there other areas in Wikipedia that I may need to make myself familiar with as I begin to become an editor of information?

Again thank you for your input.

Aladdinp07 (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aladdin, I think that selection of links should be plenty to get you started. One of the key things to remember is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a manual or guidance advice.

As for the masses, I hope they're not puling again! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I may be mistaking you for a namesake

You, or that namesake, expressed strongly held opinions on potential grooming of kids, leading to heated discussion I think it was aimed at a specific editor. That is not what I want to discuss, but it is the reason, the trigger, if you like, that I have chosen to ask your opinion. If it was a namesake, so be it, yours remains the opinion I am asking :) for.

You have a strong input into BLP issues, that I do know. So I would like to ask you for an opinion on a user and a user page. I shall use full urls not Wikilinks. This is the relevant user talk page, where, if you also scoll down, you will see another editor expressing concern over This user page where a decent looking lad of some 14 summers is displayed. This seems to have been placed there by papa who, at my advice, removed the boy from his own user page.

It seems to me that the presumed parent is exposing the presumed son to risks we tend to try to be careful over. Thus I woudl appreciate your opinion about, and action on (if necessary) further advice to the presumed father, and perhaps removal of the minor child's details and picture.

Papa may be proud of his child, but pride and exposing sufficient personal data to identify a minor child positively feels wrong to me. Fiddle Faddle 16:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

CCI

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/HughD is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI.

Wizardman 15:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Trick or Treat! Happy Halloween Demiurge1000! I hope you have a great day and remember to be safe if you go trick-or-treating tonight with friends, family or loved ones. Happy Halloween!

— dain omite 15:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Help spread Wikilove by adding {{subst:User:Dainomite/HappyHalloween}} to other users' talk pages whether they be friends, acquaintances or random folks.

Library newsletter

Hello, Demiurge1000!, I saw your remark at ANI but didn’t see your name on the signup page, so thought I’d drop you a line to refer you there.—Odysseus 1479 02:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and done. I do think one every two months might be better, but it's certainly nice to have. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I decided to pass on the second round of this one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

(redacted section title)

Thank you for deleting my contribution, and the offensive claims. I am (Redacted)' son. I have known far longer than any contributor in this encyclopedia. The objective of an encyclopedia is to be honest, truthful and informative.

The picture painted is incredibly unsound. And I should know. But that is how marketing and publicity works.

And since the article covers politics and free speech I see no reason to object. It is in the public interest,I stand behind everything said and evidence is included in the article. But that just illustrates the pathetic nature of Wikiepedia and editors who think they know something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A kind soul (talk • contribs) 23:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to identify your account as belonging to a particular individual (e.g. so that you can assert you are someone's son) then you can do so via WP:OTRS.

Are you, too, keeping your parents well informed about your internet activities?

The rest of your posting (and your edits) make very little sense to me. Bye. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverted additions

In the talk section on 17 October 2013 I stated the following Restructure the layout to flow more smoothly between topics. Also enhance sections clarity. For the Definition I would like to update it to a more current definition that is being used today. The following will stay the same. 1. Types of bullying – stay the same 1.1. Physical 1.2. Emotional 1.3. Verbal After section 1.3 would like to add some sections with heading such as: 2. Where and when bullying happens 2.1. Description of 2.0 3. Frequency of bullying 4. The role kids play 4.1. Importance of not labeling kids 4.2. Kids involved in bullying 5. Who is at risk 5.1. Risk factors 5.1.1. Sign a child is being bullied 5.1.2. Signs a child is bullying others 5.1.3. Why don’t kids ask for help? 5.2. Effects 5.2.1. Kids who are bullied 5.2.2. Kids who bully others 5.2.3. Bystanders 5.2.4. The relationship between bullying and suicide 5.3. Prevent bullying 5.3.1. How to talk about bullying 5.3.2. Prevention at school 5.3.2.1. Assess bullying in your school 5.3.2.2. Find out what happened 5.3.2.3. Support the kids involved 5.3.2.4. Be more than a bystander

I have already talked about the additions I am planning on adding to the article in the talk section on 17 October 2013. I have just added 2 different sections of the total changes I would like to make on 31 October 2013 and also included my works cited for those sections. I am unclear of any editorial mistakes by adding the current sections “Warning Signs of Bullying” and also “Roles Kids Play”. Can you please explain in detail of mistakes on my part, and if so what can I do to correct them so I can add the information. Aladdinp07 (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Has consensus been reached on the talk page of the article for these changes? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2013 (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 suggestions. 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 on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
6,839	United States Constitution (talk)	Add sources
54	John Christopher (talk)	Add sources
8	Cherry Clay (talk)	Add sources
12	Sword of the Spirits (talk)	Add sources
233	Government of South Africa (talk)	Add sources
3,449	Akita (dog) (talk)	Add sources
17	Communications in the Isle of Man (talk)	Cleanup
52	Politics of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (talk)	Cleanup
29	Legal awareness (talk)	Cleanup
823	Ghostwriter (talk)	Expand
423	Politics of Russia (talk)	Expand
11	Politics of the Empire of Brazil (talk)	Expand
49	Paramahamsa (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
780	Catholic sex abuse cases (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
12	Dievturība (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
5	Teurisci (talk)	Merge
152	Subfields of psychology (talk)	Merge
98	Basso profondo (talk)	Merge
68	Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity (talk)	Wikify
42	Sip-and-puff (talk)	Wikify
56	Smarta Tradition (talk)	Wikify
2	Foolish Foolish (talk)	Orphan
1	William John Morrell (talk)	Orphan
2	Norman Edson (talk)	Orphan
2	Sechelt Peninsula (talk)	Stub
0	William Parker Morrell (talk)	Stub
31	Non nobis solum (talk)	Stub
16	Vladimir Pasyoukov (talk)	Stub
3	Constitutional Court of Moldova (talk)	Stub
2	Petropsaro (talk)	Stub

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day: Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
Quality: Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content: Is more content needed?
Headings: Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
Images: Is the number of illustrative images about right?
Links: Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
Sources: For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

mabdul's list of WMF gripes

Yeah; hard to argue that I ought to have known the quote could not be taken at face value. It is a horrifying tale, but whatever. Anyways, if you want to remove my contributions, then I guess you are free to. That's not what you did, though: the two lines that you deleted were put their long ago, by mabdul. Presumably because they supported WP:ACTRIAL, and were mad when the WMF would not build it, and presumably because they think wikiLove is milquetoast-sappy, but you'd have to ask them to find out. Anyhoo, if you were trying to revert my quote, you missed and took out some of Mabdul's quotes instead, by accident.

Of course, I'd appreciate it if you would instead improve the counter-argument, by finding another equally-applicable but less-horrifying metaphor. I definitely think that VizEd is awful, just like Mabdul, but rather than wait for the WMF to spend *another* million bucks trying to fix it up, I'd rather regular wikipedians just fix the problem by banding together and getting something done. Ditto for WP:ACTRIAL, and so on. That was the point of the quote: the survivors just sat around and waited to be rescued, for eleven weeks. When they found out they weren't going to be rescued, one of them sounded crazy, calling it great news. But that Uruguayan rugby kid was correct: they did get out of their perilous situation, and they did it on their own. All I'm suggesting is that, instead of writing a userpage-list about how WMF is doing bad things, mabdul and I could hack together some codebase-fixes that do good things.

Hope this clarifies. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Restored external link by Infofh55

I just restored the external link that you apparently objected to including in Battle of Milne Bay. A quick look at that link shows no obvious sign the Milne Bay Memorial Library and Research Centre is to be any less trustworthy than quite a few other public Facebook pages. I'm no fan of Facebook, but it appears a trend not to be entirely dismissed as even the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum, Royal Australian Navy and other reputable institutions have such information pages. If you can show the linked institution is a fake or known to be unreliable I would reconsider. If not it should staty. Palmeira (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(Now under discussion, or it was, at the talk page for the article and on an appropriate noticeboard.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What for?

The Notification thing says that you thanked me for an edit on User talk:Jimbo Wales about 24 hours ago. It isn't entirely clear what edit that was for. I made some edits criticizing commercial editing. I also made an edit insulting two trolls (an IP who tried to ask a trick question, and an editor with a bizarre agenda). I am guessing that you may have been agreeing with the edit insulting the trolls. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually either is fine... I am in broad agreement with your views on paid editing.

As for the two commenters, I don't view the first one as a troll. They are an editor banned by the community who (probably) now genuinely believes that everything they read about Wikipedia, or about the WMF, or about Jimbo, or about just about anyone who is still trying to improve Wikipedia, is proof of corruption or evil or whatever. This is an embittered and confused viewpoint created by their circumstances, but it may still be a viewpoint they hold sincerely.

(You're probably right, though, that it's what Jimbo might describe as a "Gotcha!" question. He gets them quite a lot from that person and a couple of others who work with them.)

As for the one with the fixation on "magistrates courts" and the like, I have no idea what goes on in his head at all. He doesn't seem to be a racist POV pusher though :)

I'm not sure that insulting trolls is always the best way of dealing with them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Bonkers The Clown/Death by ice cream listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect User:Bonkers The Clown/Death by ice cream. Since you had some involvement with the User:Bonkers The Clown/Death by ice cream redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what happened

Just FYI, I thought it was pretty unhelpful and out of character for you to interrogate Coretheapple in the way that you did on my talk page. He (or she) is a good and clear voice against paid editing, as are you, and it seems odd and unnecessary to attack him for being a relatively inexperienced editor. Reviewing his edit history shows that he's been around for awhile doing good work on an eclectic variety of topics. So the attack, which is the sort of thing I often see against single purpose accounts or likely sockpuppets, just seemed entirely unwarranted. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know what I thought about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, thanks for commenting. I'm more than willing to accept your view that Coretheapple does constructive editing in other topics. What I do not find constructive, however, is sarcastic comments like this one or this one, especially when they encourage similar sarcastic comments like this one. Unfortunately one can't find this comment genuine either, given that it's only a few hours after Coretheapple said "It's plain that nothing is going to be done".

Coretheapple has repeatedly been hectoring unregistered editors based on assumptions of bad faith, [1] [2] [3], not entirely dissimilar to my assumption of bad faith later. But him and Smallbones have gone one step further, and this is now the second time in only a few weeks that it's been implied on your talk page that I'm involved in paid editing. The previous person who implied that, later admitted they knew perfectly well it isn't true. Being very generous, one could assume that Smallbones and Coretheapple actually don't know one way or the other, but if that's the case then they shouldn't be making implications like that anyway. Implying that someone is involved in something Coretheapple describes as a "cancer" and "like syphilis", when actually that person has no involvement in paid editing at all, is not "a good and clear voice against paid editing" at all. In fact it's extraordinarily destructive of any genuine consensus-building aimed at getting paid editing dealt with. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Complete mystery

I see that I have this [4] in my notifications - a complete mystery as I was not even aware that I have visited that page. Thanks anyway Giano 10:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It's possible you added the page to your watchlist a while ago (something to do with arbcommery or somesuch) and then misclicked rollback from your watchlist, without visiting the page itself. It happens quite a lot. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Ward

References should include the book, "How the English Establishment Framed Stephen Ward" because it is the definitive book on Ward and much of everyone else's articles and books on the subject are based on this book and its findings. So it should be included. If you don't allow people to add important references how is it done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazmayeli (talk • contribs) 15:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That edition was only released in 2013 (presumably to capitalise on the new production on the subject), which makes it difficult for "everyone else's articles and books" to be based on it. Perhaps you're thinking of the original 1987 edition of that book, "Knightley, Phillip; Kennedy, Caroline (1987). An Affair Of State: The Profumo Case and The Framing Of Stephen Ward. Atheneum. ISBN 0-689-11813-9" which is actually already listed in the references for Stephen Ward. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is valued at WikiProject Breakfast

As someone who used the talkpage in the past your opinion is valued at WikiProject Breakfast. Please see Want to be a guinea pig for Flow?. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II

Hi Demiurge1000, I see that Decodet has listened to my (misguided) advice -- I hope you can help that FAC out anyway you can. Anyway, the article McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is currently undergoing an A-class review at WikiProject Miliary history. Because you have participated in its last ACR in 2011, you are invited to comment on the article and assess whether it is worthy of the A-class status. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Heh, my fourth-most-edited article. Great to see this article being actively improved again! I will try and drop by. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I will shortly nom the article for FA status. Are you willing to be co-nom? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. However, please leave it a few days because I'd like to review the whole article myself one more time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've got reservations about "Overview" and "Airframe" -- I just can't put my finger on the issue. If you could do whatever to make them flow better, that'd be great. Other than that, I believe the article is ready. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I won't be on WP often during the next three weeks. Please leave any issues you have left with the article on my talk page so I can address them when I resume editing. I've addressed your other comments from three or four days ago. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 09:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

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)

A year ago, you were the 318th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)