User talk:Demiurge1000

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 39 days

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

I don't need talkback or mail templates. I check my email regularly, and if I post on your page, I watchlist it.

Demiurge1000, it's not too late. Słubice is only 1 hour drive from Berlin, one of the busiest air hubs of continental Europe, I'm sure you could catch a flight there. And there's plenty of cheap rail and bus connections between Berlin and Frankfurt (it's right across the river from Słubice, you can actually see Germany from where the monument will stand). Ryanair and Wizzair also fly to Poznań regularly (from Dublin, Bristol, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool and London, not to mention other places), Słubice is only 2 hours by train from there. You could contact User:Magalia who is going to the ceremony from Poznań. Unfortunately I won't make it there, but I really hope we'll have a chance to meet in person one day.

P.S. I'm trying to push two more articles on historical battles through the eye of a needle FA process: Battle of Warsaw (1831) and the Warsaw Uprising (1794). I'm pretty sure you're fed up with Polish history articles after editing the article on Radzymin 1920, but just in case I'm wrong I'll leave those two links here. :) //Halibutt 23:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, we're planning to give the guys who created the monument a small gift, a booklet with thank you letters from all around the world. Could you please drop a line or two here? //Halibutt 11:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed both deadlines now unfortunately. But many thanks for the detailed advice, and for your involvement in the whole project. As for Berlin, it's still fascinating that it's so far east (relatively speaking) these days. Wikimania has not been in Germany since 2005, so maybe if it ends up in Berlin sometime, there could be day trips to the monument.

Regarding the eye of a needle, I recall someone once said that it is easier for a fat man to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a camel to enter the kingdom of heaven. Something like that anyway. I will take a look at the new Warsaw conflicts and see what I can do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serialjoepsycho is currently harvesting diffs with the help of Roscelese for an RFC/U he plans to initiate against me. They are openly discussing me at her Talk page which includes making false allegations.[1] [2] [3] He publicly stated his intent and purpose for me back in July [4]. I may have made a few newbie mistakes months ago, all minor and of no consequence, but I have always acted in good faith. The template on IPT was a violation of WP:BLPGROUPS because Emerson is inextricably connected to IPT. According to the current BLPN, I'm not alone in calling out the problems. BTW, the Islamophobia template was recently removed by an uninvolved editor who participated in the BLPN discussion Serialjoe initiated. The BLPN remains unresolved. [5] Serialjoe also initiated an ARB request a few weeks ago hoping to get me topic banned, but the reviewers rejected it. Based on my understanding about RFC/U, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem., I have no idea what "problem" they're trying to resolve (or create) because if anything, I've been the target not the shooter. His behavior has elevated to the point he made demands on my talk page - referred to them as suggestions, I believe. An uninvolved editor who happened to stop by commented on his behavior. [6] Shouldn't I be the one initiating the RFC/U?

Update - the BLPN determined the template to be a BLP violation, therefore removal from the article was the correct action. [7] Atsme☯^Consult 11:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. What a mess. Seems to be proceeding very very slowly too. I've watchlisted it anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you respect this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jimbo_Wales&action=history (Forbes - the source). 95.27.105.172 (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we aren't going to circle jerk over his one comment supporting Medvedev, it reeks of propaganda. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Jimbo knows better: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Request_on_the_Fairness_at_English_Wikipedia (please wait his reaction). If he not will make rollback on Meta, I will make rollback of you. - 95.27.105.172 (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hey Demiurge. I'm building and piloting a new mentorship space on Wikipedia called the Co-op with a small team. I wanted to ask if you might be interested in mentoring 1 or 2 editors during our pilot in December. The idea is that mentors will be doing one-on-one teaching specific skills based on what an editor wants to do or accomplish, and it's not some huge commitment to teach comprehensively about Wikipedia. I saw a previous conversation here on your talk page about issues with being able to commit to mentorship, and we're really trying to ensure that mentorship is focused on a specific task with a definite end so that mentors don't get burnt out. If you're interested, please sign up here and we'll keep you posted when we have an actual interface to work with. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have, of course, so let me know if there's anything about the space you'd like to know more about. Much like the Teahouse, the only way we'll know if our project is useful is if we can get folks to help teach. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
386		The Tank Museum (talk)						Add sources
53		Trauma model of mental disorders (talk)						Add sources
50		Human scale (talk)						Add sources
23		1st Independent Parachute Brigade (Poland) (talk)						Add sources
3		Ranggong Daeng Romo (talk)						Add sources
7		100% Cinta Indonesia (talk)						Add sources
183		Kathy Sierra (talk)						Cleanup
1,034		RoboCop (talk)						Cleanup
83		504th Infantry Regiment (United States) (talk)						Cleanup
18		Organisation of the Scottish Labour Party (talk)						Expand
8		Indonesia Fed Cup team (talk)						Expand
13		Islamic Army of the Caucasus (talk)						Expand
15		Occupation of Turkish Armenia (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
99		Catiline Orations (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
784		Parenting styles (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
370		Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (talk)						Merge
7		Sit ups punishment (talk)						Merge
44		Leicester railway station (talk)						Merge
32		Stratford City (talk)						Wikify
32		Lamentation (C. J. Sansom novel) (talk)						Wikify
172		Chelsea pensioner (talk)						Wikify
0		Pitono (talk)						Orphan
2		Association of Political Organisations of the Indonesian People (talk)						Orphan
1		Frenky Irawan (talk)						Orphan
15		Heartstone (novel) (talk)						Stub
11		Baritú National Park (talk)						Stub
3		Indonesian Tennis Association (talk)						Stub
7		James Glennon (talk)						Stub
8		Evdokia (film) (talk)						Stub
11		Abdul Rahman Saleh (physician) (talk)						Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Regarding the Kim Plot Summary I did not do any plagiarism. I made sure not to copy anything in similarities to such cites as Schmoop, Sparknotes, Enotes, and Gradesaver. I read the book and the current plot summary is so vague it is in comparison to a plot summary for Romeo and Juliet that says two people fall in love, their families do not approve. They both committ suicide. Notice how that doesnt get any of the true plot. I read the book and I made sure my summary is detailed. I am an English Professor and I take pride in my work not to plagiarize. I read the wikipedia copywrite laws and I made sure to follow within all of the restrictions. Dont falsely accuse my of plagiarism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sora765 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your welcome, actually I am not new to WP and I have been editing and correcting pages since a long time. I even donated to WP when I could afford it. Best regards KB

No worries. Thank you (again) for your contributions, and thank you for your donations. You can create an account or not as you prefer, and if not then I imagine we will see each other again! I look forward to it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you from me as well! I was actually wondering when I'd get a message :) Looks like en.wp doesn't use consistently welcome templates like many other WPs do. I'm not complaining: your message is awesome! --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the words are actually near direct quotes from Michael Yon's personal, verified Facebook page. Understanding the sensitivities around OR and living persons, I had decided to quote the individual's own words. He has been publicly advocating his position, making at least six or seven posts directly on the subject. If this falls into OR, then I apologize.

If a couple of independent reliable sources decide to discuss Yon's personal opinions, let's have Wikipedia report what those sources say. Not opinion columnists, mind you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand what "incorrect information" from me you believe to have cancelled ?  I did not add any information, only modified excessive emphasis on Jews in the article. Niels Bohr was not a Jew, but had to flee from Nazi occupied Denmark (also) because he qualified as a so-called "half Jew" (a Nazi or at least misinformed concept with no rational basis, see f.inst. the German Wiki article "Mischlinge"), since his mother or had been a Jew. 

I suggest you undo your changes. I hope they were were ill-informed and not triggered by racism ?

An automated computer monitoring program I run on my talk page has indicated that you are most likely a bot (robot) intended to discover the exact parameters where an editor is likely to be sanctioned for infringements of the arbcom sanctions against a particular subset of troublemakers; and how to provoke an editor into being sanctioned in that way.

The computer program also suggested that I consult a child of five ("a child of five could understand this!" were its exact words) in order to discover exactly which arbcom sanction might be involved. Not having any such available, I consulted a much older child, who kindly provided me with this URL; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=228390898#Proposed_motions_and_voting

If you are not a computer program, please include the text "donkeyfishstupid" in your reply.

Thank you for participating in our experiment! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Demiurge1000. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Media Viewer RFC close was reviewed and retracted. It's technically open for new comments until we can get a new proper close. Alsee (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How DARE you challenge the non-authority of a non-admin![8] Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Why did you leave a message on my talk page accusing me of "original research" or "commentary"? My revert could not be interpreted as either by any stretch of the imagination. KateWishing (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing that as an addition, not a revert. Why do you perceive precisely that aspect of what Marcotte said, to be what's needed in a neutral encyclopedia article about her life? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't my addition, since someone else added it. The paragraph is about a controversy, so the controversial parts of what she said are relevant. Her views on Duke wouldn't be notable at all if not for the more inflammatory comments that drew media attention. KateWishing (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because...

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As i said to another user, It was tragic coming across posts from years ago from Michelle's loved ones searching for her, not knowing that she was already dead. I notice that Michelle's family still live in the New London area, over thirty years later. Probably stayed in New London in case Michelle would ever come back. At least one family in my hometown whose child disappeared forty years ago, has kept their old house all these decades, just in case the daughter would come back. Paul Austin (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Demiurge1000. I see you added an NPOV tag to the CRE article. What exactly are your concerns about it? The sources used for the article are reliable and non-partisan - it's widely known that the CRE is a right-wing pressure group much like the TaxPayer's Alliance or Migration Watch.

I see also you thought my warnings to Chrisjohnmartin were "impetuous". Just wondering how many removals of sourced content you would allow an editor before giving them a final warning? Cheers, Number 57 17:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At most four. However, that would be contingent upon their having received at least three prior warnings for disruptive editing (whether including removal of sourced content or not) previously, and them having been warned on their talk page for each of these edits, and being sure that they had read each warning before making any further disruptive edits.

That particular COI editor had definitely not reached that benchmark when you issued your final warning.

What we should, obviously, like to see, is the COI editor posting on the talk page about their concerns about neutrality or accuracy or whatever.

Rushing to block them does not achieve that. What a block is more likely to achieve is, (with or without a short interlude where they sockpuppet and get blocked more), them wandering off to tell their friends and anyone else that will listen, that Wikipedia is a liberal walled garden where a huge cabal of Guardian readers prevent ordinary god-fearing Englishmen from correcting obvious mistakes of fact on articles about them. None of this would be true or even vaguely accurate, of course, but can you see why they might think so if they don't really understand what is going on!

On this basis I do rather wonder if semi-protecting the article would be a good idea, since the Chrisjohnmartin account is not yet (should not yet be) autoconfirmed, and therefore may be shocked into realising that they cannot edit the article but can edit the talk page.

While we're at it. In this edit you reverted back to obviously incorrect information - the "York" location was based on the original founder living in York, but he died two years ago, as made clear by one of the sources you're aware of. I assume you didn't revert this incorrect information back into the article deliberately, but it is certainly questionable that you did so while using an edit summary assuming bad faith of the editor you were reverting. I'm glad that you later fixed the error, but really we shouldn't be so high-handed with good faith editors. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		Copy Editor's Barnstar
		I award you this Copy Editor's Barnstar for your work on the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I article. Thank you very much for your time and effort. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)|}[reply]