Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:27, 11 August 2011

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

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 Misplaced Pages? 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: 13 days

Mentor

Hi I was wondering if you were doing mentoring as im new to wikipedia and would like to learn how to edit and how to help stop vandalism The.aviation.expert (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert Zoellick

Please discuss my request for WPREVDEL of your decision to revert my edits. I have cited an additional source which verifies that these facts are relevant to Zoellick's career, and two additional sources which substantiate the end of the Gentlemen's Agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US alone. Currency1 (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of any current request for WP:REVDEL of any of my edits. Revision deletion is intended to remove material from the wider view of the community, and should only be used for edits that meet one of the criteria listed at WP:CFRD. I think what you may be requesting is, instead, reverting of my edit. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to request you to give your reasoning for which of the criteria listed at WP:CFRD has been met before requesting WP:REVDEL. Which of the sources that I cited fail to support my edits? How do my edits violate BLP policies? If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes are supposed to be dealt with in the talk page or other appropriate forum. Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Issues with inappropriate content are supposed to be resolved through discussion with the user. Currency1 (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There still seems to be some confusion here. No-one has requested WP:REVDEL, and, as far as I am aware, no-one has Revdel'd any of your edits. This is a diff showing my edit; the previous revision is on the left, and the new revision is on the right. By contrast, Revdel looks more like the left hand side of this diff I prepared earlier. In addition, no-one has deleted the page, nor proposed nor nominated the page for deletion.

I will reply to your other questions separately on the article talk page. Note also that there has been another reply to your query at WP:BLPN which may be of use to you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on the article talk page. Would you agree to seek help in resolving outstanding differences on the Robert Zoellick bio through the Mediation cabal? Otherwise, I plan on contacting both the reliable Sources noticeboard and the COI noticeboard. I have removed the standard Misplaced Pages welcome template that you posted on my talk page. New user accounts already receive this information. Currency1 (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that's absolutely fine. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's Mediation cabal's template which needs your signature:

Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal
Article	Robert Zoellick
Status	Open
Request date	14:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Requesting party	Currency1 (talk)
Mediator(s)	Oddbodz (talk)
Comment	Still on going. I would apreciate other users help in this matter. Please see my talk page. Oddbodz (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

]]

Request details

Where is the dispute?

talk page of Robert Zoellick bio, section entitled Transparency at the World Bank and WP:BLPN, section 19 on Robert Zoellick

Who is involved?

The list of the users involved. For example:

Demiurge1000 Currency1

Acceptance of Mediation

Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it: Currency1 (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)</nowiki>

What is the dispute?

Is Robert Zoellick's bio improved by Currency1's edits, or were they contentious, unsubstantiated, and patently biased?

What would you like to change about this?

The conversation needs mediation.

How do you think we can help?

We are here to help you, but we need to know how. Sometimes mediators will look at a dispute and have no idea where to start, so please help us out. Do note that we will not "take sides" in any dispute.

Mediator notes

From what I can see, Currency1's edits weren't bias. I think it does add something to the article although I do agree that it could do with some independant sources. Oddbodz (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have suggested two additional sources at the Zoellick talk page. Can we consolidate this discussion there and link to that page from Mediation Cabal? I would also prefer that this mediation effort is referred to as "Robert Zoellick" on Mediation Cabal rather than "User talk:Demiurge1000" as is currently the case.Currency1 (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to a message from Currency1 on my talk page, I have tried to close this mediation on my talk page. Please have a look. If you are happy with this, let me know on my talk page. If you are not, also let me know and I'll see what I can do. Oddbodz (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Administrative notes

E-mail

New message

Arun Prakash

I am the subject of the Misplaced Pages page titled Admiral Arun Prakash. The basic page originally contained authentic biographical information which is quite uneceptionable. However I find that some person(s) are from time to time editing this page to enter material which is false, concocted and libellious in nature and smears my personal and professional reputation in a subtle manner. The subtelity lies in the ploy that they quote references from a particular Indian magazine which, a few years ago, launched a vicious defematory campaign against me. It is possible that this is in continuation of the magazine's long, persistent and vicious campaign. I have edited this article twice so far, but find that the same kind of insidious material is re-introduced over & over again. On one occasion I note that your "watchdog" has reprimanded the person. But it does not seem to have made a difference. Although retired, I am a fairly well-known figure in military and security circles, and a lot of people world-wide access this page. The repeated infusion of malign (and irrelevant) material is causing damage to my good name. It is deeply disturbing to me and my family to find references to unsubstantiated allegations made by a scurrilous journal. A close reading of the deleted material will convince you that it does not have to figure in a biographical sketch of this nature. My request is that either you keep this page under close watch. Or just DELETE the complete page. I would at least have some peace of mind because no one needs this kind of publicity. Thank you,I need your help. Funnyrat (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Arun Prakash.

I'm a bit puzzled by this, because the version of the article that you objected to this time was one in which I'd put a fair amount of effort into removing poorly sourced implications and other questionable material. It merely had one short section mentioning the Navy War Room "scandal", which also made clear that the CBI found you were not implicated, and a single sentence in the lead mentioning the scandal, but cautiously worded.

What is your issue with that approach? Do you believe that the Navy War Room scandal (and your relation to a person involved) did not attract significant coverage in reliable sources, and thus should not be mentioned in the article at all? Or do you believe that the facts as listed in that version are solely derived from the Outlook Magazine piece and cannot be trusted? A wide variety of reliable sources, including the Times of India, mentioned your relation to Shankaran in coverage of the case.

Finally, and rather a side note, would you be prepared to assist in arranging a freely licensed image of yourself to go in the Misplaced Pages article about you? I don't think Misplaced Pages can use currently available official photos because they are not covered by an appropriate license. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I wonder if you might own the copyright to any photographs of the INS Vikrant (R11) taken during service? Right now the only properly free image seems to be of the Vikrant as a museum ship. We do have a free image of the INS Vindhyagiri, though, and I've added that to the article about you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge 1000. Thank you for your response and help; so far. My objection is just this. Someone (you?)has taken considerable time & trouble to research and put together this authentic article. I cannot deny my wife's relationship with Ravi Shankaran. But what my wife's sister's son did or didn't do is not relevant to my life or career. The agencies which investigated this man's misdemeanours, and the government of India did not think that I was, in any way, involved. It did not "mar my tenure" in the eyes of the navy or, my friends or indeed the Indian media - with the exception of Outlook magazine which undertook a vilification campaign. I will not comment on the motives of this magazine. So its a judgment call whether this issue is absolutely essential for this biographical sketch. As I said, I would be quite content NOT to figure on Misplaced Pages, rather than have people jumping to the wrong conclusions. If you decide to retain this article I can certainly help out with whatever pictures I can find. Thank you, 120.56.222.176 (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Arun Prakash.

I've been reading over news reports from 2006, and I have come to the conclusion that you are correct about this. Although all of the news reports about Shankaran also mention you, there are also a large number of news reports about you, that don't mention Shankaran or the incidents with which he was involved. In addition, Misplaced Pages considers proper historical studies to carry more weight than newspaper reports and magazine articles. So for example, the few histories of the Indian Navy that I've looked at, mention you, but not in connection with the "Navy War room scandal". There are also various histories of the 1971 war, including even a history of 20th Squadron, and although I don't have access to these, we can be fairly certain some of them mention you as well. So, overall, I think any mention of the "scandal" should be confined to a sentence or two in the "Career as a flag officer" section, rather than being a separate section. This would also mean it would not need to be mentioned in the lead of the article, and certainly not with the previous phrasing of "marred".

Deleting the article is very unlikely to be an option - Misplaced Pages does provide for deletion of articles about people who are not sufficiently "notable", but, from a military perspective, you most definitely meet Misplaced Pages's notability requirements. (The details are at WP:MILPEOPLE - you appear to meet at least three of the nine criteria, and people are "almost always" considered notable if they meet any single one of the criteria.)

Thank you very much for your willingness to help in providing photographs - I will email you separately about that, hopefully within 24 hours. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Wade Sanders CopyVio

Not my edits .. nosirey! I simply tried to trim down what was superfluous. The material was originally added by this guy with these edits. Please go yell at him :). ZHurlihee (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This guy too it looks like. ZHurlihee (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry. It looks like there's even more copyvio in that article than I thought, then.

Can you comment on this edit? Appears to introduce unquoted copy-and-pasted material from this source, but again it's possible it's just material that was present earlier and you've merely moved around in the article? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I honestly cant recall. ZHurlihee (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Another one to look at ... these edits seem to introduce very close paraphrasing of this source, specifically of the phrasing it uses Stewart was a "movement" lawyer -- she didn't just defend the legal rights of her clients; she also advocated their politics. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you suggest the best way to correct this? I am at a bit of a loss. I thought the citation was enough in many of these cases. ZHurlihee (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It really isn't, especially for the Jamie Leigh Jones problems, where most of a sentence is copy and pasted word-for-word with not even small changes in phrasing. I know it can sometimes be very hard to re-write an idea effectively while still retaining accuracy and readability. For the Lynne Stewart sentence I have gone with "who took a wider interest in promoting the general political interests of those she represented, rather than only dealing with the specific charges against them".

If there's a possibility that there is more outstanding material that's still copy and pasted or very closely paraphrased (in these articles or in others) then really you should review that material with a view to dealing with any problems. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I will, would you mind checking back on them in a day or two and letting me know what you think? ZHurlihee (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I'll try and remember to do that. Thanks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Potcake dog

Thanks for copyediting potcake dog -- the tweaks and extra eyes are very helpful, as I tend to go a bit haywire after staring at the same thing for such a long time and can't always see what seems off. Cheers, Anna 06:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem - it was very nearly perfect already :-) As for British English, "program" was the one extra Americanism that I changed, even though, coming from a computing background, that spelling looks right to me anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Bye!

		The Special Barnstar
		Bye! And thanks for being a friend. You provided me with sage advice here, good luck! That Ole Cheesy Dude 08:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: ANI

Oops, I didn't know that, thanks. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Photo request

Dear Demiurge 1000, As discussed, I have a few photographs to offer. Please let me know how I can forward them to you. Funnyrat (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Arun Prakash.

Replied by email. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me out at Template:Aircraft specifications. Sp33dyphil 11:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem! First one of this particular barnstar I've had. I'm finding aircraft articles interest me more and more, largely thanks to the enthusiastic improvement of them by yourself and others. Keep up the great work! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

'Sourcing' and 'verifying'

I happened to be reading the entry for the actor, writer and comedian Rhys Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/Rhys_Thomas_(comedian)) and realised that absolutely none of it is either 'sourced' or 'verified'. More to the point, it seems so far to have escaped your admirable zeal for excising 'unsourced' and 'unverified' entries. Having now been alerted by me, will you exercise your Wiki editor's powers and get rid of any parts of the entry which is 'unsourced' and 'unverified'? For not doing so might lay you open to the charge that when you were previously rapping me over the knuckles of wanting to included 'unsourced' and 'unverified' material in the OS entry, you were simply talking cobblers. I look forward to your response to the Rhys Thomas entry.

BTW Why have my previous contributions to your talk page disappeared? Pfgpowell (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk page stalker comment I suggest that you Be bold and remove or source the information that you are concerned about as this will be much quicker than asking someone to do it for you, after all that is the point of "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit".

Also your "previous contributions" have been archived User_talk:Demiurge1000/Archive_3#Oratory_School_edits, though an editor has no obligation to keep any of the comments made on their talk page. --Mrmatiko (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You're being disingenuous - I'm not in the slightest concerned that the Rhys Thomas entry fails completely on the alleged criteria of 'sourcing' and 'verifiability', and it is mischievous of you to pretend I am concerned. In fact, your suggestion that I shoult edit the Rhys Thomas entry makes me suspect that you are rather wilfully missing the point I am making. What I think is happening here is that you are worried that, given the evidence, others might also agree with me that all this talk of 'sourcing' and 'verifiability' is high-falutin' nonsense merely designed to keep occupied those who are happiest when counting paperclips and ensuring that the rules governing paperclip counting are scrupulously observed. Pfgpowell (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

By referring to Verifiability as "high-falutin'" nonsense, it appears that it is you who has willfully missed the point of Misplaced Pages since verifiability is a core content policy. Having unsourced material doesn't improve the encyclopedia and therefore isn't covered by Ignore all rules. To suggest that those upholding the verifiability policy are somehow overly Bureaucratic in such an Uncivil manner isn't going to get you anywhere. If you really want to have the policy removed or changed to suit your own ideas on content inclusion then the Verifiability talk page would be the place to try and garner consensus, rather than trying to start an unproductive argument on another editor's talk page by insulting them. --Mrmatiko (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Again you're wilfully missing the point, and you know full well I am not interested in getting the Wiki policies change. I would like to see you just be a little more honest with yourselves, that's all. You guys get on your high horse on some matters and ignore others - two examples would be the Rhys Thomas entry and the Wiki entry on the card game Spoons. And all that tells me is that it IS the process you are interested in, not the results. Oh I'm sure there will be a lot of harrumphing about what I say from all manner of Wiki types the world over, and many more references to 'the rules, my dear, the rules'. But it doesn't alter one jot my suspicion that you are all bureaucrats at heart, whose idea of heaven would be running a parish council, however 'uncivil' it is of me to say so. Put your money where your mouth is, sunshine, and start by clearing up the Rhys Thomas and Spoons entries. Either that of admit to yourself you are kidding no one but yourself and your peers. Pfgpowell (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The point has been simply made, let us be clear:

• Demiurge has not edited that page.
• There is no tag on it to alert editors that the article needs references and that it is nearly completely unsourced. The tag states that it is missing citations or footnotes, not that it is almost entirely unreferenced.

How would Demiurge know that this article exists, and that it had swathes of unsourced and so unverified material?

• Contentious material on a BLP should be removed - that includes both text and references.
• Unsourced material does not have to be removed immediately, only if it appears to be contentious, otherwise it can have the citation needed tag put where references are needed.

• All editors have to follow policy.

@Pfgpowell - I do not think that pursuing this is going to help either of those articles. Perhaps you yourself should have marked them with the appropriate tags? If you do not know how to do that, or which tags, then fair enough - you can get them from here or here.

The onus is on you really, you discovered the flaw, you have taken the ten or more minutes to post this here which could have been spent looking up which tags to put, why didn't you?, or you could have started with "hey, how do I do that on this article?", why didn't you?

That you and Demiurge have had dealings in the past means to me that you are probably seeking some sort of revenge rather than helping keep the encyclopaedia in a good state. I have, however, done your work for you :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

'Revenge'? Oh, Lord, you're way off beam. The only thing I could be thought guilty of is being irritated by jobsworths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfgpowell (talk • contribs) 20:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that the standard Wiki warning about verifiabilty and the need for citations has appeared at the top of the Oratory School entry, I have now re-instated the section on terminology and slang. Pfgpowell (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I notice the section on Terminology and Slang on the Oratory School page has again been removed even though the page is headed by the standard warning: This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2009) Ironically, the Rhys Thomas page carries the same warning, yet information about the chap, which, as far as I can see, is unsourced and inverified is allowed to remain. So can you explain why the section in the OS entry had to be removed, even though readers are made aware of the nature of the info by the standard warning. Why one rule for some and another rule for others? pfgpowell 10:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfgpowell (talk • contribs)

Talkback

Can a Title of a work of art be copyrighted material ?

Can a Title of a work of art be copyrighted material ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanMcGarigle (talk • contribs) 00:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. In theory I believe it could be. However, that would still not prevent us from using the title of a work of art as the title of a Misplaced Pages article. Consider the parallel with the use of organisations' logos under fair use rules in the article about the organisation. The fair use rationale may state something like the following; "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing ORGANIZATION_NAME, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey ... The logo is not used in such a way that a reader would be confused into believing that the article is written or authorised by the owner of the logo." Much of this is also applicable to the title of a work of art. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

{{pd-text}} --Σ _contribs 22:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, but not quite, I think. It's possible that a title could meet the benchmark for creativity, in my opinion at least. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked User:Arfaz for copyvio

I've indefinitely blocked Arfaz (talk · contribs) for continued copyvio. He's edited/created a lot of articles which may need review. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Good job! I see the CCI has been opened. Unfortunately a very very large one :( --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Nice catch on the copyvios! It seems that user has now been blocked as well. All we have to do now is get 20 or so editors to clean up after him/her! Chaosdruid (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I was going to leave you a little note but, after I saw the "you have messages", I decided to turn it into this lovely shiny bstar :¬)

Thanks! Yes, it's a bit disappointing that, despite my hopes that educating and/or identifying copyvio-problem editors would reduce the amount of cleanup work to be done long-term, the reality is that when a single longer-term copyvio contributor is identified, it immediately adds a mountain of cleanup work to the already Himalayan backlog. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hi, I'm going to blunder my way through my first DYK,that you commented on. If you could alert to me to major errors, that would be great Ncsjfreed (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)ncsjfreed

I've ticked off some of the "easy parts", and done a little to improve the prose in the article itself. I think the move involved parts of the review are still outstanding (unless I missed some updates on my watchlist), but I'll try and do a quick double-check once you've done that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Chinacat7/User talk:NTLwr12

I opened up a sockpuppet investigation and both have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Chinacat7. Marcus Qwertyus 21:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks, that's perfect. I see I'd left a question about sockpuppetry on both their talk pages, but then forgot to follow it up. Too much going on at once - I kept wondering why that BLP they'd been fighting over, was repeatedly popping up on my watchlist :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II

Hi Demiurge, I'm here to tell you that McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is at MilHist ACR. If you have any interest, just pop in at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II and voice your thoughts. See you there Sp33dyphil 05:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive report

Guild of Copy Editors July 2011 backlog elimination drive report Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors July 2011 Backlog elimination drive. Thank you for participating! Here is your end-of-drive report. Participation 50 people signed up for the drive, of which 39 participated. Thanks to all who copy edited articles and helped us reduce the backlogs in both the total articles and requests. We offered a bonus for copy edits from the Requests page, and have been somewhat successful in reducing that backlog, as a record 89 new requests were received in the month of July. Progress report During the month of July we reduced the backlog by 338 articles, or by about 8.5%. We did not reach our goal of a 10% reduction, but we came close, and did very well considering the small size of the group participating. Since our Backlog elimination drives began in May 2010, we have reduced the backlog by 4,708 articles. End-of-drive results can be found here. We will be handing out barnstars within the next week or two. Requests page Please remember that the GOCE Requests page is receiving a high number of requests, with the number of August requests already above three per day. Any assistance to help keep the backlog down would be greatly appreciated. Our next drive will be in September. We hope to see you there! Your drive coordinators – Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02 and SMasters

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For providing me with the links to help wikipedia spam free The.thanker (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Malleus

What was that about? --John (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I hoped it was self-explanatory. (Well, you'd need to read Malleus' talk page also.) However, in short, a new(ish) editor created an article, asked for a copyedit before it reached DYK, submitted it to DYK, then submitted it to GA. Malleus took on the GA review, and did a fantastic job of expanding the article (which, to be frank, wasn't GA-ready beforehand.) While this was happening, the new(ish) editor thanked Malleus for his work, and apologised for being new to the whole process. Malleus awarded the article (his article, by this point?) GA status, then addressed the new(ish) editor by name on his talk page, implying he had been ungrateful ("No need for any kind of thanks for almost completely rewriting your article Warburton1368"). Malleus followed this with some preteen-style rant about how he doesn't like Jimbo. The new(ish) editor then put a barnstar on Malleus' talk page, in an obviously sincere attempt to show genuine gratitude, to which Malleus replied "So you think I just copyedited your article?" I felt this was rubbing salt in the wound too much, and said so, at length. Malleus duly took his usual way out - juvenile insults in the hope of some support from the peanut gallery. A kiddie admin ("semi-retired", no less), reverted at least one of my replies, to make sure Malleus got his say uninterrupted. I don't like seeing people who could contribute more to Misplaced Pages, being made pawns in this sort of pathetic nonsense. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I saw this. It's clear that Malleus is pissed off, is there any chance I can persuade you not to make the situation any worse? It's clear to me that you aren't going to make him a better person by chiding him in this way. Please? --John (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm doing what I can - certainly staying away from his talk page for now. Are you making similar overtures to him, though? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I will. Thanks. --John (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it's appreciated. I see his friends are having some fun with a "Demiurge10" account or something. . I am really hoping they actually will grow up one day. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That account is blocked and there's no evidence it was one of Malleus's friends. Please, just step away from this. --John (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm standing right here. This is, after all, my talk page. Bit of a coincidence after this threat right before, wouldn't you say? You were rather misleading in meeting this undertaking; you came here demanding answers, I didn't begin by asking you to go to Malleus' page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No idea what you mean about coincidence. I am sorry you think I have been misleading. You asked if I was making similar overtures to Malleus, which was reasonable, so I asked him to step away from the argument the two of you have been having, as I have asked you. I don't see what was misleading about that. --John (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I will be specific. Malleus made this threat, and I dared to defy his wrath (gosh). Right afterwards, alongside a kiddie admin deciding to revert my comments, the "Demiurge10" account popped up to do some things that have now been revdel'd. Personally, I don't think it's a coincidence. The childish nastiness that Malleus displayed in this incident, leaves me not surprised in the least.

I do appreciate your efforts in asking Malleus not to bully new contributors in that way again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ahem. What happened here then? I thought you were going to leave Malleus alone for a while? You really aren't helping things by this type of thing. Can I respectfully request that if you have any more problems with this user you run it past me or another admin rather than posting on his talk? --John (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well, if I did, would you be likely to take action? Seems like he's much too important for you to even consider criticising him for a personal attack of that nature and then edit-warring the same page up to 3RR. And indeed the concensus at ANI is that he's too important to receive such warnings, so I won't give him one again. But it does concern me that certain administrators are so quick to come running here (or anywhere) if something happens that upsets Malleus; but are nowhere to be found while Malleus is busy with his edit warring and personal attacks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I seriously urge you to ask me or another admin to help you rather than take action yourself the next time. I really hope there won't be a next time. You and Malleus are two of the editors on here that I really respect and it pains me to see you squabbling unproductively like this. Bur unproductive it is, and toxic to the spirit of collaboration that powers this project. Please let someone else handle it next time. I have history with Malleus myself; I once threatened to block him when he was being unpleasant to somebody. I later promised never to block him, a promise I intend to keep. So the best thing you could do for me would be to avoid getting into any more conversations with him if possible and certainly not to post on his talk for at least a month or so. I will be saying the same to him. Please. --John (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ina Garten

revision of ina garten was a paraphrasing/directly linked to msnbc wording/article and therefore was not editorializing but including reporting of a reputable source, therefore not in violation of policy and should not be reverted. Such undoing would in fact be, editorializing by the person changing it and a violation that would be reportable and notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.119.116 (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There has been a lengthy discussion on the talk page of the article as to whether to include this material. The concensus is that it should not be included. You've repeatedly reverted other editors to re-introduce it, while also adding an irrelevant and misplaced "Example" image at the same time. Please stop doing so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The First Domino

• The First Domino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Re. photo of pub/bags (IRC),

Yes - I thought that too; I couldn't find another photo we could use. The bin-bags are awful. I did consider trying to edit them out of the pic, but that'd be quite difficult; on balance, I decided to leave the pic in because it gives a good idea of what the pub looks like, which I guess helps understanding.

Hmm; maybe it could be partly cropped out, partly edited out? Not sure; I'll try and have a look some time.  Chzz  ►  09:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's definitely a possibility - cropping out the bags would mostly just lose the pavement, apart from one little section. Sometimes cropping causes problems because it messes up the framing of the image, but in this case the framing is unusual anyway (it needs to show the first floor in order to include the flag, I guess) so it wouldn't matter so much.

Of course, we could always try taking a new one instead! I'm not in that part of town often, but it might happen. The problem in Soho is that there's always either throngs of people in front of pubs, or rubbish bags in the mornings, or both. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've tried cropping, a bit of rotation, a bit of cloning - but I'm not happy with the results. So, yes, I think some poor soul will have to take a field-trip to the pub! I'm in Manc now, so unlikely to be in Soho for some time; but, perhaps, one day.  Chzz  ►  16:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE awards July 2011 drive

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded to Demiurge1000 for copy editing articles totalling at least 8,000 words in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2011 backlog elimination drive. Thank you for participating! --Slon02 (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - 'twas fun! Might even sign up for the next one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Floppy disk hardware emulator

While I normally don't approve of removing sections from a talk page, that section has nothing to do with the article in question, and everything to do with User:Blackvisionit making wild claims and supporting them with IPs which are almost certainly socks (i'll look into that issue in a minute). Blackvisionit, who has been told by me that he may not edit the article due to NPOV and OR problems related to having a COI, is saying that the COI investigation itself is a problem for Guymacon. If Blackvisionit wants to open some sort of sanctioning proceedings against Guymacon, xe can do that, but not on the article's talk page. I will tell Guymacon, though, that xe should not be the one to remove the info. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I had given Blackvisionit links (off-wiki) to the appropriate places (on-wiki) to pursue dispute resolution regarding Guymacon, and was going to leave it at that. Guymacon was very polite in reverting me, so it's not a problem at all. Blackvisionit was also "seeking the advice" of an admin off-wiki about (I assume) the same topic, so I gave the admin a link to your comment here as a quick summary of the approximate state of the situation. I see the whole thing is something of a mess, so I'm going to stay well clear - and I was thinking contentious BLPs were bad! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice of improper deletion

Today I received this notice:

The Misplaced Pages page "User talk:Jkolak" has been changed on 9 August 2011 by Demiurge1000, with the edit summary: General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on [[Karl Denninger]]. (TW)

This of course is nonsense because I referenced directly to the living person's own video containing the referenced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkolak (talk • contribs) 10:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The living person I had in mind was the current President of the United States of America. I affix his seal to this message (and also another seal, for comparison purposes). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for the great help so far! :) User:Aviation.expert 22:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Nathan2055 16:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Help!!!!

I've been working on AFC, and when I decline a submission I try to link to exact policies, but they still clutter my talk page with messages like "What is wrong with my submission?" or "I'm just trying to write an article for my company, why did you decline it?". Could you please help me with one of those "If I declined your submission, look here before posting" pages that I see a lot of editors have? --Nathan2055 16:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

AfC is a real nightmare, I wouldn't last ten minutes in that place :-) One useful link, where appropriate, is WP:PSCOI. I'm not sure where the generic "look here first" ones are. Really if you are going to do AfC work regularly, you will get a lot of these sort of queries (if you later do New Page Patrol work, you will get even more!) and you have to look at each one and think carefully about what the problem is, and give them as full an answer as you can.

Often the problem is that the page author just doesn't realise that Misplaced Pages articles have to be a certain way (or that Misplaced Pages is not for certain things), and needs that explained to them slowly, gently, politely, and in detail. (Much though it's tempting to say "This is no good, see WP:NOTADVERTISING", one can't really do that.)

Once you see a pattern of similar incoming requests, you can maybe have some pre-prepared text to hand for the most common queries... but until then it may be best to reduce the number of articles you review, to such a point that the rate of incoming queries on your help page, can be dealt with.

There's also a "live chat help" IRC channel which deals with quite a large proportion of the new contributors that are trying to create articles through AfC. This is linked from somewhere at Misplaced Pages:Questions. It can be useful to hang around there to see what sort of responses are given to all the above sorts of questions (which we get a lot), or indeed to ask for opinions when a truly bizarre or intractable query pops up on your talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, both NPP (which I'm doing a few simple pages in) and AfC (which I completely emptied the backlog of once) cause a ridiculous amount of talk page comments I've seen. My major problem is the fact that people won't read the comments I leave them in AfC, they just bombard my talk page. Well, I guess that's life. --Nathan2055 19:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Secure from battle stations ...

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)