![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
You sarcastic devil you! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC) |
If you can send me a scan of the newspaper cutting of the L. Kennedy book review which I infer you possess, it is just possible that I might be able to identify the source from the typefaces and layout, etc. -- Alarics ( talk) 08:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear Demiurge:
I get your points, and I certainly endeavor to stick to facts, preserve an objective tone, and respect the tendency to a neutral point of view.
I have already written four full-fledged Wikipedia articles, all of them practically brand-new, on untouched or undeveloped subjects by the Wikipedia cohort of editors. I accept your remarks, offered in good faith.
However, I must respectfully claim that the following comment by Richard Carrier:
"I know Ehrman read Doherty’s monstrous second book but not his original Jesus Puzzle, and yet the latter is a far superior argument for his conclusion, by the standards Ehrman would expect, whereas the second is 90% speculative digression (hundreds and hundreds of pages worth) which is exactly the kind of thing that chaps the hide of professional scholars."
does belong to the section Reception. Alternatively this quote could be reduced to a shorter form, since Carrier's evaluation of the Jesus Puzzle has already been mentioned at the beginning of the section:
"I know Ehrman read Doherty’s monstrous second book but not his original Jesus Puzzle, and... the second is 90% speculative digression (hundreds and hundreds of pages worth) which is exactly the kind of thing that chaps the hide of professional scholars."
or even (probably the best excerpt, as being the shortest):
Doherty’s monstrous second book... is 90% speculative digression (hundreds and hundreds of pages worth) which is exactly the kind of thing that chaps the hide of professional scholars.
Those are the points to consider:
And indicate which formulation of the quote best satisfies you. Meanwhile I'll repost the (shortest) #3 formulation .
Regards from a good-faith editor to another one. -- ROO BOOKAROO ( talk) 11:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I have written an article, whilst logged in as 'dvdwllm', and in the Sandpit title 'Keith Johnson (author) but I am not clear how to upload it into Wikipedia. I have saved it, and been through the upload wizard but still do not find it in Wikipedia. Dvdwllm ( talk) 19:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 1 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anthony Chenevix-Trench, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Anthony Chenevix-Trench aimed to abolish school uniform completely at Eton, but only succeeded in abolishing the rule requiring smaller boys to wear suits that included a "bumfreezer" (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anthony Chenevix-Trench. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, it is not my desire to increase any drama regarding the user who expressed his fear that he or his family might be kidnapped by foreigners. If you go back to the original thread there's concern expressed that the OP seems to be claiming a memory from his youth of such kidnappings before they were known to the general public and before they even happened. The user has an odd sophistication with his first and very frequent contributions being well formatted posts to talk spaces yet showing an oddly slow learning curve when people explain why certain behaviors are problematic. For instance, here it was explained he shouldn't mark In The News nominations updated unless they were, according to policy, to which he replied understood, then here, 20 minutes later, here violates the exact same policy. I appreciate your wish to help new users. I have found dialog with this user unproductive. μηδείς ( talk) 18:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Crazynas t 07:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Did you have any evidence for the speculation you posted, or is it just empty rhetoric? I'd hate to think you were just making it up. Kevin ( talk) 00:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Why do you keep saying "boxcutter", and what are you trying to imply by doing so?
No, honestly, I really have no idea. I suspect I may not be the only one, either. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Buddy, I'm through talking to you. What I said above is how your comments came across. If you can't grasp that, it's not my problem. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Please could someone strike my comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#Fyodor Dostoyevsky, as it doesn't seem fair to the copyedit requester to have to wait unnecessarily and unexpectedly. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 18:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
We've had our fights, but I'm the reason you're blocked right now. However much of an unfounded block it is, I see that it's most likely not going to be overturned anytime soon. Sorry, and thanks for all your help on this. We may lose some battles, but we'll win the war. gwickwire talk editing 21:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
Please post this in the section for my comments at ANI that Bbb23 already started. You should be able to copy it directly from here, not from the editing page. Thanks in advance for any help fixing resultant messes in the formatting!
Extended content
|
---|
:I've avoided comment here up to now, as my reply on my own talk page gives a pretty good idea of what happened with this incident. However, there's a few points that have been made that do need addressing. <s>I'll keep it brief</s> Apologies for wall of text! :Above, Jayen466 defends the comment about "slitting some throats" of Wikimedia UK members by saying it was merely "a figure of speech". If it's merely a figure of speech, why's it supposedly so appalling for ''me'' to mention it? Some editors here are, rightly, "horrified" by it, and that's because it's an awful lot more than a "figure of speech". Jayen466 goes on to compare it to the [[Twitter joke trial]]. Now, that's an incident in which a man was convicted of a criminal offence after being arrested by anti-terror police, and his conviction was upheld by two appeal courts and only finally quashed by the third appeal court after a massive public campaign supported by more-than-notable figures. Did various authorities over-react to this joke bomb threat? Yes they did, but the airport staff who originally reported it to police did so because they are told, just like WMF are told by police forces in many countries, that even an apparently non-credible threat should be taken seriously. Likewise, here on Wikipedia, if someone makes a legal threat that's obviously aimed to have a chilling effect, that's blockworthy ''even if'' a sensible adult would be confident the threatener had no chance in hell of mounting a successful legal case (or potentially, even intending to try). Why? Because as well as sensible adults, Wikipedia editors include a great many young, naive, or just completely uninformed editors who do actually have the right to edit without worrying themselves about some supposed lawsuit from some angry guy with a COI. :Moving further down this page, The Devil's Advocate says "Demiurge openly speculated at RFAR without a shred of evidence or any reasonable basis that Kevin was using his administrator privileges to funnel private information about a minor to someone else in order to facilitate malicious harassment of said minor". No, actually I did not say that. Some people may have thought I meant that; some people may indeed believe that, or have been led to believe it when they were prompted to consider the facts themselves. But I am not those people. I '''did not''' accuse, and am not accusing, Kevin of having done that. What I ''actually'' said can still be read in the history of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case|the page concerned]]. :Now, Diannaa has said on this page that it's a problem that I'm "pre-judging people based on their participation on that website". That's a very interesting point, but no, no I'm not. I don't make any judgement about Floquenbeam based on their registering an account there [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AFloquenbeam&diff=542595461&oldid=542587631 in order to be able to complain about the outing of certain Wikipedia editors], nor do I make any judgement about the arbitrator who said he reads the site to give insights into whether disputants on Wikipedia are being genuine or not (he also comments there thoughtfully with his own opinions from time to time, and there's nothing wrong with that either). :What I ''do'' make a judgement about, and I expect many other people do also, is when editors who are banned or blocked on Wikipedia use Wikipediocracy to "out", harass, or attack in whatever other way their opponents, in a manner that would be totally unacceptable here, and then an editor like (for example) The Devil's Advocate proceeds to engage onwiki, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:The_Devil%27s_Advocate&diff=prev&oldid=541569358 Fluffernutter's words], "writing comments laying a trail of how someone else could find personal information on a user makes it look a lot like you're gaming the wording of the policy to accomplish the same aim as Cla68 was trying to do ... Posting continual details about another person on Wikipedia, for no other reason than because you appear to be fascinated by them and by someone else's right to use them against that person, is not behavior we expect of an editor in good standing". :So yes, we have a spectrum of users on Wikipediocracy; some of them make comments like the throat-slitting one, some of them collate private information about minors who edit Wikipedia and offer to give it out to other Wikipediocracy editors, some of them act in the manner Fluffernutter just described and then ''also'' turn up at the talk page of one of the people being harassed and oh-so-helpfully enquire as to whether they've had any other Wikipedia accounts. This while ''also'' engaging in the discussions on Wikipediocracy where all this harassment was being planned and discussed. :Let's look at one of those discussions a little bit deeper, because it shows just ''why'' I might think that's not reasonable behaviour. Earlier this evening, one of the "Global Moderators" on Wikipediocracy called "Cla68" (sounds familiar somehow) suggested that a forum member called "Lone Wolf" should "Email the kid and ask him for his parents' contact info and tell him why you want to know it", and then if the child refuses to hand over his parents' details, try and use that as a way to get him blocked (or, as he nicely [[newspeak]]ed it, "follow Wikipedia's administrative guidance on dealing with minor contributors"). Doesn't sound very wise, does it? To me it sounds a bit like "better hand your details over to this anonymous stranger, kid, you don't wanna get blocked, do you?" And a Wikipediocracy user called The Devil's Advocate immediately joins the discussion talking about whether this would be effective or not. The individual who has been doing the "research" on the kid concerned helpfully pipes up "I have the snail mail address, email and phone contacts", and offers to supply them. :Now, maybe I should be so much more assuming of good faith, but when a person who acts as Fluffernutter has described above, and (apparently) participates in that manner in discussions of the nature I've just described on Wikipediocracy, is ''also'' the same person that turns up to the target's talkpage making these "polite" enquiries as to their past history, I think to myself that that is not appropriate. Not appropriate at all, nonono. :Apparently, my rather intemperate responses discouraged that person from carrying on with those "enquiries". Well, given the situation described, I don't think anyone could argue that's a bad thing. :BWilkins [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=543204559 considers] that "Reality appears to be that membership on the one is nearly incompatible with editing on Wikipedia", and Herostratus [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AAlison&diff=541738752&oldid=541719258 takes the view] that "consorting with persons sworn to damage and destroy the Wikipedia is not consistent with being a Wikipedia editor", but I don't see anyone clamouring for either of them to be blocked for a month. Maybe they just have that little bit more self-restraint than me. :<small>Screenshots of the Wikipediocracy comments I refer to, and any additional diffs that are needed, available to any oversighter on request.</small> |
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. Demiurge1000, I am extremely disappointed in your recent behavior over the past couple of days. Not too long ago you were blocked for falsely and repeatedly accusing an editor of creating malicious sockpuppets. When Dennis Brown unblocked you, it was with the understanding that you would no longer make "comments that can't be properly substantiated."
Yet just three days ago, you falsely accused another editor, without any evidence, of contributing to the outing of a minor editor – on an arbitration page, no less. Your comment was rightly redacted by a clerk, and you were given a very clear warning by Floquenbeam that any more false or unsubstantial accusations would earn you a block. Yet, you followed up that warning by falsely accusing me of making personal attacks, which you then followed by trolling my talk page.
This is completely unacceptable. Since you apparently have no interest in adhering to your unblock agreement not to make false and unsubstantiated comments about your fellow editors, I am restoring and extending your block. Since I am one of the (many) people you've made false and unsubstantiated comments about, I am bringing this block to AN/I for review.
Any admin is welcome to unblock once you make a convincing commitment not to make any more false and unsubstantiated accusations about your fellow editors. You will need to make it clear to them that this time – unlike last time – you intend to keep your word. 28bytes ( talk) 15:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
There seems (understandably) to be some surprise at AN/I about my use of the term "boxcutter people" to describe the worst of the participants on the external website (those participants are banned on English Wikipedia). I did not use it to refer to the 9/11 hijackers, but to refer to those participants.
The reason - and this has already been posted on-wiki by a member of the website concerned, so no more claims of "false accusations" please - is that one of the administrators of the site said he would like to deal with the members of Wikimedia UK by flying to London and slitting some throats with a boxcutter. (Yes, this is the sort of website we're talking about, and this is why I over-reacted when I perceived 28bytes as making comments which appeared to echo ones that had just been made about me by such people on that website.)
Anyway it has been pointed out that the use of the term can be upsetting regardless of its intended meaning or context, so I had already agreed to cease using it before 28bytes got here. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 17:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I've been told that I'll be blocked (which now means, "even more blocked than currently") if I repeat my comments about the outing of minors that members of the website discussed above have been engaging in. This also means that I'm not able to explain, defend, or expand upon the comments that I made.
What does bear mentioning here and now, though, is that this harrassment is still ongoing, with at least two sockpuppet accounts created for that purpose within the last 24 hours. The bland dismissal of these concerns, and failure to deal robustly with what is effectively real-world harrassment of child editors, raises grave concerns about the inadequacy of Wikipedia's child protection policy and approach. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 19:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Heya. In the future, if things are getting loopy over at Wikipediocracy and you are aware that a minor is being inappropriately fucked with, could you please email me (or Alison, or using the "report post" button if you have an account there) rather than making the situation worse by bringing it up on the drama boards?
Some things should be dealt with quietly, before they get out of hand. I hope you agree. -- SB_Johnny | talk✌ 23:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Well now, who'd a thunk it? -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 23:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey Demiurge1000; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 22:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Really? I've modified your block to indefinite. When you understand WP:CLUE, let us know and we will be happy to welcome you back. — Ched : ? 08:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
per discussion on my talk page I have restored the original expiration date of your block. I continue to believe that your efforts are disruptive and question your intentions in regards to what is best for this project. It is not my remit or within my abilities however to circumvent the communities wishes. — Ched : ? 20:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor has now posted allegations that I'm a collaborator with a "criminal hacker", that I've "probably never posted to Wikipedia Review", and that I'm bad at harassing people. (Well, I thought it was ambiguous anyway.) Also some metaphor about dogs.
Please would someone frown at the IP editor concerned for a moment, as I myself can't currently manage the correct serious expression to do so. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Despite my plans to do so, I will not be submitting an unblock request this evening. I have been very busy this week, partly dealing with concerns from BLP victims. Those of you with an imagination can imagine that on-wiki silliness does not take priority over that (whether you consider the admins who acted here to be involved or not - I personally don't care, they both behaved about the same, [1] [2] and certainly didn't cover themselves with glory.) I also spent a little time delivering a few responses which have been copied to the relevant places. I'm under no obligation to provide more than that.
Anyone still fascinated by what I might have written, can examine these diffs; [3] [4] [5] [6] and draw your own conclusions from that limited subset. There is of course much, much more, but that's not for here.
All that aside, the hour is late, smoke rises over Siberia, and article writers come
here seeking my copyediting. For that is why they are here, is it not? To build an encyclopedia. So I ask that someone undo
this edit. And thus, those of us who are interested in improving the encyclopedia, can get back to doing so... in a few hours. --
Demiurge1000 (
talk)
00:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
...Welcome, ummm, back? ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 14:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello Demiurge, I will be celebrating my birthday on 19 March. So, I would like to give you a treat. If you decide to "eat" the cookie, please reply by placing {{subst:munch}} on my talk page. I hope this cookie has made your day better. Cheers!
![]() |
I was just trying to get caught up on some replies from my talk page, and noticed your post. Even though it was not addressing me, I did want to say that I very much appreciated the "I hold no grudges and it's all water under the bridge now as far as I'm concerned." comment - and I feel the same way. Best — Ched : ? 16:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
We give out T shirts in a very arbitrary way. If you see someone who wants one and deserves one then tell me, John or Tyson and we'll see if there are any left in the right size Victuallers ( talk) 20:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Demiurge, you're probably wondering of the change in the Separation of powers article. As you can see the references you edited were the ones that were in the top because I moved them in the Antiquity section in which I also edited. ( Slurpy121 ( talk) 23:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC))
Guild of Copy Editors
March 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
We are halfway through our March backlog elimination drive. The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the
March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk)
14:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
|
This. :-) — Coren (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey there, what advice would you have in making sure my contributions follow BLP and NPOV? Troutbum898 ( talk) 21:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I provided all citations I just do not think I did it properly fee free to fix my citations all links were provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyyla ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 23 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lammas Ecovillage, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that households in the Lammas Ecovillage purchase a one thousand year lease from the organisation which runs it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lammas Ecovillage. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low
to High
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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) 11:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I just read your responses at
Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#BLP_help and I'd like to say BRAVO for keeping it light! I also found your responses quite informative. Thank you
Further, I feel a calling to focus my bits of available time to improving and increasing my Wiki learning of BLP articles, which of course takes a fair amount of knowledge of the ins and outs of BLP article guidelines. As I am only still piecing together the pieces of knowledge around all that BLP article improving entails, but having garnered some idea at least, I'd thought I'd make contact with you and ask if I may contact you directly if I have questions? If yes, is the best way to post my questions on your Talk page, my own Talk page; and if no, then I would appreciate your recommendation such as seek out help as needed from the Teahouse or through the Adoption program. HiTrish ( talk) 20:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion which relates to actions or comments made by you can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive247#Peter Damian socks. Fram ( talk) 15:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Pratyya (Hello!) 12:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Demiurge1000, I have added more material. Could you consider withdrawing your nomination for deletion? I would be very grateful if you would withdraw it as I have spent a lot of time on this article and intend to improve it further. Perhaps, alternatively, you could just tag it at this stage? Rick570 ( talk) 00:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You seem to have taken an interest in Advice Polack, and I wonder if you'd mind participating in the discussion at Talk:Advice Polack#Let.27s_try_again. As you'll see there, one editor forcefully insists that the sources aren't reliable, but so far the discussion hasn't been very fruitful. I gave up the fight a few months ago, but perhaps you can help break the deadlock. EEng ( talk) 18:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
He has placed another unwarranted warning on my talk page while ignoring the fact that I have requested both further discussion and a Wikipedia:Third opinion. What should be my next course of action? The article in question is Democratic Party of Cook County in case you forgot the context. -- Homeaccount ( talk) 21:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I resubmitted for a third opinion. Hopefully the most contentious issues can be resolved. -- Homeaccount ( talk) 22:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
"You shouldn't give medical advice on Wikipedia. Also, your current approach seems calculated to make it more likely that you will indeed be "sanctioned in some way". --Demiurge1000 (talk)"
Sanctioning from a bunch of bigots means nothing to me.
Since you decided to step in and harass me too I have to share new research finding with you as well: 90% of men are gay 100% of women are gay Rape and incest is an epidemic All races, cultures, nationalities, groups, and religions are secretly racist Most women are secretly sexist Drug and alcohol abuse is abundant Dyslexia affects 90% of the population and is commonly undiagnosed and treatable Mental illness is commonly undiagnosed and incurable Sociopaths need to be separated from normal society Humans have evolved from primates. There are the alpha males, the regular males and the females. Gay males have female minds. At one point in human embryonic development all people were once female. That is why males have nipples. Females have the ability to achieve a muscular orgasm just like a male, however most women do not know how. Women can have a muscular orgasm if they repeatedly squeeze the vaginal muscle used to urinate. Secret racism and secret sexism can be avoided by simply vocalizing the secret. Maxschweitzer ( talk) 16:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for stopping by my talk page. It is appreciated. I made a brief comment there as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? ( talk) 22:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors
March 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
We have completed our March backlog elimination drive. The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the
April blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk)
19:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
|
Looks like stupid POV fisticuffs owing to the President's Chicago connections. Calling a county unit of the Democratic Party of Illinois "a political party" in the lead is flat out wrong, for starters. I really try to avoid getting involved in edit warring over such things; usually there are POV warriors involved who don't have the first clue about the culture of WP or the best interests of the encyclopedia and in the long run their tendentious bullshit goes by the wayside. Good luck weeding out the numbskulls. —Tim /// Carrite ( talk) 16:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for adding that note. I didn't even realize how it sounded until I saw your comment. You saved me from what could have been a serious issue. Thank you again. Coffeepusher ( talk) 23:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 9 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Land of Lost Content, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Ludovic Kennedy said that The Land of Lost Content revealed "many uncomfortable home truths", but Paul Foot described it as "a wretched hagiography"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Land of Lost Content. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I would like you to reverse the deletion of my edit to this actor's page, as I added accurate information to the categories section, as evidenced by an Internet search of a multitude of reliable news sources: Stiers came out publicly in order to support equal treatment of LGBT people in 2009. Deleting those categories from his page can be seen as devaluing his decision to make such a move, and I think it would reflect badly on any encyclopedic entity.
If the only issue seems to merely be a missing citation, I would like to ask you for help in this. Here is a source that I would hope counts as reputable: ABC News: 'M*A*S*H' Star David Ogden Stiers Reveals He's Gay (May 6, 2009)
Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.231.75 ( talk) 17:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low
to High
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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) 11:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've been doing the review of the Anthony Chenevix-Trench GA nomination. Khazar2 has kindly agreed that they will watch over my shoulder as I'm still pretty inept at reviewing GAs. I apologise in advance if I've said or done anything incorrectly![[File:|25px|link=]] It's a fascinating article! Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in "helping new editors". Thank you for pointing out the apparent experience differential. Reviewing the dialog at Talk:Democratic Party of Cook County and User_talk:Homeaccount, my feeling is that an important aspect of the problem may be seen in the record of fundamental issues of comprehensions of WP policies, guidlelines, and norms; more specifically, misunderstandings with respect to 1. fending off WP:MOS with appeals to RS style, 2. individual vs. collective responsibility for WP:NPOV, 3. WP:NPA, and 4. WP:IDHT, more detail including relevant diffs here. I feel clarification of our norms may be a prerequisite for collaboration on specific content. Might you consider approaching the editor and attempting to clarify one or more of these issues? I believe a WP:RFC/U may be the best available tool to initiate a level-setting discussion of policies and guidelines and I would like to ask your help in certifying the request. Thanks again. Hugh ( talk) 19:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
You sarcastic devil you! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC) |
If you can send me a scan of the newspaper cutting of the L. Kennedy book review which I infer you possess, it is just possible that I might be able to identify the source from the typefaces and layout, etc. -- Alarics ( talk) 08:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear Demiurge:
I get your points, and I certainly endeavor to stick to facts, preserve an objective tone, and respect the tendency to a neutral point of view.
I have already written four full-fledged Wikipedia articles, all of them practically brand-new, on untouched or undeveloped subjects by the Wikipedia cohort of editors. I accept your remarks, offered in good faith.
However, I must respectfully claim that the following comment by Richard Carrier:
"I know Ehrman read Doherty’s monstrous second book but not his original Jesus Puzzle, and yet the latter is a far superior argument for his conclusion, by the standards Ehrman would expect, whereas the second is 90% speculative digression (hundreds and hundreds of pages worth) which is exactly the kind of thing that chaps the hide of professional scholars."
does belong to the section Reception. Alternatively this quote could be reduced to a shorter form, since Carrier's evaluation of the Jesus Puzzle has already been mentioned at the beginning of the section:
"I know Ehrman read Doherty’s monstrous second book but not his original Jesus Puzzle, and... the second is 90% speculative digression (hundreds and hundreds of pages worth) which is exactly the kind of thing that chaps the hide of professional scholars."
or even (probably the best excerpt, as being the shortest):
Doherty’s monstrous second book... is 90% speculative digression (hundreds and hundreds of pages worth) which is exactly the kind of thing that chaps the hide of professional scholars.
Those are the points to consider:
And indicate which formulation of the quote best satisfies you. Meanwhile I'll repost the (shortest) #3 formulation .
Regards from a good-faith editor to another one. -- ROO BOOKAROO ( talk) 11:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I have written an article, whilst logged in as 'dvdwllm', and in the Sandpit title 'Keith Johnson (author) but I am not clear how to upload it into Wikipedia. I have saved it, and been through the upload wizard but still do not find it in Wikipedia. Dvdwllm ( talk) 19:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 1 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anthony Chenevix-Trench, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Anthony Chenevix-Trench aimed to abolish school uniform completely at Eton, but only succeeded in abolishing the rule requiring smaller boys to wear suits that included a "bumfreezer" (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anthony Chenevix-Trench. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, it is not my desire to increase any drama regarding the user who expressed his fear that he or his family might be kidnapped by foreigners. If you go back to the original thread there's concern expressed that the OP seems to be claiming a memory from his youth of such kidnappings before they were known to the general public and before they even happened. The user has an odd sophistication with his first and very frequent contributions being well formatted posts to talk spaces yet showing an oddly slow learning curve when people explain why certain behaviors are problematic. For instance, here it was explained he shouldn't mark In The News nominations updated unless they were, according to policy, to which he replied understood, then here, 20 minutes later, here violates the exact same policy. I appreciate your wish to help new users. I have found dialog with this user unproductive. μηδείς ( talk) 18:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Crazynas t 07:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Did you have any evidence for the speculation you posted, or is it just empty rhetoric? I'd hate to think you were just making it up. Kevin ( talk) 00:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Why do you keep saying "boxcutter", and what are you trying to imply by doing so?
No, honestly, I really have no idea. I suspect I may not be the only one, either. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Buddy, I'm through talking to you. What I said above is how your comments came across. If you can't grasp that, it's not my problem. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Please could someone strike my comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#Fyodor Dostoyevsky, as it doesn't seem fair to the copyedit requester to have to wait unnecessarily and unexpectedly. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 18:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
We've had our fights, but I'm the reason you're blocked right now. However much of an unfounded block it is, I see that it's most likely not going to be overturned anytime soon. Sorry, and thanks for all your help on this. We may lose some battles, but we'll win the war. gwickwire talk editing 21:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC) |
Please post this in the section for my comments at ANI that Bbb23 already started. You should be able to copy it directly from here, not from the editing page. Thanks in advance for any help fixing resultant messes in the formatting!
Extended content
|
---|
:I've avoided comment here up to now, as my reply on my own talk page gives a pretty good idea of what happened with this incident. However, there's a few points that have been made that do need addressing. <s>I'll keep it brief</s> Apologies for wall of text! :Above, Jayen466 defends the comment about "slitting some throats" of Wikimedia UK members by saying it was merely "a figure of speech". If it's merely a figure of speech, why's it supposedly so appalling for ''me'' to mention it? Some editors here are, rightly, "horrified" by it, and that's because it's an awful lot more than a "figure of speech". Jayen466 goes on to compare it to the [[Twitter joke trial]]. Now, that's an incident in which a man was convicted of a criminal offence after being arrested by anti-terror police, and his conviction was upheld by two appeal courts and only finally quashed by the third appeal court after a massive public campaign supported by more-than-notable figures. Did various authorities over-react to this joke bomb threat? Yes they did, but the airport staff who originally reported it to police did so because they are told, just like WMF are told by police forces in many countries, that even an apparently non-credible threat should be taken seriously. Likewise, here on Wikipedia, if someone makes a legal threat that's obviously aimed to have a chilling effect, that's blockworthy ''even if'' a sensible adult would be confident the threatener had no chance in hell of mounting a successful legal case (or potentially, even intending to try). Why? Because as well as sensible adults, Wikipedia editors include a great many young, naive, or just completely uninformed editors who do actually have the right to edit without worrying themselves about some supposed lawsuit from some angry guy with a COI. :Moving further down this page, The Devil's Advocate says "Demiurge openly speculated at RFAR without a shred of evidence or any reasonable basis that Kevin was using his administrator privileges to funnel private information about a minor to someone else in order to facilitate malicious harassment of said minor". No, actually I did not say that. Some people may have thought I meant that; some people may indeed believe that, or have been led to believe it when they were prompted to consider the facts themselves. But I am not those people. I '''did not''' accuse, and am not accusing, Kevin of having done that. What I ''actually'' said can still be read in the history of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case|the page concerned]]. :Now, Diannaa has said on this page that it's a problem that I'm "pre-judging people based on their participation on that website". That's a very interesting point, but no, no I'm not. I don't make any judgement about Floquenbeam based on their registering an account there [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AFloquenbeam&diff=542595461&oldid=542587631 in order to be able to complain about the outing of certain Wikipedia editors], nor do I make any judgement about the arbitrator who said he reads the site to give insights into whether disputants on Wikipedia are being genuine or not (he also comments there thoughtfully with his own opinions from time to time, and there's nothing wrong with that either). :What I ''do'' make a judgement about, and I expect many other people do also, is when editors who are banned or blocked on Wikipedia use Wikipediocracy to "out", harass, or attack in whatever other way their opponents, in a manner that would be totally unacceptable here, and then an editor like (for example) The Devil's Advocate proceeds to engage onwiki, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:The_Devil%27s_Advocate&diff=prev&oldid=541569358 Fluffernutter's words], "writing comments laying a trail of how someone else could find personal information on a user makes it look a lot like you're gaming the wording of the policy to accomplish the same aim as Cla68 was trying to do ... Posting continual details about another person on Wikipedia, for no other reason than because you appear to be fascinated by them and by someone else's right to use them against that person, is not behavior we expect of an editor in good standing". :So yes, we have a spectrum of users on Wikipediocracy; some of them make comments like the throat-slitting one, some of them collate private information about minors who edit Wikipedia and offer to give it out to other Wikipediocracy editors, some of them act in the manner Fluffernutter just described and then ''also'' turn up at the talk page of one of the people being harassed and oh-so-helpfully enquire as to whether they've had any other Wikipedia accounts. This while ''also'' engaging in the discussions on Wikipediocracy where all this harassment was being planned and discussed. :Let's look at one of those discussions a little bit deeper, because it shows just ''why'' I might think that's not reasonable behaviour. Earlier this evening, one of the "Global Moderators" on Wikipediocracy called "Cla68" (sounds familiar somehow) suggested that a forum member called "Lone Wolf" should "Email the kid and ask him for his parents' contact info and tell him why you want to know it", and then if the child refuses to hand over his parents' details, try and use that as a way to get him blocked (or, as he nicely [[newspeak]]ed it, "follow Wikipedia's administrative guidance on dealing with minor contributors"). Doesn't sound very wise, does it? To me it sounds a bit like "better hand your details over to this anonymous stranger, kid, you don't wanna get blocked, do you?" And a Wikipediocracy user called The Devil's Advocate immediately joins the discussion talking about whether this would be effective or not. The individual who has been doing the "research" on the kid concerned helpfully pipes up "I have the snail mail address, email and phone contacts", and offers to supply them. :Now, maybe I should be so much more assuming of good faith, but when a person who acts as Fluffernutter has described above, and (apparently) participates in that manner in discussions of the nature I've just described on Wikipediocracy, is ''also'' the same person that turns up to the target's talkpage making these "polite" enquiries as to their past history, I think to myself that that is not appropriate. Not appropriate at all, nonono. :Apparently, my rather intemperate responses discouraged that person from carrying on with those "enquiries". Well, given the situation described, I don't think anyone could argue that's a bad thing. :BWilkins [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=543204559 considers] that "Reality appears to be that membership on the one is nearly incompatible with editing on Wikipedia", and Herostratus [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AAlison&diff=541738752&oldid=541719258 takes the view] that "consorting with persons sworn to damage and destroy the Wikipedia is not consistent with being a Wikipedia editor", but I don't see anyone clamouring for either of them to be blocked for a month. Maybe they just have that little bit more self-restraint than me. :<small>Screenshots of the Wikipediocracy comments I refer to, and any additional diffs that are needed, available to any oversighter on request.</small> |
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. Demiurge1000, I am extremely disappointed in your recent behavior over the past couple of days. Not too long ago you were blocked for falsely and repeatedly accusing an editor of creating malicious sockpuppets. When Dennis Brown unblocked you, it was with the understanding that you would no longer make "comments that can't be properly substantiated."
Yet just three days ago, you falsely accused another editor, without any evidence, of contributing to the outing of a minor editor – on an arbitration page, no less. Your comment was rightly redacted by a clerk, and you were given a very clear warning by Floquenbeam that any more false or unsubstantial accusations would earn you a block. Yet, you followed up that warning by falsely accusing me of making personal attacks, which you then followed by trolling my talk page.
This is completely unacceptable. Since you apparently have no interest in adhering to your unblock agreement not to make false and unsubstantiated comments about your fellow editors, I am restoring and extending your block. Since I am one of the (many) people you've made false and unsubstantiated comments about, I am bringing this block to AN/I for review.
Any admin is welcome to unblock once you make a convincing commitment not to make any more false and unsubstantiated accusations about your fellow editors. You will need to make it clear to them that this time – unlike last time – you intend to keep your word. 28bytes ( talk) 15:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
There seems (understandably) to be some surprise at AN/I about my use of the term "boxcutter people" to describe the worst of the participants on the external website (those participants are banned on English Wikipedia). I did not use it to refer to the 9/11 hijackers, but to refer to those participants.
The reason - and this has already been posted on-wiki by a member of the website concerned, so no more claims of "false accusations" please - is that one of the administrators of the site said he would like to deal with the members of Wikimedia UK by flying to London and slitting some throats with a boxcutter. (Yes, this is the sort of website we're talking about, and this is why I over-reacted when I perceived 28bytes as making comments which appeared to echo ones that had just been made about me by such people on that website.)
Anyway it has been pointed out that the use of the term can be upsetting regardless of its intended meaning or context, so I had already agreed to cease using it before 28bytes got here. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 17:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I've been told that I'll be blocked (which now means, "even more blocked than currently") if I repeat my comments about the outing of minors that members of the website discussed above have been engaging in. This also means that I'm not able to explain, defend, or expand upon the comments that I made.
What does bear mentioning here and now, though, is that this harrassment is still ongoing, with at least two sockpuppet accounts created for that purpose within the last 24 hours. The bland dismissal of these concerns, and failure to deal robustly with what is effectively real-world harrassment of child editors, raises grave concerns about the inadequacy of Wikipedia's child protection policy and approach. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 19:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Heya. In the future, if things are getting loopy over at Wikipediocracy and you are aware that a minor is being inappropriately fucked with, could you please email me (or Alison, or using the "report post" button if you have an account there) rather than making the situation worse by bringing it up on the drama boards?
Some things should be dealt with quietly, before they get out of hand. I hope you agree. -- SB_Johnny | talk✌ 23:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Well now, who'd a thunk it? -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 23:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey Demiurge1000; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 22:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Really? I've modified your block to indefinite. When you understand WP:CLUE, let us know and we will be happy to welcome you back. — Ched : ? 08:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
per discussion on my talk page I have restored the original expiration date of your block. I continue to believe that your efforts are disruptive and question your intentions in regards to what is best for this project. It is not my remit or within my abilities however to circumvent the communities wishes. — Ched : ? 20:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor has now posted allegations that I'm a collaborator with a "criminal hacker", that I've "probably never posted to Wikipedia Review", and that I'm bad at harassing people. (Well, I thought it was ambiguous anyway.) Also some metaphor about dogs.
Please would someone frown at the IP editor concerned for a moment, as I myself can't currently manage the correct serious expression to do so. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Despite my plans to do so, I will not be submitting an unblock request this evening. I have been very busy this week, partly dealing with concerns from BLP victims. Those of you with an imagination can imagine that on-wiki silliness does not take priority over that (whether you consider the admins who acted here to be involved or not - I personally don't care, they both behaved about the same, [1] [2] and certainly didn't cover themselves with glory.) I also spent a little time delivering a few responses which have been copied to the relevant places. I'm under no obligation to provide more than that.
Anyone still fascinated by what I might have written, can examine these diffs; [3] [4] [5] [6] and draw your own conclusions from that limited subset. There is of course much, much more, but that's not for here.
All that aside, the hour is late, smoke rises over Siberia, and article writers come
here seeking my copyediting. For that is why they are here, is it not? To build an encyclopedia. So I ask that someone undo
this edit. And thus, those of us who are interested in improving the encyclopedia, can get back to doing so... in a few hours. --
Demiurge1000 (
talk)
00:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
...Welcome, ummm, back? ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 14:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello Demiurge, I will be celebrating my birthday on 19 March. So, I would like to give you a treat. If you decide to "eat" the cookie, please reply by placing {{subst:munch}} on my talk page. I hope this cookie has made your day better. Cheers!
![]() |
I was just trying to get caught up on some replies from my talk page, and noticed your post. Even though it was not addressing me, I did want to say that I very much appreciated the "I hold no grudges and it's all water under the bridge now as far as I'm concerned." comment - and I feel the same way. Best — Ched : ? 16:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
We give out T shirts in a very arbitrary way. If you see someone who wants one and deserves one then tell me, John or Tyson and we'll see if there are any left in the right size Victuallers ( talk) 20:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Demiurge, you're probably wondering of the change in the Separation of powers article. As you can see the references you edited were the ones that were in the top because I moved them in the Antiquity section in which I also edited. ( Slurpy121 ( talk) 23:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC))
Guild of Copy Editors
March 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
We are halfway through our March backlog elimination drive. The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the
March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk)
14:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
|
This. :-) — Coren (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey there, what advice would you have in making sure my contributions follow BLP and NPOV? Troutbum898 ( talk) 21:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I provided all citations I just do not think I did it properly fee free to fix my citations all links were provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyyla ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 23 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lammas Ecovillage, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that households in the Lammas Ecovillage purchase a one thousand year lease from the organisation which runs it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lammas Ecovillage. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low
to High
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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) 11:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I just read your responses at
Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#BLP_help and I'd like to say BRAVO for keeping it light! I also found your responses quite informative. Thank you
Further, I feel a calling to focus my bits of available time to improving and increasing my Wiki learning of BLP articles, which of course takes a fair amount of knowledge of the ins and outs of BLP article guidelines. As I am only still piecing together the pieces of knowledge around all that BLP article improving entails, but having garnered some idea at least, I'd thought I'd make contact with you and ask if I may contact you directly if I have questions? If yes, is the best way to post my questions on your Talk page, my own Talk page; and if no, then I would appreciate your recommendation such as seek out help as needed from the Teahouse or through the Adoption program. HiTrish ( talk) 20:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion which relates to actions or comments made by you can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive247#Peter Damian socks. Fram ( talk) 15:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Pratyya (Hello!) 12:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Demiurge1000, I have added more material. Could you consider withdrawing your nomination for deletion? I would be very grateful if you would withdraw it as I have spent a lot of time on this article and intend to improve it further. Perhaps, alternatively, you could just tag it at this stage? Rick570 ( talk) 00:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You seem to have taken an interest in Advice Polack, and I wonder if you'd mind participating in the discussion at Talk:Advice Polack#Let.27s_try_again. As you'll see there, one editor forcefully insists that the sources aren't reliable, but so far the discussion hasn't been very fruitful. I gave up the fight a few months ago, but perhaps you can help break the deadlock. EEng ( talk) 18:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
He has placed another unwarranted warning on my talk page while ignoring the fact that I have requested both further discussion and a Wikipedia:Third opinion. What should be my next course of action? The article in question is Democratic Party of Cook County in case you forgot the context. -- Homeaccount ( talk) 21:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I resubmitted for a third opinion. Hopefully the most contentious issues can be resolved. -- Homeaccount ( talk) 22:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
"You shouldn't give medical advice on Wikipedia. Also, your current approach seems calculated to make it more likely that you will indeed be "sanctioned in some way". --Demiurge1000 (talk)"
Sanctioning from a bunch of bigots means nothing to me.
Since you decided to step in and harass me too I have to share new research finding with you as well: 90% of men are gay 100% of women are gay Rape and incest is an epidemic All races, cultures, nationalities, groups, and religions are secretly racist Most women are secretly sexist Drug and alcohol abuse is abundant Dyslexia affects 90% of the population and is commonly undiagnosed and treatable Mental illness is commonly undiagnosed and incurable Sociopaths need to be separated from normal society Humans have evolved from primates. There are the alpha males, the regular males and the females. Gay males have female minds. At one point in human embryonic development all people were once female. That is why males have nipples. Females have the ability to achieve a muscular orgasm just like a male, however most women do not know how. Women can have a muscular orgasm if they repeatedly squeeze the vaginal muscle used to urinate. Secret racism and secret sexism can be avoided by simply vocalizing the secret. Maxschweitzer ( talk) 16:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for stopping by my talk page. It is appreciated. I made a brief comment there as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? ( talk) 22:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors
March 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
We have completed our March backlog elimination drive. The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the
April blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk)
19:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
|
Looks like stupid POV fisticuffs owing to the President's Chicago connections. Calling a county unit of the Democratic Party of Illinois "a political party" in the lead is flat out wrong, for starters. I really try to avoid getting involved in edit warring over such things; usually there are POV warriors involved who don't have the first clue about the culture of WP or the best interests of the encyclopedia and in the long run their tendentious bullshit goes by the wayside. Good luck weeding out the numbskulls. —Tim /// Carrite ( talk) 16:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for adding that note. I didn't even realize how it sounded until I saw your comment. You saved me from what could have been a serious issue. Thank you again. Coffeepusher ( talk) 23:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 9 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Land of Lost Content, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Ludovic Kennedy said that The Land of Lost Content revealed "many uncomfortable home truths", but Paul Foot described it as "a wretched hagiography"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Land of Lost Content. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I would like you to reverse the deletion of my edit to this actor's page, as I added accurate information to the categories section, as evidenced by an Internet search of a multitude of reliable news sources: Stiers came out publicly in order to support equal treatment of LGBT people in 2009. Deleting those categories from his page can be seen as devaluing his decision to make such a move, and I think it would reflect badly on any encyclopedic entity.
If the only issue seems to merely be a missing citation, I would like to ask you for help in this. Here is a source that I would hope counts as reputable: ABC News: 'M*A*S*H' Star David Ogden Stiers Reveals He's Gay (May 6, 2009)
Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.231.75 ( talk) 17:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low
to High
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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) 11:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've been doing the review of the Anthony Chenevix-Trench GA nomination. Khazar2 has kindly agreed that they will watch over my shoulder as I'm still pretty inept at reviewing GAs. I apologise in advance if I've said or done anything incorrectly![[File:|25px|link=]] It's a fascinating article! Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in "helping new editors". Thank you for pointing out the apparent experience differential. Reviewing the dialog at Talk:Democratic Party of Cook County and User_talk:Homeaccount, my feeling is that an important aspect of the problem may be seen in the record of fundamental issues of comprehensions of WP policies, guidlelines, and norms; more specifically, misunderstandings with respect to 1. fending off WP:MOS with appeals to RS style, 2. individual vs. collective responsibility for WP:NPOV, 3. WP:NPA, and 4. WP:IDHT, more detail including relevant diffs here. I feel clarification of our norms may be a prerequisite for collaboration on specific content. Might you consider approaching the editor and attempting to clarify one or more of these issues? I believe a WP:RFC/U may be the best available tool to initiate a level-setting discussion of policies and guidelines and I would like to ask your help in certifying the request. Thanks again. Hugh ( talk) 19:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)