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.
I got a new siggy. Just thought i'd let you know (i really like it). Adwiii Talk 22:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again
Thanks for removing the tag, my last name is "Bum" which I think that is funny, since I learned what "Bum" is commonly referred to. All I know is that the "Bum" part of my name does not mean anything inappropriate. Thanks for the help!Thomasbum98 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Thomasbum98
Note
I have indented your !vote at Dylan620 (talk·contribs)'s RFA, as it appeared to be a joke. If you really were serious, feel free to unindent. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Serious? Just you wait until I write User:Demiurge1000/My RFA standards, it will all be in there! :) (Some very well respected admins did indeed first become admins at the sort of age I mentioned.)
Unfortunately I am serious about the Oppose (for the other reasons I gave), which is a pity because there are a large number of positive aspects, and some of the other Opposes are... moronic. :| --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I had been confused by the "candidate is too old" phrase and thus thought you were trying to make a point. I fully respect the rest of your oppose, though. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
That was not my name
I didn't really give my name, that was my name I only use on computers to avoid identity theft. I guess I should have posted earlier that, there is no "Thomas Bum" I made it up a few years ago.Thomasbum98 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Thomasbum98
OK well that's good, although it means what you said on your talk page was a bit misleading, which is not so good. But anyway, just keep those things in mind :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess maybe I should switch accounts, I guess I didn't know that "Bum" is not supposed to be used on the internet or anywhere else, I didn't know it could be misleading. I also did not mean to use it in a bad way, I will always tell someone that it is not supposed to mean anything that most people think it means.Thomasbum98 (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Thomasbum98
No, I think you are worrying too much. It's all fine, keep using your account but be careful of giving out any information beyond that. As far as YouTube is concerned... please be aware that a lot of people on YouTube (and similar sites) are not who they say they are. Photos are often fake, even live video can be fake. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but I don't have a Youtube, but I am aware of that, I learned all about that. Thanks!Thomasbum98 (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Thomasbum98
Hi Demiurge, since you sent Diego Loyzaga to AfD I thought I'd let you know that a new article about him, but called Carlos Diego Loyzaga, has sprung up. I don't know what the original article looked like so I'm not sure if it qualifies for a G4 speedy. If you could have a look at it that'd be super. Cheers, doomgaze(talk) 12:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Well spotted! Most or all of it is word-for-word identical to the AfD'd version, so I've CSD'd it again. (I think I'd also CSD'd a variant of this back at Diego Loyzaga after the original one was deleted.) This Batch2004 person seems not to think much of concensus. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Would you be so kind to revisit and determine if a nomination is still necessary, and if not, withdraw? Improvements have been made and it's been requested that you revisit. CycloneGU (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you tell me why my post in "Don Cherry" was deleted by C.Fred?
the reason he sites "rv - that would qualify as his outspoken manner, for the summary level the intro has right now" has nothing to do with the statement I had inserted into the text and that was the criticism that his comments have caused. Jumblecar2 (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, you mean this series of edits that you made? I would guess C.Fred knows about the WP:BLP policy and about the WP:MOS guidelines for lead sections of articles, and he rightly decided that your edits were not in accordance with either.
It's possible that there is some sort of well-reported issue with Cherry's public comments that could be better covered in his Wikipedia biography. If so, I think the way to achieve that would be discussing it on the talk page of the article, and explaining which secondary sources cover it. Also please read WP:WEIGHT. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I will/am doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumblecar2 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks and a question
Thanks for the welcome. I do hope to stick around, and I do have a question. I posted on this page link in the food section. I included a source, I thought I did it properly, but someone deleted it without any explanation. Is it appropriate for people to do that? Did I do something wrong?Joriq (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes Joriq it seems as if you fulfilled requirements 2 and 4 (or two i may be getting which wrong) but Cresix is right on that specific article. Everything you did would have fulfilled all of the requirements for a normal Wikipedia article it is just this one comes with extra requirements. Hope this helps, Adwiii Talk 02:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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) 09:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
GOCE drive newsletter
The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive
The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive.
Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.
You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, sure I'd be happy to help with the translation. --Mamduh (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
That's great! I've slightly over-committed myself trying to do too many things at once at the moment, but I'll try to put together a simple draft text sometime over the next few days. Thank you very much for your help. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Cubes: Thanks
Thanks for removing the inappropriate template-category information. I am rather inexperienced with templates. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 23:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I'm glad that you found yourself able to correct some of your misunderstandings concerning the recent RfA. One suggestion I would make is that when you find yourself having to strikeout several of your own comments regarding other editors in numerous related discussions on the same topic all within the space of a couple of days, you should consider whether your style of discourse is really conducive to collaborative working or not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
When people make mistakes, they should correct them. I try to apply this rule to my own conduct. It is pity that you find nothing to improve or correct in your own behavior, particularly on my talk page.
You can find many examples of people apologizing to me throughout WP, and my usual response is to tell them not to worry, and that they had a point.
When somebody insults me or misrepresents somebody (e.g., like misrepresenting Malleus as though he were a git), I may respond directly and firmly: Negative reinforcement is a potent supplement to positive enforcement (c.f. Paul Meehl's presidential address to the APA). You still have failed to explain your accusation that I have lobbied on talk pages---which I suppose meaning that I commented on Malleus's (in disbelief that adults were behaving worse than children) and that I tried to reach out kindly to the 29 year-old editor.
How should I have treated you when you came to my page and tried to lecture me about statistics? Did you want a lollipop? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
"You can find many examples of people apologizing to me throughout WP" - thanks for the laugh. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
My talk page continues to display apologies ("sorry for") or "no hard feelings" statements by Drmies and Jheald. I was happy to accept their gracious words, and note that they both had points and their criticism resulted in better content, as I wrote before. (There are other examples.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
SarekOfVulcan RfA
Your support statement was informative and helpful. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Instead of ridiculing other editors in private, take your grievance up with them directly. I'm not sure where you learned to socialise, but, on a collaborative project, we don't do that kind of thing. AGK [•] 08:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see there's anything private in making a comment about your actions, on the talk page where you announced those actions.
I'm sorry if you felt ridiculed; that was not my intention.
I'm not sure where you learned to socialise, either. But I don't judge people by social class or background, nor assumptions about either. I judge them by their actions. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, he seems to think it's someone's real name. He also suggests that person might not want their real name associated with accusations of misbehaviour at Wikipedia. Please do not refer to them by that name, whether it is a "nickname" or not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
YAY
Hello, Demiurge1000. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
My do-not-delete quote from Wikid77-edits seems to be disliked by the recipient admin, so perhaps this is a good time to use a different quote. Maybe you might find an interesting quote under "Talk:Pippa Middleton" such as "What is she? The other Boleyn girl?" and other entertaining comments there. -Wikid77 20:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Sigh, you've misunderstood Wikid77, I have no issue with the link to your quote (except that it casts you in an unfortunate light :(). I do have an issue with this perrenial need to cast me as "the admin", I am an editor, and in our discussions have only ever been an editor. It makes me uncomfortable to see other casting editors in content dispute as admins when the fact I have a sysop bit is irrelevant. --Errant(chat!) 20:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about this, the link is proving a bit more problematic than I'd hoped. I've revised the text to remove any reference to "admin". In my view it was relevant that the original message to you was specifically described as "an initial warning" (or some wording like that), asked you repeatedly if you understood, and so on... and it seems even stranger to write in that manner to someone who is an admin, than to someone who is not. But I do see your point that your involvement in the whole thing was never as an administrator.
Anyway I can't keep diffs on my userpage if the original author doesn't want them there, so unfortunately if Wikid77 insists on having the link gone then I will have to remove it, and this remarkable piece of prose will be lost in the mists of time and your talkpage history. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
It's cool! I wasn't moaning really - but this whole admin/editor thing is a bug-bear of mine :P The comment was extraordinary, and worth preserving. --Errant(chat!) 22:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Having never formally studied Latin, I am still pondering the Omnis v. "Omnia Gallia" debate. About 65% of Google-Search sources say "Omnia Gallia" ("All Gaul"), while 30% say "Omnis Gallia" ("Every Gaul"?):
Omnia Gallia in tres partes divisa est (...and the other...)
Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres.
Any opinions about this, or finding the original rewrites of Commentarii de Bello Gallico which would show either "Omnia Gallia" or "Omnis~"? There's no hurry on this: it's been a few hundred years. -Wikid77 05:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
To quote Luke Skywalker - "you're making a mess". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
To quote Luke Skywalker-"Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!" Oh well I guess I will have to stop... I sowwy... Adwiii Talk 22:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
why i put that
I put 12 because 13 is a teenage. And the word teenager and adolescent (post-puberty or during puberty) are practically synonyms. Hence the redirect from "teenager" to "adolescent" on Wikipedia.--Samusaran253 (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Well if you want to be really hyper-technical I believe you are right (about the age), although I believe Demiurge1000 was correct in the revert. Adwiii Talk 22:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Profumo Affair
Before you delete any information or before offending someone, try to check your facts. The article "Profumo Affair" explicitly writes the woman was a whore. I did use "prostitute" on her article because of this. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.40.166.197 (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. Other Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources, since this leads to circular sourcing. You are correct that the article Profumo Affair made this claim about the living person concerned, however that article did not have inline citations to a reliable independent reference to back up that claim, and therefore I have removed the claim there also. If you wish to re-insert the claim (to either article) please provide a citation to a reliable source when doing so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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) 21:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Re: Emergency deletion
An oversighter has contacted the Wikimedia foundation about this. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Signmine 21:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Perfect. Thanks for letting me know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Demiurge1000. You have new messages at Crazymonkey1123's talk page. Message added 23:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I was wondering how to capitalize the "g" in Grinstead. Thanks for helping with that.Tara grinstead friend (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
your revision of one of my contributions
You deleted two well sourced factual links that have been constantly deleted by the subject, Peter Doroshenko, usually anonymously - but a quick look at the contributions of the various IPs used shows that he only ever edits this page. They form an important part of his work in Gateshead. It is not negative, it is, as I said, factual and well sourced - more factual and better sourced than the PR-puffery he writes about himself. 4stones4stones (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
We shouldn't be making any assumptions about who the IP address is, unless they have identified themselves. I'm aware of their antics and have commented on them before. Having the article titles under "External links" portrayed the information in the wrong way, especially since one of the titles (the Newcastle Journal one) was wrong for some reason. I've made some further edits to the article, as well as commenting on its talk page and on the talk page of the latest IP address. If the IP wants to edit war, it's fairly easy to put a stop to that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough - but anonomous IP addresses are, to my mind, usually less valid than signed pieces. But I accept your points generally. 4stones (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)4stones
Agreed on that too. I've requested semi-protection for the article, which is now in place, so perhaps the IP will come to the talk page to discuss. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Excellent - thanks. 4stones (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)4stones
Welcome templates
Just a suggestion, but when you see a new account with an obviously company name, such as SusquehannaCommunications, could you ask them to change their name rather than just adding a welcome template? It looks odd to get a welcome template and then a block, which is what happened. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, welcomed-then-blocked seems to happen all too often, even in cases where there's no obvious breach of policy in username or initial contribs. However, I'll try to remember to act on company names rather than just welcome them. We get rather a lot of them! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'm a bit surprised about your comments on blocking, maybe some of them are socks. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Mentioned
Hi, Demiurge. I mentioned you, here, on my talk, and thought you might like to have a look. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I may not get chance to comment, as I'm rather pre-occupied with non-Wikipedia things right now, and also having some internet connectivity problems. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I noticed that you posted this and that prompted me to find this, but I've not seen any intervening on-wiki communication over the question. Seems to me the community has a reasonable interest in knowing what was said in reply, given the suggestion that others would be named in any such action. I could have just missed it, although I looked carefully: Did you notice any intervening on-wiki communication about this, yourself? – OhioStandard (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I didn't. There's a possibility that Mbz1's second edit summary meant "Thanks but I've changed my mind about this", not "Thanks for your reply", but I guess we'll find out in due course. I did see a total of three comments suggesting either that Mbz1's plan was unwise, or her edit about it was concerning; two on Mbz1's talk page, and my own comment at ANI. If there has been an off-wiki reply, then it may well have indicated similar reservations. Brad's a sensible fellow, after all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, he is. I suppose most of my reaction comes from a disapproval of anyone, whoever they are, soliciting admins on their talk pages for any remotely controversial request. That's what AN/I is for. I'd welcome your thoughts here, on RolandR's page re possible sock prevention, btw, if you're interested. – OhioStandard (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It's a difficult balance, because I don't think people should go to AN/I every time they have a query. But I have seen the steady stream of different administrators being canvassed with the same or similar requests, and I do agree it's another concern.
I'm watching the sock prevention discussion, but don't really have anything to contribute for now. I edit in the P-I-A area very little, so I never recognise behavioural tells of sockpuppeteers there, and the sockpuppeteers I know about in other areas seem much easier to deal with. A different ballgame really. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Your message to Charles
You might like to take a look at WP:DTR, genuine mistakes like that should be addressed with a polite message rather than a template. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I personally don't accept that templates are, by definition, impolite. Most of them are written very politely, otherwise I wouldn't use them. Charles is happy to template regulars himself, so I doubt he has an overwhelming objection to the practice. Apart from which, that essay carries even less weight of concensus than most such essays - I've had people try to convince me, in all seriousness, that it's the newcomers that one shouldn't template. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I assume this is in relation to his comment to RCsprinter? - There the template is justifiable as that editor has been producing copious edits without edit summaries, a template explaining how to fill in an edit summary and the purpose of filling in summaries is appropriate - this is very different to a single incidence of a forgotten signature which does not require a template explaining how to create a signature they already know that - it requires a note reminding them that they forgot to fill in the signature. The fact that this is an essay is irrelevant as it simply points out that using the template may be taken as incivility under our other policies and that is certainly one possible interpretation of your actions when compared to Charles'. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Wait, what? You're suggesting there was a serious good-faith belief that Rcsprinter did not know how to enter an edit summary, at the time Charles sent him that template? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather assume Good Faith in Rcsprinter's actions as being the case of novice making a mistake because he didn't know, rather than assume he was acting in Bad Faith deliberately defying Wikipedia norms. The good faith response is surely to provide information on how and why to follow those norms. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
By your logic, a politely hand-written note would have been just as valid a way to do so, especially since I think Charles has had some disputes with Rcsprinter before. I'm finding the insinuations of "may be taken as incivility under our other policies" and "deliberately defying Wikipedia norms" to be a little more dramatic than is necessary, and I feel you would be better served looking elsewhere for examples of incivility. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
By my logic the template on RCsprinter's explained succinctly what he was repeatedly doing wrong and advised him why to correct it. The template you put on Charles' wall did nothing to explain what he accidentally did wrong once and does correctly everywhere else. Charles and Rcsprinter have had no previous interaction though you're probably mixing RC up with either Adam Mugliston or Wilbysuffolk which is easy to do since they're all so similar in terms of style and interests. This was a helpful message to point out that drive by templating for a minor infraction is generally considered patronising and unhelpful, as you seem to be unwilling to take this advice and would rather claim some sort "he did it first" argument, I see little point in continuing this discussion and for the record if I recieved a similar template, I'm sure my raction would be the same as charles'. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
That's concerning but, sadly, not entirely surprising. Bye. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
And how do you get DYKs? Where do all your ideas come from? --The Σtalkcontribs 05:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
(adding) I'm wondering because my only attempt for one failed miserably. --The Σtalkcontribs 05:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Well I have written two DYKs: G.L. Pridgen, and James B. Dudley. I only made these because, for example, Pridgen is a congressman and had been following the congressman before him and when he was elected I realized there wasn't an article so I created one. The one about Dudley I made because I also made the article on The Academy at Lincoln, and the high school that is across the street is named after him. This is where all of my DYK ideas have come from, I have a few more articles in the works as you can see here, these each have a reason as to why I have started to work on them, mostly the articles I write are about things I have at least a vague connection to. Like the article I am working on about Noteflight, I began working on this because I use Noteflight. In my searching of things to create I have found that most things are covered on Wikipedia, if even only barely, although I have been able to find things to write about. Hope this helps, Adwiii Talk 11:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it is a common problem that many of us (including myself) spend quite some time on Wikipedia but are still wondering "what new article can I add, that has not been already been made?" I spent months wondering about this, and even creating an occasional draft that I later realised would not really make it into article space, much less be a suitable DYK. One of the important things to remember is that it's fine to create a userpage of your own and just add refs there, until you decide whether that particular draft is going to be a worthwhile exercise or not. This takes a lot of the time pressure out of it.
My first DYK was largely because I was personally interested in Operation Pedestal (an amazing undertaking that came close to rivalling the Battle of Midway in some respects), and I discovered just by reading the Wikipedia article, that two of the medal-winners did not have their own articles. (Remember that you don't have to wait for a redlink, to decide something is worth doing.) Lots of googling later, the article was ready. My newest article creation Tammy Locke was because she signed onto the IRC help channel to discuss an article about herself, but she couldn't make the article because of her conflict of interest and difficulties with phrasing. I realised that she is in fact notable, and writing the article myself was an easy solution to the problem. She was in no great hurry, although she did write two versions of it herself (which both got deleted) while I was in the process of writing my version.
Examples like this are just a few of the articles out there that are waiting to be written - some guy turned up on the help channel recently about his grandfather who had made 76 appearances in significant UK football games (and even one of those appearances, as I understand it, would make him notable), and multiple appearances at international level. Although in that case there seemed to be a dearth of sources, but anyway you get the idea. There are many redlinks even where the text is black. All ships are, in theory, notable, so why are there so many blacklinks at List of largest container ships? (Don't do the 3rd entry - it's spoken for!) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Oo, thanks, I hadn't actually thought of using that! Now starting to run out of time, so here is an unformatted text dump of other proposed ideas for the hook, comments from talk page stalkers welcome...
… that Tammy Locke was called "an especially endearing little dumpling" for her performance in 1960s Western show The Monroes, but her antics on set included giving a live frog to the show's hairdresser?
Disadvantages: exactly 200 characters, slightly ungainly hook trying to present two facts.
Advantages: Quote is eye-catching (albeit not unusual), gets across idea of child actor without needing to say it, frog fact is unusual.
… that Tammy Locke's antics as a child actor playing Amy on the set of 1960s Western show The Monroes including giving a live frog to the show's hairdresser as a gift?
… that Tammy Locke's career as a child actor included a scene of her comforting her blood-soaked and dying father, which she objected to on the grounds that her mother would be angry if her clothes got dirty?
Disadvantages: 204 characters so too long, no context of which shows are involved, which is what would draw many readers in.
… that when the script for Once a Thief required child actor Tammy Locke to talk to her blood-soaked and dying father, she objected on the grounds that her mother would be angry if her clothes got dirty?
Disadvantages: 203 characters so too long... also not sure if there is a source that explicitly confirms that's the movie this happened in.
… that Tammy Locke was described as "an especially endearing little dumpling" by the Christian Science Monitor for her performance as Amy in 1960s Western show The Monroes?
Advantages: Short, punchy, eye-catching quote.
Disadvantages: Not unusual – people say things like this about child actors all the time.
… that Tammy Locke was described as "an especially endearing little dumpling" for her performance as Amy in 1960s Western show The Monroes?
Advantages: Even shorter and punchier, eye-catching quote.
Disadvantages: Not unusual – people say things like this about child actors all the time.
… that Tammy Locke's various childhood acting roles involved her being a family member of characters played by Robert Redford, Diana Hyland, Ann-Margret, Alain Delon and Jack Palance ?
Advantages: The names dropped are well known, people like celebrities I guess. Tammy will love it.
Disadvantages: Will have to do some work to confirm exactly which source confirms each actor being a family member of her roles, and may not even be able to find sources explicitly confirming all of them. Is it unusual enough – can't lots of people claim similar circumstances? Is this sort of name-drop mania acceptable?
I like mine, your first one, second one, and third one. And does the expansion time for a DYK count if you expand it in an invisible comment? --The Σtalkcontribs 03:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by invisible comment. The DYK rules refer to text that's "readable prose" - so for example, I think material in tables, image captions and so on are excluded. I'm sure that would exclude comments as well.
For the DYK, I am going to go with my first suggestion for now, but I keep having second thoughts :) Anyway it's good that I think I met the 5 day (8 day in Swahili) deadline. There's still time to change it if opinion swings in favour of a new and better hook. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
By invisible comment I mean that if I did the main expansion in an invisible comment like here and removed it, when did the expansion start? --The Σtalkcontribs 02:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
It's still not clear what you're proposing. It would go by the spirit of the rules, not the letter of them, don't you think? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for being so helpful
I would like to thank you for all you do for Wikipedia. I think you are a good role model for other editors! You ask politely for people to do things, and i think that is great! Thanks Again- --Winning79 (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you! Just doing the best I can... after all, we are here to build an encyclopedia, and to do that, people are required - so people matter, and so does how we treat them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
hmm i’ve just read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guidance_for_younger_editors. you said I could give feeback so ok.i think that a lot of it is common sense especialy the"Your safety and security."
but I did find "If you write a new article about a subject that really belongs on Wikipedia, you have improved our encyclopedia, which is why we are all here. Some new articles are deleted because they are unsuitable. People are often confused about what should be in an encyclopedia, and the place to find out is at What Wikipedia is not. If your work gets deleted, please don't be discouraged or take it personally: many of our best editors have had some of their articles deleted." helpful. it realy does make me feel a LOT less antagonized
"Help clean up. Because it's easy to edit the encyclopedia, some people think it's funny to do stupid things to it. We don't think it's funny, and we call it vandalism. If you see something that is obviously very silly or rude and shouldn't be here, you can go ahead and delete it. When you get more used to which kinds of articles are allowed and which aren't, you can join the discussions that decide which articles should be kept or deleted. You can also offer your opinion on whether some of our policies should be changed, or which editors should be made administrators" i definitly aren’t someone who messes around and i don’t want t o destroy anythin here. but i do kinda feel that Σ did exactly that. he deleted cecilia grace. without telling me
"Wikipedia isn't MySpace, Facebook, or Twitter" but i though it was. it’s a place to tell others about yourself
plagiarism, libel i understand, as well as being polite and advice. i think that i’ve lerned a great deal just by reading this. even though i disagre with some stuff, it IS rather helpful
about politeness again i don’t think Σ did that he was totally rude to me "And now, the ultimate question: Why?" and he told me to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMPETENCE that was rude to
Administrators - can you help me become one. i think it would be a cool fun job. do I get paid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan (talk • contribs) 17:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It's nice to see a positive coments about our advice pages. Now read: User:Kudpung/Advice for RfA candidates. Don't let it put you off, but I think you won't be ready for it for a long while, at least until you remember to sign your posts ;) And no, we don't get paid for being admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The essay WP:COMPETENCE has been nominated for deletion before, and the most important reason for keeping it was that it is a piece of advice for those considering blocking or banning people in certain circumstances, not a link to be given to a person one feels fits those circumstances. If the essay is mostly used the latter way, then the essay deserves to be deleted. So yes, Σ was wrong to give you that link, if that's what he did (I haven't re-read it all in detail).
I am really grateful for you taking the time to give your thoughts about the Guidance for younger editors essay. It gets seen by a lot of people, and that's important not just because it might help some of Wikipedia's future contributors in their first steps, but also because it gives many people ideas that are useful on other internet sites too. And that could be a lot more important than just benefitting the encyclopedia.
As Kudpung has said, the requirements for being an administrator on Wikipedia right now are rather high, but still administrators don't get paid. Also I doubt it is very much fun to be an administrator - administrators are appointed to carry out menial tasks and to be abused by the more fortunate editors who are not administrators :-) ... so how much fun can that be? I think the important thing is to have fun making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia in areas that you know about, and if someone later tries to persuade you to become an administrator, fight them off at that time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
About the edit war
Hello, the user that I was reverting has now been blocked, but his edit remains, could you undo his edit since my hands are bound by the 3RR? Also I do think that I am an exception to edit warring because I was reverting certain vandalism (user continued to blank the section even after multiple users discussed that it was not the right thing to do on the talk page)... That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 21:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't become "certain vandalism" just because one or two editors think the material is suitable for inclusion. Equally, the other editor could argue that he is not bound by 3RR because he is removing material that is in breach of WP:BLP - an equally weak argument in this case. There is no rush to re-include this rather weakly sourced and disputed material into this BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Demiurge1000. You have new messages at Talk:Alex Day. Message added 23:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello! Your submission of Tammy Locke at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SilverserenC 08:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I replied and it's still a tad too long. SilverserenC 09:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
A really weird thank you...
The Special Barnstar
Okay, this is a bizarre reason for which to give out a barnstar, but I, Thecheesykid, thank you for your warning and for your message advising me to slow down. It helped me see some sense. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 18:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Archival of templates
MizlaBot archived your talk page without tl'ing a template, so I did that and left a note here. --Gryllida 01:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree it would be a good idea for the bot to do that when it archives.
On the other hand, maybe the request for uninvolved help template itself should be deprecated, if it regularly fails to generate a response for several weeks, as happened here. As a possible way round that, I notice that templates like helpme and adminhelp are noted and advertised by Helpmebot, so perhaps it could do the same for the uninvolved help template. A lot of helpme and adminhelp requests are actually quite esoteric conduct and content questions, rather than simple editing questions or admin housekeeping requests, so the additional requests probably wouldn't be too tricky for helpers to deal with. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Amaranthe
Userfied per your request.[1] Thank you for stepping up to the plate. Risker (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
On 22 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tammy Locke, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Tammy Locke was called "an especially endearing little dumpling" for her role in 1960s western TV series The Monroes, but her antics on set included giving a live frog to the show's hairdresser? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.
Sent you an email per your question on the AHA article, and due to privacy issues, can you maybe remove your question (and my answer) from the talk page of the article in question? I am glad to resolve the issue, but I don't want to have my identity accessible via wikipedia, and the question could lead there, albeit indirectly. Thanks ;-) Montanabw(talk) 18:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Done, and I'll send a reply to your email later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Groovy. Can you (you are an admin?) remove the comment/answer from history altogether or not? Montanabw(talk) 17:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I can't, but I have just emailed oversight to request it. I won't have time to reply to your email properly until tomorrow, incidentally, but don't worry since the reply won't say anything very exciting :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, oversight said no. I'll ask about RevDel when I have a moment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Okey dokey. I won't fret. Montanabw(talk) 20:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Revdel is now done, also including some edits that needed it here and several other places. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to all involved. Wonder if the COI template is needed on the AHA article? If so, I won't get my unders in a bunch about it, but seems a bit much as in that article's context, I'm not of any importance to the organization whatsoever, really. Montanabw(talk) 19:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
What shall we do about this article - did you have a look at the possible copy vio? I only found that article and her website bio is also a similar article..? Is she notable? Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I've requested semi-protection as a first step. I've not had time to look into notability, but if there isn't much out there then we should AfD it. If the non-controversial current content of the article is directly copypasted from her website then you may wish to stubbify it in the meantime anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I reported the IP at the vandal noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 08:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Request
Demiurge1000, can we talk via some real-time chat now? Maybe I'll be lucky enough to convince you that I am a normal person and you will then persuade That Ole Cheesy Dude to talk to me. 78.128.185.9 (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I just replied to this on his talk page. Yes, talk to me on IRC. Or, if you prefer, create yourself an account on Wikipedia with email enabled, and I will email you there. But the other editor has said he does not wish to speak to you privately, and I recommend that you respect that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding added material "2G spectrum..." in article " Subrata Roy"
Since the concerned matter is sub-judice, i.e. pending before court of law, any vexatious or biased comment or accusation causing damage to the image and reputation of an individual in lieu of any court verdict against the said individual, amounts to a criminal offence of Defamation under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. All persons who draft, publish, or aid and assist in drafting or publishing any such defamatory content are liable to be prosecuted in the court of law.
--115.113.103.104 (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Just a note that the IP address has been blocked for making legal threats, and that another contributor has questioned the relevance of the "Indian Penal Code" to people and organisations that are not in India. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you for telling me! It's a real help. Btw, the size of some of those satellite images is so immense, and my computer is already packed with tropical storm database downloads :) Thanks!! Hurricanefan25 (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
BTW I'm often in chatrooms. Is there a Wikipedia chatroom, or a hurricane one? You seem to know a lot about wiki so I thought I might ask you. Hurricanefan25 (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, see the lower left portion of Wikipedia:Questions, under "Live chat help". If you can get that to work, type /join #wiki-hurricanes once you are already in the chat, and it will (additionally) add you to an IRC chat with some names in that you might find familiar :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, there's a hurricane chat room? Now I've seen it all. Well, I hope you settle in there Hurricanefan. I'll reply to your questions tomorrow morning, I hope that's alright. Also while I'm here, Hi Demiurge1000, hope all's well. WormTT· (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
From what I remember of last year, the hurricane channel seems to be about pokemon a lot of the time, but it's been around for a good few years. Yeah I'm doing great, just trying to dig myself out from under the far too many things I started doing all at once :-) I hear you got yourself talked into undergoing a painful bureaucratic procedure - I'll hopefully drop by tomorrow and see how that's going. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I know the feeling. I can't remember the last time (before, er a couple of nights ago) where I had a nice quiet evening helping people on IRC. So much to do, so little time. As for the painful bureaucratic procedure, I ended up talking myself into it, still waiting for the pain to kick in though, I'm sure I pissed someone off somewhere... WormTT· (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
In appreciation
The Airborne Barnstar
For copy editing Operation Fustian, I have great pleasure in awarding you the Airborne Barnstar. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Really appreciate the work you did. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Awesome, what a great barnstar to have. It was really fascinating to do... having grown up playing computer games based on Operation Market Garden and later walking across the John Frost Bridge (carrying an umbrella for leadership purposes of course), only while doing this copyediting did I discover that poor old John Frost had already been cut off and nearly overrun at an earlier "bridge slightly too far" during Fustian, over a year before Arnhem. It really gives an idea of the courage of these paratroopers, it wasn't just the Arnhem operation that went wrong, but almost every mission they went on involved complete chaos, surrounded behind enemy lines, waiting for relief columns that were always late, knowing they would mostly be without heavy weapons while facing tanks - and then to plan to do the same thing again, repeatedly! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Not just twice in North Africa covered a bit here. Frosts 2nd Battalion was dropped behind the German lines to capture an airfield and expected the rest of the army to advance and relieve them. Stiff German resistance meant they British 1st Army was held up at the start line. Frost when he contacted 1st Army was told, as the battalion was trapped fifty miles behind the German lines, they had been written off. The battalion surrounded managed to fight through to the British lines, with around sixty per cent casualties. Sometimes Hollywood etc, does not do them justice. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
There already is one! It's at imdb! Wikipedia doesn't have articles about short films unless they are uniquely ground-breaking in some major way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Mig (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I have credits on IMDb -- what are you talking about?Mig (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies. I was talking about Wikipedia. Were you asking about something else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
It's just one more credit and since it was on my page -- the link didn't go anywhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migdia_Chinea_Varela I personally don't know what to do with it. All the other information on my page is accurate and I can vouch for that. Mig (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
If you could help me post it correctly -- it would be greatly appreciated. I have not had a chance to do anything much since my schedule at UCLA is so grueling. I'm trying to do many things at once -- thanx very much!
Hi Adrienne. Yes the username change shouldn't be a problem; the current text will end up being at your new userpage on the renamed account, instead of your current userpage, so you won't lose anything.
The main heading for the article is dependent on the current page name... so when your draft gets moved to Levels of edit (which I think it is almost ready for) then the title should look correct. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
July 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Thanks. The article subject seems to intend to continue editing the article, but is at least doing so with some care and a willingness to discuss issues. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Demiurge1000. You have new messages at Oddbodz's talk page. Message added 08:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
It seems to be a popular phonetic mis-spelling around here, but it always makes me think of what happens to plastic toy soldiers when they get too close to fire. If one doesn't have plastic toy soldiers to try this out on, it is simulated quite well in the video game series Army Men, whenever you get hold of a flamethrower. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd Like to Put a Mainspace Title on My Article & Move It
Hi, Demiurge1000.
My article is now under my new username (Cavlthb). Thank you for the suggestion.
I tried my best over several days to figure out how to add a title (Levels of Edit) without the prefix and move my article from its current draft form to the Mainspace as a regular article, but have been unable to figure out how to do that. Would you help?
Thanks again so very much for your kind help in the past.
It works like this but that option isn't visible until you have at least ten edits (and you only have seven). So I've gone ahead and moved it to Levels of edit for you. Now an interesting question is... can you think of a WikiProject that it would come under? None of Computing, Literature or Books seems quite right, somehow... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
DYK hook suggestions from talk page stalkers?
Hello, talk page stalkers! It's that time again where thoughts on a hook for Did you know? are needed. My last DYK submission, Tammy Locke, with some feedback on the proposed hooks from User:Σ, managed three thousand hits in six hours. Can we do better this time?
The article is Rajinder Kaur Bhattal. Not heard of her? Well, she served as chief minister of a state with a population of nearly twenty-eight million, and is still active in politics. It would be lovely to make a hook based on the alleged teacher-slapping incident (see the second ref) and some of the scuffles in the state assembly, but sadly that won't wash for a BLP on the main page. So right now I'm thinking of something like;
... that Rajinder Kaur Bhattal was the first female chief minister of Punjab, but only the eighth female chief minister of an Indian state?
Other ideas, or improvements, very welcome!
(It's going to be DYK per the "Former unsourced BLP" rule, which only requires a twofold excpansion. Or so I plan.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello from Saintfevrier, about WikiProject Schools
Hi and thanks for the welcome:)
I wrote a question on the WikiProject Schools talk page (Creation of new article on a Greek school) regarding an article that I want to write. Being new on English Wikipedia - which is a zillion times bigger than Greek Wikipedia - i still haven't learned the ropes... maybe I wrote on the wrong page, but no-one has answered my question. I'm turning to you, because you seem quick and willing to help out... please could you read the entry and advise me, or reference me to the right topic for submitting my question? Thanks in advance, all the best from the island of Kefalonia, Greece :) --Saintfevrier (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you do have the right place at WikiProject Schools, and I imagine someone will get round to replying soon. The best place to start for information on categories, templates etc, is Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. If you start a new page at User:Saintfevrier/Argostoli High School (just click on the red link and create the page; it can always be renamed later) that will be a perfect way of beginning. A featured school article to look at as an example is The Judd School.
In general, high schools are normally considered to be notable, so hopefully that shouldn't be too much of an issue. However, does the school operate as an ordinary high school during the day as well, or only during the evening? That does seem unusual.
Unfortunately the closest I've ever been to Kefalonia, apart from flying over it, was Delphi. As a schoolboy I spent a great deal of time reading about the military and political affairs of the ancient inhabitants of Corfu just to the north of you, because of their significance in the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply! It's good to hear that the article would be welcome on English Wikipedia, as there was a bit of a debate on whether the article is worthy of a place on Greek Wikipedia. Luckily, the consensus agreed in favor of leaving the article in place (the argument that made the case is that there are few schools in Greece that have earned a European distinction as we have, and that that is something worth noting).
The example you gave The Judd School is mind-blowing! Wow, we don't have anything close to a history like that... however, there is an interesting story to be told behind the establishment, which was originally a girls' school named after one of the most significant benefactors of our island. The building now houses three high schools and a vocational school, but I work for the Evening High School for students aged 14 up. You see, in Greece evening education is available in most all prefectures, to provide education opportunities to working students. The classrooms and other school facilities are all used in the daytime as well (my older daughter attends one of the day high schools), but the three schools are technically separate entities in terms of staff, administration etc. I hope you understand what I mean...
Corfu is indeed the "landmark" I use when trying to describe to a foreigner where my island is, as it's much more "famous" than Kefalonia. Of course, right next to us is Ithaca, the home of Odysseus (and there's an ongoing debate on whether Homer's Ithaca was actually the island of Ithaki - as it is called in Greek - or the south part of Kefalonia...) and of course, many Britons are familiar with Kefalonia after the success of the book Captain Corelli's Mandolin by Louis de Bernières.
Thanks again, and I'll get to reading up about WikiProject Schools and writing the article:) --Saintfevrier (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Demiurge1000. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi, at least you aren't as downright officious and dismissive as SudoGhost.
Re my desire to see the Terminology and Sland section included: these aren't just MY recollections, nor just the recollections of those who have contributed to that section, but they will be, as I say, the recollections of each and every boy who has attended the OS.
I think my point is very valid: the section provides an extra dimension to the OS entry, in that it helps to convey the character and ethos of the school. British public schools pride themselves on their unique character and that is not just PR bull for would-be parents. The OS did have a certain character and the various entries, including the Terminology and Slang section, do convey that. That is something SudoGhost and you don't, perhaps appreciate. (Are you British? Did you attend a British public school? I notice SudoGhost remains schtumm on the matter. There is far, far more to a horse than it being merely a herbivorous quadruped.
I would also repeat my point about spurious 'sourcing': take a look at the entry for the game of Spoons and explain to me how well it meets the apparently rigid Wiki requirement of sourcing. I would say that it doesn't even start to do so. And that is just one example I have chosen at random (because the game is as far removed from the OS entry as can be). In the OS entry itself, I should pont out that the Introduction itself ('The Oratory School aims to assist parents in fulfilling their obligation to educate their children in accordance with the principles and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The School educates boys . . .') isn't 'sourced'. It might well be true, but how can that information be verified in such a way that charmless committee men like SudoGhost are satisfied?
Finally, how and why did the Terminology and Slang section survive for quite a few years if, according to SudoGhost it so badly fails to meet Wiki's strict requirements? Were not others previously offended by the section's irregular nature? Apparently not, or it would have been removed far, far sooner. (BTW it was there when I first came across the entry years ago. I didn't originate it.) Pfgpowell (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I have a great many opinions on this (I'm British and did not attend the school in question) but my opinions should wait until I reply to emails that I'm supposed to have completed days ago. Talk page stalkers are welcome to offer opinions in the meantime. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Right, let's begin. First of all, you do nothing for your argument by describing people as "officious" or "charmless committeeman" just because they disagree with you. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines for content, and although editors in general are free to ignore all such rules, they do exist for a reason and editors do attempt to apply them to articles.
Your argument that some editors are unqualified to make decisions on this topic area because of their nationality or background, is a familiar one. Editors do indeed have differing perceptions of particular questions of content due to their background. Recently a U.S. editor was dealing with enquiries from a representative of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, and I found it interesting that the U.S. editor seemingly had no particular idea that the significance and reputation of such an organisation was greatly different from the steady stream of wonder-cure quack medical organisations and spammy internet marketing organisations that they had dealt with the same day. Equally, I regularly see British editors criticised on the grounds of "but you're British, how could you possibly make a decision about whether the renowned Hicksville, Alabama Bingo Club deserves its own Wikipedia article???"
So we need methods of dealing with such differences in viewpoint. One means for doing so is that we have policies and guidelines that provide a way of assessing the suitability of material regardless of a particular individual's viewpoint or knowledge of the topic. So for example, for the existence of articles we have the general notability guideline, and for the inclusion of material we have the policy on verifiability. You may regard this as all very bureaucratic, but it's necessary precisely because we need an objective means of assessing such questions.
The other means of dealing with such widely varying viewpoints and perspectives, is that we make decisions by concensus, and thus there will be a range of different people that can offer their views on it.
Now, where does this leave our disputed material? First, there is the issue of verifiability. As you rightly point out, a lot of material in Wikipedia is not backed up by references with inline citations - or by any references at all. However, the existence of such material doesn't mean that we want to introduce more unreferenced material. It just means we haven't quite finished yet. Verifiability is a core policy on Wikipedia; it is required. The policy says "editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references" - well in this case, you've now had years to find references, but your view seems to be that you simply don't need to find any.
In particular, the OS article currently lacks adequate references even after the deletion of the disputed material. That doesn't make the disputed material any more acceptable. One of the problems that you face with the disputed material is that it is a huge section of text that is all unsourced, and this adds to the issues it has with relevancy, which I'm about to cover.
The point about relevancy is that although there are no practical limits on the quantity of information that can be included in Wikipedia, it is still an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. What proportion of the disputed material is actually encyclopedic content? I would argue that a large proportion of it could only ever be of possible interest to former pupils of the school. You argue that the disputed material is important for demonstrating the character and ethos of the school. However, the school has been in operation for well over 150 years, so how does the frequenting of a particular shop by pupils for just a couple of decades in the twentieth century reflect the school's character and ethos for the whole of its history? I appreciate that boarding schools, and British public schools in particular, offer hard-to-quantify advantages beyond just ordinary secondary education, but does it really help with that, for us to document that the pupils buy products from a Londis corner shop just like pupils of hundreds of other schools all over the UK?
The disputed material is distinctly dated - while some of it is in the present tense, much of it is in the past tense, and seems to be referring specifically to a set of arrangements in a narrow period of the latter half of the twentieth century. "Classes were also held until 7pm"? Well, are they still? When did this change? Was it the case from the founding in 1859 onwards? And so on. I do feel that you have a perception that the ethos and character of the school, which you quite reasonably seek to emphasise, was in fact defined by how things were run in that one particular historical period. A golden age, so to speak. It's natural for pupils of any school to feel that way, and even more so for pupils of a boarding school with a distinct ethos. However, a Wikipedia article on a school can convey a sense of the school's whole history, its ethos and its character, and even brief coverage of unique aspects like local slang, while still remaining encyclopedic and providing proper sources. Take a look, for example, at The Avery Coonley School and The Judd School.
Now, I'd say there is a place for some of the disputed material. It's entirely reasonable to have a sentence mentioning that the school uses (or used) slang particular to it, with a few examples (bratting, beating, refectory and its pronunciation, or whatever). It's entirely reasonable to mention when bratting (and indeed beating) was formally abolished. It's reasonable to have a detailed description of the more significant aspects of the layout of the school, mentioning the relocation of the old entrance pillars for example. I would even suggest that Wikipedia has some articles (prefect and caning for example) that are so direly in need of additional properly referenced information, that brief mentions of OS slang for these, or OS approaches to them, would be well worth adding.
Clearly, like many other people, you feel that British public schools have a particular importance and role in greater proportion than their mere numbers. That should be easy enough to establish and verify with references; but British public school merely redirects to Independent school (United Kingdom), which talks mainly about independent schools generally, rather than public schools in particular. If the ethos and character is as important as you and many others think, then what should be happening is for referenced information to be put into an article explaining that, rather than unreferenced trivia being added to articles on individual schools.
However, going back to verifiability, rather than relevancy, again, for any of this material to be added, it does need a source. And why should it be so difficult to find one? If the school is of the importance you suggest, then presumably someone has written a history of it? Such a history would almost certainly be written by an ex-pupil, and thus would surely mention many of these aspects that you see as key to school life. Even if there is no such history, if the school is significant then it will have many significant alumni, and their biographies or autobiographies would be suitable sources for some of the material.
Hopefully this makes clear to you why it's reasonable to demand sources for this material, but I will also answer your specific points about why you feel it sources are not necessary. The disputed material was not in the article for "many" years; it was in the article for a moderate period of time, a few years ago. Standards for verifiability were lower then; they have improved. The article was not paid much attention back then. Unfortunately, this is common for school articles. But the interest in the article increased, and the disputed material was challenged. To go back in, it needs sources. You also mentioned that other parts of the article are unsourced, for example the fact that it is a boys-only school. Yes, these statements should be sourced too (although if material is sourced in the body of the article then it does not need sourcing separately in the lead); typically, citing the OFSTED report would be the most common way of doing so.
I think all of the disputed material is worth preserving for posterity - just, not all of it has a place on Wikipedia. Perhaps http://www.wikia.com/ has a suitable place for hosting such things, or could provide one. I believe http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/ has a facility for posting memories of a particular school, and similar material. These types of sites are ideal for that sort of material that cannot be sourced, or that is unencyclopedic - but would still be of interest to former pupils, of whom I guess there are quite a few thousands in this case. However, improving the quality of Wikipedia articles with sourced encyclopedic material is, in my mind, much more worthwhile.
You mentioned escalating the disagreement to whoever makes decisions on such things. The starting point for this is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I briefly read your comments a while ago and then properly recently and, to be honest, you and I - and your sort and my sort - are on different planets. I don't, by the way argue that 'some editors are unqualified to make decisions on this topic ... ' and the fact that you interpret my comments to mean that merely tells me that you will, and would never, understand what I am trying to get across. I take it you did pick up on my reference to a certain My Gradgrind, and you and the other chappie remind me a great deal of him. My description of him (and I rather think you) as a 'charmless committeman' still holds, I think: its the process you seem to be concerned with, to the exclusion of anything else. The rules, my dear, the rules, we must never - ever! - ignore the rules. The rules, my dear, give life life. And that's the end of it, so let's hear no more on the matter. Yet almost every times I dip into Wikipedia - and I am not looking for obscure pages - I come across entries which drive a coach and four right through your and the other chappie's insistence of 'sourcing' and 'verifiability', yet they seem to escape you concerned attention. Here's an example, copied and pasted from the Wiki entry for Andrew Marr verbatim:
Marr returned to The Independent as the newspaper's political editor in 1992, and became its editor in 1996. His period as editor coincided with a particularly turbulent time at the paper. Faced with price cutting by the Murdoch-owned Times, sales had begun to decline, and Marr made two attempts to arrest the slide. He made use of bold 'poster-style' front pages, and then in 1996 radically re-designed the paper along a mainland European model, with Gill Sans headline fonts, and stories being themed and grouped together, rather than according to strict news value. This tinkering ultimately proved disastrous. The limited advertising budget meant the paper's re-launch struggled to get noticed, and when it did, it was mocked for reinterpreting its original marketing slogan 'It Is - Are You' to read 'It's changed - have you?'. The response from some was that many existing readers had indeed changed - to The Guardian. At the beginning of 1998 Marr was sacked after refusing to implement a further round of redundancies.
I'm not saying none of it is true, but I do note than none of the claims are 'sourced' or 'verified', unless they are in some way which completely eludes me.
Nor do I, as you claim' consider that 'British public schools have a particular importance and role in greater proportion than their mere numbers', in fact far,far from it. I don't and never have done. Yet it is pertinent to this whole discussion that you make what sounds rather close to being a political point and should level that charge at me.
But life is far too short, there are far more interesting things for me to get irritated by and, as I say, you and I inhabit parallel universes. So what the hell, have it your way, and insist that an interesting entry on the OS must remain just a little duller than it might otherwise be because of 'the rules, my dear, the rules'. Pfgpowell (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Tammy Locke at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SilverserenC 08:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
but that option isn't visible until you have at least ten edits (and you only have seven). So I've gone ahead and moved it to Levels of edit for you. Now an interesting question is... can you think of a WikiProject that it would come under? None of Computing, Literature or Books seems quite right, somehow... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
