User talk:Demiurge1000/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

The below material is possibly relating to Manchester Grammar School? How would we know that?

Well,now. You could, I suppose, ask the school to send you a copy of the reproduced appeal, or place it online, if you want to verify the contents. The school archivist is very nice and would be only too keen to help.

But my acquaintance with Wikipedia suggests to me that the accusation of 'original research' is paradoxical. If I find something out in unpublished records Wikipedia would be an unlikely place to publish it. I might be lucky and find an editor who has an idea of what is involved, but it's unlikely. But I might tell Demiurge. If he publishes it in Wikipedia, and gives me as an authority, he is not guilty of 'original research' but I might still be. The distinction is silly. A source is a source. No editor knows all the answers, but if he or she is going to contribute then some knowledge of where to ask the questions and who to ask is helpful. The editorial intervention to which I took exception is, I think, deficient in that respect. The issue of verifying factual detail about the buildings is a non-issue. The school isn't going to lie about its buildings - a very large number of pupils and former pupils would soon let you know if it did. More importantly, it publishes what it does. All architectural works of reference date rapidly, but they don't vanish from libraries. The local Press used to be very keen to publish stuff about local institutional goings on. Of all things, having done a bit of research, buildings - even old ones - are among the least problematic things to verify. The problems (not just with buildings) start when some printed authority makes a slip and later users repeat it, parrot fashion. Wikipedia often attracts this, because contributors find it easier to rely on secondary sources (they won't be accused of original research if they do, for one thing). In the UK, biographical article relying on the ODNB can often be well wide of the facts. An encyclopedia has a duty to be accurate. If it doesn't want to be, fine. But banning the results of 'original research' simply because it hasn't been put into a school textbook doesn't preserve or strengthen authority. It undermines it.

In the context of the MGS article, which I haven't looked at very often, perhaps twice since 2011, my sense is that a good deal of it originates from the school's own publications for parents and prospective parents or pupils. A lot of school Wikipedia articles are put together like that, and well-meaning folk often make sure that nothing untoward gets in. My last contribution to the talk page suggested that the decision to preserve independence in the late 1960s lost the school some valued teaching staff. I knew some of them. It wasn't even a proposal for an edit of the main text. It has been airbrushed. I'm not surprised, or even much concerned. But if Wikipedia works like this, and on other matters offers an opportunity for editors to use editorial conventions as sticks to beat each other with in no very obviously good cause then it must learn to take a bit of criticism. The talk page is very interesting to a one-time pupil from the mid fifties, and I recognise a lot of the baggage. Best to let it run. As it happens (see 'the Etom of the North' I was there when a Manchester Grammar School cricket team visited Fettes in 1955 - possibly all of us are still alive. I subsequently taught in Scotland. I could say a good deal on that basis about what took place on a beautiful June day in the middle of a railway strike. I will restrict it here, apart from saying the match was drawn, and we were entertained in their venerable pavilion, to saying that I was very amused to find the other day that the likelihood is that Fettes's trustees,who were associated with the British Linen Bank, which among other things made an enormous amount of money as the British Linen Company steering Scots production of coarse linen (osnaburghs) to its natural market (slave clothing) from the late 1740s onwards, (Fettes himself was a director from 1800) decided after his death that his requirements for his foundation of a school for the orphans of the poor, or the sons of those who could not afford to educate them would best be realised by creating a boarding school on the Arnoldian model for the children of the middle class, were, in allowing the his funds to accumulate until this could be afforded, sitting on a sum a proportion of which can be shown to have originated as slave compensation money. The High Master I mentioned had been a Fettes pupil, incidentally. The relationship appeared to have been forgotten by the Fettes of 1955. Our meritocratic Manchester origins weren't at all consonant with the offspring of the Scottish professional classes we were meeting - for the first time in our lives.

At the moment I can't sign in for some reason. If you need any more boring stuff on sources or 'original research', let me know.

When I started writing this, I thought it would be a brief private message. No i find it's creative commons. So be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.179.37 (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Some of the more detailed articles I've created on Wikipedia, such as Anthony Chenevix-Trench, partly concern Fettes (also one of my more recognised articles, The Land of Lost Content). On a more proletarian level, I sat the MGS exam (and I think did an interview) in the late 20th century, and gained a place at the school, but agreed with my parents that a different (less prominent but equally competitive) school was a better place to be.

So I'd be fascinated to hear more details on what exactly transpired when MGS visited Fettes!

I should mention that some slightly deranged people watch my talk page very closely, especially on topics related to this, so I suggest you don't give away things that lead to your name or indeed anyone else's. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: I have removed some of the stray spaces you used; thus more of what you wrote is now visible to ordinary people. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you summarise. Makro (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I was replying to the comment immediately above my reply. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• And, yes, I've corresponded with the school archivist before, quite some time ago. When did you first correspond with her? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Last year, when I was trying to remember the Thanksgiving for benefactors which is printed in the document I referred to, but I'd also corresponded with "Basher" Baillie, a member of staff from my time, who looked after the archives until his death, mainly about Paton's Covenanting ancestry. I was a pupil of the peak of the Eric James period - no interviews, just two entrance exams, and 100% help with fees. Only the uniform cap compulsory wear - you got it from a shop in St Anne's Square. I can't say first hand exactly what happened on the field at Fettes, because I didn't actually play, but by everything I heard, they would have given their right arms to have beaten us. When we arrived, on foot, carrying cricket bags having marched down the processional approach, they didn't even invite us inside the massive main building. i don't think that helped - it was a hot afternoon. And we lost the toss. Next day Loretto couldn't have been friendlier, but they also beat us, by a handsome margin. The only player who made a mark later was David Green, Lancashire and Gloucestershire - who now I come to think of it, is dead. I should have mentioned Pevsner, but as i said, I don't have it - it's in Scotland and the old edition. Useful you left a note onColin Chisholm - I'd just checked his father's disposition and settlement and found I'd made another error on the talk page. I still can't believe that, using the internet only, I can correct the ODNB. But most of their Highland articles, even in the revised edition, are very poor. best wishes14:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delahays (talk • contribs)

Online editing of the ODNB? Our article says "Response to the new dictionary has been for the most part positive, but in the months following publication there was occasional criticism of the dictionary in some British newspapers and periodicals for reported factual inaccuracies.[3][4] However, the number of articles publicly queried in this way was small – only 23 of the 50,113 articles published in September 2004, leading to fewer than 100 substantiated factual amendments. These and other queries received since publication are being considered as part of an ongoing programme of assessing proposed corrections or additions to existing subject articles, which can, when approved, be incorporated into the online edition of the dictionary." That certainly doesn't suggest that anyone but the ODNB can make changes to the online edition. Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Added: http://www.mako.co.il/news-israel/local/Article-70226fc50f79341004.htm?sCh=3d385dd2dd5d4110. --Noel baran (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Demiurge. Assuming your caution was addressed to me, I was merely extending the lede in pro, summarizing material already in the main article, and removing citations that were repeated opposite the same points lower down. You may agree with me that the lede is not the most suitable place for citations, or even too many links. Valetude (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Valetude. No, I think Noel has copied my message from his talk page back here. I think I'm in broad agreement with your edits as regards Operations Bodyguard etc. (Sorry, have been rather short of time). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Noel. Thank you for posting the link here; various edits to the biography got rather involved and left me a bit confused (doesn't take much). Your original edit (and source) are now back in the article I think. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The two GANS

I did delay them and threw them on the back burner, but more so because I had several other issues to take care of. I cannot easily get the sources and fix the articles myself - I am placing them on hold, but there are several issues which are going to be difficult to resolve and I am unable to do the necessary fixes. I'll give this extra time, but Third Battle of Gaza is the one I think has the best chance of passing, but the MINREF issue for the specific claims needs to be handled. They are stacked up on each other and I don't want RoslynSKP to break the topic ban, because even discussing it could be an issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Gday - FYI I left a note over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#GA_reviews_for_Battle_of_Rafa_and_Third_Battle_of_Gaza in the hope some other editors may be able to assist as well. Anotherclown (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, thank you very much for taking this up, as I feel it would be a great pity if these potential GAs fell through, particularly in this WWI anniversary year. I hadn't really thought through the exact implications of the topic ban when I offered to help, and now have much less time than when I made that offer. One thought does occur to me; if the most significant obstacle is likely to be access to key sources, and Roslyn cannot assist with that due to the topic ban, would it be appropriate for someone to ask Roslyn to email them so that key queries about the exact contents of the sources could be addressed to Roslyn privately? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure if there is any policy that relates to this I personally wouldn't have an issue with that if an editor was prepared to offer to act in this manner. Anotherclown (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Battle for No.3 Post

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing other editors' posts

Please don't remove another editor's comment as you did at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Worm That Turned. Your edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by Chedzilla (talk): Rv presumed troubled person." is not acceptable; it is not your place to presume, particularly concerning another editor's state of mind. You owe Ched an apology at the very least. --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
30		Dan Byles (talk)						Add sources
71		United Kingdom by-election records (talk)						Add sources
538		The Day After (talk)						Add sources
245		Zac Goldsmith (talk)						Add sources
447		Deccan Plateau (talk)						Add sources
36		Tim Loughton (talk)						Add sources
13		Michael Connarty (talk)						Cleanup
206		United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal (talk)						Cleanup
18		Christmas gift-bringer (talk)						Cleanup
322		Nach Baliye 5 (talk)						Expand
19		Glyn Davies (politician) (talk)						Expand
29		James Gray (British politician) (talk)						Expand
70		Helen Grant (politician) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
10		Three Rivers District Council (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
15,179		Duck Dynasty (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
613		Gallipoli (talk)						Merge
12		Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008 (talk)						Merge
6,324		Penis (talk)						Merge
197		Jeremy Hunt (politician) (talk)						Wikify
11		Dingle Foot (talk)						Wikify
29		Stephen Byers (talk)						Wikify
11		Inkjet solar cell (talk)						Orphan
3		Instrument effect (talk)						Orphan
8		A Ballad for Chanakkale (talk)						Orphan
6		Salvatore Martirano Memorial Composition Award (talk)						Stub
1		Willesden East (UK Parliament constituency) (talk)						Stub
8		Peter Fry (talk)						Stub
6		Adrian Flook (talk)						Stub
15		Anne Marie Morris (talk)						Stub
33		Robin Walker (talk)						Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment

Hello! Your submission of Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! EagerToddler39 (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Kellyanne Conway page

Hello Demiurge. Thanks for the polite message regarding my edit to the Kellyanne Conway page. Almost everything I added in expanding the page was from sources already cited, but I've gone back and put in the specific citation references. 71.79.99.218 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Canterbury Mounted Rifles Regiment

The DYK project (nominate) 00:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Edward Furlong

Hi, the photo with Edward Furlong you removed is free image, I am the photographer and decided to upload to Wikipedia and publish it free. Egon Eagle (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for letting me know. Where were you (and Furlong) when you took the photograph? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Stockholmsmässan (Stockholm International Fairs) in 2010. Egon Eagle (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. My apologies for being suspicious about the provenance of the image. (Some strange things sometimes happen with images of living people around here.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Tweaks

There is a long standing mesaage on my talk page, that any editor is welcome to fix my mistakes. Your "tweaks" are most welcome. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 23:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! (Although, I think it's only actually in the editnotice, thus I never saw it!)

I have a lot of sympathy (and empathy) for your position, and in fact I have recently been troubled about a dissimilar but related case regarding another editor of milhist articles. Increasingly I find myself mentally taking "both sides" - which is not as useful a mindset as it's commonly portrayed.

If I do find time to say more, it probably won't be very exciting or significant, and I will try to confine it to the appropriate places for such ramblings of mine :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

AFC simile

isn't that a metaphor? --_nonsense ferret 22:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"like old aircraft in a desert boneyard" is a simile. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. As you were! --_nonsense ferret 00:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Third attack on Anzac Cove

--Allen3 ^talk 01:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Note

I spoke about, or concerning you here: [1]. It would be remiss of me not to say so, and I know you value transparency and openness - so just leaving a note with a link to the discussion, in case you hadn't come across it in your travels. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 15:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really worth the click. I see lots of anger issues, but it really doesn't live up to the clumsy bitterness of your rather juvenile argumentation on Philippe's page.

What I did notice, though, is that on Philippe's page you repeatedly bring up "the community", including once describing yourself as raising concerns as "a part" of that community, but on your off-wiki messageboard you say "The whole WP structure is a randomly, dysfunctionally overlapping Venn diagram of these little circle jerks" and so on and so forth at great length.

I think it was an ex-arb who said a valid reason for arbs to read WO was that it sometimes shows who is sincere about their views or concerns, and who is just putting on a show. Wise words.

Oh, and please don't post to my talk page again. I generally find that discussions started off-wiki amongst banned editors, paid advocacy obsessives, climate change denialists, and, yes, the odd scientology advocate both announced and unannounced... are best continued where they started. Bye now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

GOCE January drive

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thanks for copyediting a total of 38,028 words during the January backlog drive. See you in March and all the best, Miniapolis 21:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: 5K Articles, 3rd Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Demiurge1000 for copyediting the equivalent of three long articles during the GOCE January Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! — Miniapolis 21:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 3rd Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Demiurge1000 for your copy edit of the 11,575-word article Wellington Mounted Rifles Regiment during the GOCE January Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for taking on this long article! — Miniapolis 21:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Miniapolis. Not had some of these sparkly typewriter things for quite some time! Some credit should go to User:Jim Sweeney for researching and writing worthy and fascinating material for me to copyedit, and User:Dan Murphy for helping to make sure I didn't get blocked while doing so this time. My appreciation goes out to both. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments at WP:AN. I will try and prove the community's confidence in me by editing in a productive manner and avoid entering into conflict with other editors as in the past. You may be interested to note I have just launched the article Esteban Mestivier as I promised and I would welcome your input if you have a moment. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Bengali film (copyvios)

While I would feel better with another example or two, just so we know that it would be worth it to add this to the CCI backlog, generally if someone is copypasting one plot summary, they're copying a bunch. Alas, the subject matter leads itself to a lot of this type of situation. Wizardman 03:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. After a bit more thought, I worked out it was copypasting diffs + two quotes + URLs for each example that was making it so time-consuming. (Something to do with the ergonomics of swapping keyboard to mouse and back again). So I've gone with a shortform version that should still give enough info. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, @Cirt:, thanks for the invite. I do have an interest in this, but I won't be joining for the time being.

One very minor factor in that is that the whole phrase "freedom of speech" is a rather USA-inspired idea. Here in the UK, if someone is a racist retard or similar moron then the government of the day can just decide "it's not in the public interest to let you in the country, so fuck off". Equally, ever since the Battle of Cable Street in 1936, racist or right-wing idiots (or other sorts of idiots) can't march or demonstrate wherever they like in the UK; the police can simply tell them "no" and then arrest them if they continue. (The UK police have done so, in a very prompt fashion, within the last two or three years.)

In the USA, such demonstrations would be protected by law under "free speech" legislation. (See also Westborough Baptist Church etc. -- they were denied entry to the UK, and if they'd had a homegrown chapter, they certainly wouldn't have been permitted to demonstrate outside funerals of UK servicemen.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood, unfortunately, I've read about this phenomenon, which has led to libel tourism in the UK. In any event, if you have a general interest in freedom of speech and/or exploring problems associated with censorship, I hope you'll consider joining the project. I find it fascinating that Freedom of speech in the United Kingdom doesn't exist and simply redirects to Censorship in the United Kingdom. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I've read about this so-called libel tourism, and I'm not sure I really understand its importance. Although, on the other hand, I do find it alarming, verging on abhorrent, that people should be wasting the time of the UK legal system to avenge dubious wrongs committed elsewhere.

Am I a public figure, if Wikipediocracy (for example) were to publish my name and my image tomorrow (if they haven't done so already)? If so, would I have "to prove that what was written was not only untrue but published maliciously and recklessly" in order to take any sort of action?

If so, then I think the British standard is far more sensible than the American one. What say you? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I was more so reflecting on respective coverage of the topics on Wikipedia from the USA and UK perspectives as you had pointed out the differences, above. There are both pages for Freedom of speech in the United States and Censorship in the United States, but Freedom of speech in the United Kingdom only exists as a redirect to Censorship in the United Kingdom. I think that is quite telling, don't you? — Cirt (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, but; we don't have freedom of speech in the United Kingdom. Should we have it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and there's some info about it at Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom and Freedom_of_the_press#England, and a bit more at Free speech. — Cirt (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Wellington Mounted Rifles Regiment

Thanks from the DYK project and me Victuallers (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE != unpleasant

*troutslap* ;p. Ironholds (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out with some of the problems there. ;) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

February GOCE blitz

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Thanks very much for copyediting a total of 7731 words during the February blitz! All the best, Miniapolis 02:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Question from WomenArts

Dear Demiurge 1000, Thanks you for your recent note about my entry on the Sophie D. Ogutu page. You said, "We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Sophie D. Ogutu, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject."

I am the Executive Director of WomenArts (www.WomenArts.org), a non-profit organization based in Berkeley, CA that serves women artists who are generally ignored by the mainstream media. We maintain a huge website that is a major source of information about women artists and arts funding sources. We also coordinates an annual grassroots celebration of women artists called Support Women Artists Now Day or SWAN Day for short. We invite everyone to create events featuring women artists during March (Women's History Month) and April. There have been over 1,000 SWAN events in 23 countries in the past 6 years - some of them have been very ambitious multi-day festivals.

Sophie D. Ogutu is a woman artist in Kenya who responded to our call for women to create SWAN events. She started in 2008, and she has organized six annual events and is working on the seventh. She attracts big-name artists in her country and as many as 700 audience members a year. I have corresponded with her, but I have never met her personally. She has sent me clippings from Kenyan newspapers and videos of her events, but I have never attended one in person. Does this count as a "close connection"?

WomenArts is an organization that has been around since 1995. Our website has about 500,000 visitors a year, we maintain an online directory of women artists with 1,600 artist profiles in it, and we maintain the official calendar of SWAN events on our website. All of our website services are free. We are funded by a combination of foundation and government grants and individual donors.

In spite of our 19 years of accomplishments, I am not sure how to enter any information about WomenArts or any of the women artists we serve on Wikipedia since WomenArts is an arts service organization and we are not generally written about by "reliable sources." Our website is widely used as a source of information about women artists, and so in some ways, we are the "reliable source" in our area.

I would love to write an entry about WomenArts for Wikipedia, but when I have tried before, I have gotten emails like yours that say I have a conflict of interest. Your recent email raises a question that I have a conflict of interest even when I am writing about a woman artist I have never met.

I am recognized as an expert and a trailblazer in my field. I have given many lectures at colleges and conferences about fundraising and advocacy strategies for women artists, and I have created a website that provides extremely helpful free services to women artists.

Is there a way I can create a listing about WomenArts in Wikipedia? What do you recommend?

Thanks so much for your help.

Martha Richards, Executive Director Womenarts (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)WomenArts

I have posted a message relating to this at User talk:Womenarts. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

No you haven't! But I have... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia CCI Case

Hello there... You left a message on my talk page notifying me about the case you filed in Wikipedia CCI against me. I just want to clear somethings. You were talking about the images I uploaded and were later removed because of copyright violations, Half of the images which were removed are all entirely my own work, a couple of them were given to me by my dad and close friends but I don't know why they are all deleted. I still have a pending request for un-deletion of an image I uploaded and the image wasn't violating any copyright laws.

On the other hand you mentioned about the articles I created. You said that I copied most of the material by the references I added there. Ok, I admit that I did this and very soon I'll remove all that material which is violating copyright. Additionally I know that I got a lot of notifications regarding my wrong edits but more then half of those edits were corrected or were never repeated by me. I hope this message helps about removal of the case. Simply I want to add that anything done wrong by me was unintentionally or by mistake and I would never ever make a wrong edit intentionally.

REGARDS,

Farhan Khurram (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your prompt response. If you could work on re-phrasing or appropriately quoting material in all of the articles where you believe you may have copied material (not just those listed in the CCI request), that would be a great help. It means that those working on the CCI (if accepted) can more easily mark problems as fixed, thus speeding things up, and it also means that articles could be saved in cases where they might otherwise have to be deleted. You may find it useful to read WP:PARAPHRASE as well. I do of course agree that you did not intend to make problematic edits.

Image licensing on Wikipedia is a very difficult area, and it is very common for images to be deleted on the grounds of copyright even when the uploader may actually own the copyright to the image themselves. There doesn't seem to be an easy solution for this yet... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Furlong

Thanks for your message. Don't you think the article should mention his 2004 arrest though? After all, that was the first time he had been arrested. (AndrewStreeton (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC))

The above editor is a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Eek, thanks for the update - and the sleuthing apparently required to keep track of this goon. (For a moment I read the SPI too fast and thought Furlong had somehow taken over as UK Prime Minister, but sadly this seems not to be the case.)

Do you watchlist lots of WWII topics, or lots of film topics, or both? (Watchlisting all UK-related topics would get tiresome, but maybe politics ones are more relevant or something.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Furlong as PM would provide quite a bit of entertainment for the media, and a lot of extra work for his security detail. :-)

Unfortunately, I have some 11k articles on my watchlist, which makes it difficult for me to create new content. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, I know the feeling. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Duck

let us view ducks in an honest way

Why would the duck wake up just because a page was moved? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Lol, better to do it for the money, right? Sad. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me be quite clear - the duck general should have been honest about his conflict of interest at the beginning - not admitting it later. Why is honesty such a hard thing to understand? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't get what changing a redirect page to the real one has to do with it, but need sleep now myself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Honesty is always a basic requirement. Goodnight. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
		Timeline of the Gallipoli Campaign (talk)						Add sources
		Battle of Scimitar Hill (talk)						Add sources
		White Rose (talk)						Add sources
		Battle of Sari Bair (talk)						Add sources
		Pangbourne College (talk)						Add sources
		Second Battle of Krithia (talk)						Add sources
		42nd (East Lancashire) Infantry Division (talk)						Cleanup
		National Party of Europe (talk)						Cleanup
		Leonardo Torres y Quevedo (talk)						Cleanup
		New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade (talk)						Expand
		Oregon (talk)						Expand
		Ludwig Wittgenstein (talk)						Expand
		Indian campaign of Alexander the Great (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
		IBM System/36 (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
		E. J. Thribb (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
		Maximum power point tracking (talk)						Merge
		Zodiac Killer (talk)						Merge
		Coal gasification (talk)						Merge
		Instant noodles (talk)						Wikify
		History of the Australian Army (talk)						Wikify
		USS Helm (DD-388) (talk)						Wikify
		Polypropylene succinate (talk)						Orphan
		Net Literacy (talk)						Orphan
		Walter Fillmore (talk)						Orphan
		Second attack on Anzac Cove (talk)						Stub
		Eceabat (talk)						Stub
		Chips Keswick (talk)						Stub
		C Narayanaswamy (talk)						Stub
		G. V. Harsha Kumar (talk)						Stub
		William Edward Hickson (talk)						Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

You're edit warring on Giano's talkpage. You should stop. I hardly suppose I need to refer you to WP:3RR. Bishonen | talk 23:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

I am? Seriously? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well now, I just looked there, and I saw you "edit-warring". Perhaps you should go to bed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? I've reverted once. You've reverted four times in half an hour, and you say you "saw me edit-warring"? I'll report you if you persist. Bishonen | talk 23:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

Goodness me! I shall be reported if I "persist"! I am wondering if this is some surreal joke, actually for now I will assume it's all totally straight-faced. Keep on with that, sweetie. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Mr Urge (I will not be familiar and call you Demi) your patronising tone to Mrs Bishonen is unacceptable; she is neither your sweetie nor a woman to be talked down to. In fact, she's probably twice the man you are. In my considerable experience of men, those that talk and treat women in that vile fashion generally have exceedingly small intellect and exceedingly small, malfunctioning appendages. While I'm sure your intellect and personal proportions are ample for your needs, I suspect you wouldn't want others to think otherwise - so please talk to her with a degree of respect. Furthermore, it should be perfectly obvious to you that Mrs Bishonen, as a close and respected, adopted member of my family, will know exactly what Giano, my beloved nephew, wants on his talk page. We are a dynasty that respects all manner of folk even very odd anonymous editors from such far flung corners of the British Empire as California. I shall be very disappointed if you behaviour necessitates me to visit this page again. Yours faithfully The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Your beloved nephew, Lady, just edit-warred to describe someone as "an extremely stupid woman and a little fish in a little pond", so it is perhaps within your own household that you should look for those whose respect toward the fairer sex is lacking.

Given your well-known high standing amongst the Wikipedia elite, I am sure that you will soon prevail upon the powers that be to restore him his editing privileges and other such toys; but you may wish to give him some words of advice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your warm welcome

Hi Demiurge1000,
Thank you for your warm welcome. I look forward to editing on Wikipedia especially about subjects I like.
Haydar121 (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... don't know how that happened?! Paul August ☎ 10:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't be a jerk

If someone comes to my talk page for help, and it is obvious they don't know a lot about procedure, do not intentionally give them stupid advice. "Report yourself to the edit warring noticeboard" was a dick move. Do not attempt to help anyone on my talk page again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Really? Edit warring up to 9RR means the edit warring noticeboard is an entirely reasonable starting point for seeking resolution (or even advice) - more so than cross-posting to every single arb's talkpage. I noticed a distinct lack of constructive feedback in the other places they'd posted. "Don't be a jerk" yourself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments on editing

Hello to demiurge1000, I am posting this to express my irritable towards your editing on what I did on zhonghua secondary school. The information I provided is absolutely reliable as first of all , I am a graduated student from there , hence I receive insight progress of the school . Secondly , the information can also be verified in the school's website . All in all , how could you say that I gave unreliable resources ? Have you done an indept check on my information ? Are you sure the information given is wrong ? Please do some self reflection . I am utterly disgusted by what you did . Please do some serious reflection and think whether you are suitable to correct my information . Furthermore , are you a zhonghuarian ? What makes you think that the information given are unreliable ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalalandkongknoglovrr (talk • contribs) 05:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Since personal knowledge and the schools own website are both unacceptable for use on Wikipedia, anyone is "suitable" to remove information based on either. Don't be disgusted by someone who actually is helping you to understand the rules you agreed to DP 09:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)