User talk:Demiurge1000

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue

Books & Bytes

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:

Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%

Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC

New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers

Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors

Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration

Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

...Read Books & Bytes!

Welsh Not

The OP found a solution to his problem

With regard to your response to my comments on the Welsh Not talk page - this was my very first venture into Wikipedia. I take your point about Wikipedia not being a place for discussions or personal chit-chat. I was not in fact simply enjoying a leisurely trip down memory lane, I was trying to use what had happened to me during my schooldays to illustrate a contrast between my experiences and those of other people mentioned on the talk page and as such, it was relevant to the subject. I found your opening remarks patronising and rude, in short, uncivil. Take another look at those initial few lines and consider whether that is a helpful or appropriate way to address a fellow Wikipedia user, even more so when it a person's first-ever post. I cannot comment on your remarks about the so-called 'English Not' as I have no knowledge of it and I note that you do not include any references with regard to the information you give. Further, since you included your comments on the Talk page for the 'Welsh Not' and not the 'English Not', I consider them to be irrelevant, inappropriate and ill-considered. There is also something of an anti-Welsh sentiment about your remarks, which, as I am sure you did not intend this, you should guard against. Don't worry, I will not let your incivility put me off posting on Wikipedia in the future.(Honeybunch44 (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)) Spin it whichever way you like, we don't base Wikipedia articles on editors' own personal recollections. That's not going to change. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Have you missed the point again? If you read my above comments again (which you probably will not as you apparently already know everything) you will see that I acknowledge that Wikipedia is not the place for "editor's own personal recollections" and I am not disputing this. What I wished to address was a)your ignorant and aggressive response to my original post and b) your inclusion of some irrelevant, unreferenced and uncomfortably prejudiced remarks about an issue which had no place on that page. You have signally failed to either acknowledge or address these points, choosing to simply repeat yourself, with added rudeness, regarding something I had already acknowledged. May I politely ask you, once again, to address the issues I have raised in a civil manner. (Honeybunch44 (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)) Certainly, go ahead; I have no objection to you doing so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Ha ha, another smart and witty response from Demiurge! But you're not smart and witty are you, you're just a bully; I see from your user page that, on numerous occasions, you have been warned by other Wikipedia editors about your behaviour. You appear to be an intelligent man and knowledgeable within your fields of interest, but it's about time you learned some emotional maturity and stopped being aggressive towards anyone who holds differing views or opinions from yourself. You can respond to my comments or not, as you wish, it makes no difference to me because I shall not be reading any more of your posts. I, unlike you, get no pleasure from confrontation and unpleasantness. Happy bullying, my friend, may it bring you everything you so richly deserve. (Honeybunch44 (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2014 (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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

User Reckless

File:Puerto banus 2-2-09.jpg

A view of part of Andalucia. Choose a passerby at random in this part of Andalucia in summertime, and they're as likely to speak English as Spanish; and certainly not Andalucian. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello ! Since You made a comment about me at his talk page, I bid You welcome to read my full reply and appology. Boeing720 (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I also would like to add, that while being disturbed by my own frustration, due to 3-4 silly rejections of same horrific error, by a user that obviously didn't even know the difference between goal difference and goal ratio, but still kept rejecting, and alarming friends - well then then, in my anger, a misspelled word such as "manor" instead of "manner" actually may occur ! This is now, all thanks to You, scientifically proven beyond any doubts. Hence I suggest that we simply should forget who actually was right in the matter(s) ? Yeah, lets do that this time, and instead and celebrate Your imperative discovery for mankind ! Cheers ! (: But who on Earth is "user Guiano with an entourage". Does he speak Andalucian, Galician or what ? If that part also was a joke at "my expence" then I must admit that I didn't get it. (I actually have no hard feelings about jokes like Yours, but I have far more difficalties with impregnable defence of stupid errors though) By the way, I soon am riding towards my last 6 months in my 40's, with a speed of above MACH 2, it seems and feels like. Alright the summer must pass first, but then help me, as my 50th birthday follows soon thereafter. Boeing720 (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Anger and Wikipedia posting are generally a bad mixture, I've found. Now, I don't think any significant number of people speak Andalucian; the most commonly used language in Andalucia, after Spanish, is English, however sad that may be for the formerly pretty fishing villages on its south coast.

I wikilinked Giano's userpage so that you could easily visit it and view some of the flora, fauna, advice and architecture depicted there. He also says there "My main-space contributions are predominantly in the field of architecture" and that was my reason for suggesting he might be the most appropriate person to comment on manors and their adaptations.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I must agree to Your comment about anger (or frustration) and wikiposting in combination, it isn't recommendable. Like I wrote on Reckless talk page, I also missed that he actually had made an appology of his error. So I had no reason at all to add the comment at all. The reason I mentioned Andalucian and Galician is the strange text at Giano's home page. He has now told me that it infact is Latin which actually never crossed my mind, dispite of the fact that such comments almost always is in Latin. I've studied Castellian Spanish long time ago, and I can differ that from f.i Portuguese. And Catalan and Valenciano uses a lot of "x"-letters, but still I thought the language was related to the Iberian peninsula.

Anyway, You have done well in making me understanding why Giano was mentioned, and it helped me to understand Your enire joke, and a little bit else aswell. It's always good when a third user attempts to cool down angy argumentaion. Thanks! Boeing720 (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Bob Crow

Hello there User:Demiurge1000! I just wanted to let you know that I have undone your recent revert over at Bob Crow. Now, I don't want to edit war about this (because what's the point in fighting; we're both busy in real life) but I should make it clear that I am more than happy to discuss the situation over at the talk page in a pleasant, civilised manner :). Kind regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Good morning deep blue flappy nocturnal person. Sadly I don't do pleasant and civilised discussion as well as I used to... so I might pass on that... but even just by coming here, you seem to have unleashed a nonsenseferret on yourself... good luck! I might drop by later to join in the red ferret vs blue owl fun. Btw, stop using Daily Mail cites to justify inclusion of Daily Mail opinions - that's just downright dumb. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Soyuz TMA-11M launch.jpg:

FYI I looked at your CSD request on the image and pulled the source from flickr. It's credited to a NASA employee which makes it public domain. I've retagged it correctly with the PD-NASA template. -- Tawker (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Why have NASA posted it to their flickr as NC though, if that's the case? Can we reasonably assume we know how their material is licensed better than they do? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's because flickr doesn't have an option for public domain in their licensing settings. It's a creative commons license or all rights reserved. If you look at the photo credit it's "(NASA/Bill Ingalls)" A quick google search shows that Bill is NASA's chief photographer. As such, it's pretty safe to say he's a US Government Employee and as a result falls under public domain. -- Tawker (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

sorry not flickr.[1] this is a common behavior of institutions in the wake of the Bridgeman decision. they want to keep their fee stream from commercial use. i keep advising them that freemium is better, i.e. CC-by the thumbnail and hold back the tiff for commercial. but progress is slow. Smithsonian does it too. it's unclear if they can enforce an NC on a PD work. i would leave it to the discretion of the uploader (let them put PD-USGov on it). Duckduckstop (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The flickr group is just that, a group. It's not a built in licensing type in flickr (when you go to settings on the license). As per http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml any work created by a US Government employee is public domain. It might be a technicality on the Smithsonian - some of their photographers/producers of content may be in the workforce not directly employed by the US Federal Government... -- Tawker (talk) 01:19, 26 March 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…
		Sword of the Spirits (talk)						Add sources
		2014 Ukrainian revolution (talk)						Add sources
		Battle of Gully Ravine (talk)						Add sources
44		Battle of Hill 60 (Gallipoli) (talk)						Add sources
		Battle of Krithia Vineyard (talk)						Add sources
		Timeline of the Euromaidan (talk)						Add sources
		Poole Grammar School (talk)						Cleanup
23		Manchester High School for Girls (talk)						Cleanup
		The Settlers (video game) (talk)						Cleanup
		Internal Troops of Ukraine (talk)						Expand
		Pouancé Castle (talk)						Expand
9		Glyn Davies (British politician) (talk)						Expand
		Gross national income (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
81		Manchester Grammar School (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
		Recurring in-jokes in Private Eye (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
		Expropriation (talk)						Merge
123		Pick-up sticks (talk)						Merge
		Mapúa Institute of Technology (talk)						Merge
142		Gymnasium (Germany) (talk)						Wikify
		Appleby College (talk)						Wikify
		Economy of Ukraine (talk)						Wikify
4		Norman Edson (talk)						Orphan
11		Macro and security (talk)						Orphan
		ECorridors (talk)						Orphan
38		Suvla (talk)						Stub
167		Lookbook (talk)						Stub
6		Federation of European Professional Photographers (talk)						Stub
38		Thomas Edwin Blanton, Jr. (talk)						Stub
137		AutoMaidan (talk)						Stub
		Jimmy and Judy (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) 23:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

sorry, I don't understand why my article failed the review process. Could you please help me?

Dear reviewer,

   Thank you for reviewing my article titled "diaosi". I really appreciate your efficiency and adaptability. But I am afraid you have not given me the reasons why my article is refused to be published. You said that I can study your rejection as an audience study.It make some sense. But the situation is that the assignment requests me to study the audiences who will read or comment my article published on wiki. Maybe my non-standard English has generated some misunderstandings between us. 
   If the article is rejected because of violating copyrights or some other reasons, could you please elaborate on it to me? I will try my best to edit it until it conforms to the standard of publication.
   I really appreciate your kindly help and wish you all the best!
   Yours, 
   Xiuyue
   (For your convenience, here is the link of my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/diaosi )

Mindhunter333 (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Demiurge1000, I am writing to tell you that my article has been published, so you need not bother to answer my previous questions. Though you have rejected my article, I really appreciate your devotion to this volunteer job. I know my article is far from perfect, so your precious suggestions of my article will be whole-heartedly listen to. Thank you again for your time and patience! Wish you all the best, Yours, Xiuyue Mindhunter333 (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI re 216.189.170.139

I've just started a new section at ANI here, after the latest personal attacks and threats from this user. Voceditenore (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

GOCE March 2014 barnstar

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		This Barnstar is awarded to Demiurge1000 for copy edits totalling over 12,000 words during the GOCE March 2014 copy edit drive. Your efforts are appreciated! Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help regarding protocols for images and copyrights.

Left Coast Arts (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Re:Inappropriate use of Twinkle

Dear User:Demiurge1000, thanks for the message! I do apologize for the mistake. I was using Lupin's Vandal Tool and from a quick glance, it appeared the IP was deleting referenced content. That's why I performed the revert. That being said, I did leave a message on the user's talk page stating "If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page". Rather than doing this however, the IP took the situation to AN/I. I hope this clears things up. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Joachim Peiper - quick question on your response, thought it better to ask here

Hi Demiurge1000. I thought it more appropriate to ask you this question here rather than on the talk page of Joachim Peiper since it's a question more in response to how you see things (though I probably could've posted it there, but I'm already here, so will see it through). Anyway, you said (excerpted):

"If the article were up for a featured article nomination I (and probably others) would point out that...If someone wanted to take the time to improve this from C to B or GA-class, sorting out the lead would be one thing they'd need to do."

Is this to say that the main criteria on which the article would fail classification review is its lack of a "sorted out" lead, or is the current state of the lead just one of many things that need improving? And who would review the article for that class upgrade in the first place, and how do you go about getting their attention/interest? Can any editor/user suggest/nominate an article to be reviewed, or do you have to rally interest from editors who've already been working on the article? Thanks for your time. Cheers. JDanek007^Talk 05:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The B-class process is rather lightweight; it merely requires a lead to exist, not to be complete or totally adequate. I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment would periodically assess C-class articles to see if they meet the B-class criteria yet, or maybe an assessment can be requested, or maybe one just does it oneself.

GA is a little more clear-cut in my opinion; anyone who wishes can improve the article to the point where they think it passes Wikipedia:Good article criteria, and then can nominate it at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, and someone will eventually review it. In general it's best to get an article to GA standard before even considering FA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the insights and the links to follow. I may try to leave a message to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment folks and see if they will consider Joachim Peiper. Cheers JDanek007^Talk 18:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

btw: I took some time to expand the lead slightly and also make 3 paragraphs out of it, to look more pleasing visually while also conveying more of the info meriting summary. Cheers. JDanek007^Talk 22:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Since the ANI section has been closed...

I figured I'd mention this here and if you wanted to continue the discussion that would be OK with me, but don't feel an obligation.

Policy and guidelines are not a description only. It's direction. If you feel that ignoring all the rules is a basic part of Wikipedia maybe you didn't realize the emphasis of IAR is ONLY when a policy or guideline stands in the way of improving Wikipedia. Altering someone else's posts is actually a pretty bad violation of a behavioral guideline. While it isn't a bright line rule, it isn't a suggestion, a recommendation or a description....it is how we are expected to behave and are literally given the guidance through our policies and guidelines. In this specific guideline we are actually directed to never strike out another's comments. I'm not an administrator and I do see that many of them are actually unaware of this particular guideline but it is there and it is a rather important part of collaboration. Remember, this isn't really your page (nor is my own talk page actually mine) these pages belong to the community. The community has set the standards and, sure...this one may be so low key to many that it slips by them but...it is something to think about.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Mark, you know how at RFA we strike the !votes of blocked socks rather than remove them? That's often because someone commented under it. We allow that because socks are not supposed to comment there anyway. Same thing in this case - someone who was not supposed to post on someone's talkpage did, and there were further comments under it. Rather that change the flow and meaning of any and all comments under the inappropriate commenting by removing the offending post, it was struck. We do it elsewhere, so IMHO as long as the TP "owner" labels it as "struck comment by someone not permitted on this talkpage, the action would be valid as per extensive jurisprudence DP 10:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, DP, for pointing out this example. Another example is where an otherwise good-faith editor creates sockpuppets to try to stop their article being deleted at AfD. I deal with such cases often, and I nearly always take the approach of striking out the multiple !votes themselves, but not the first !vote, and not any of the reasoning or evidence accompanying the votes. It's quite simple - each person only gets to !vote once, so it needs to be made clear that the opinions expressed are not those of multiple people; but material relevant to the discussion should be kept. Striking sockpuppet votes at AfD is a standard and widely accepted practice, so I am puzzled that Mark is apparently unaware of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

And, yet another example at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Striking rejected alts. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe in either cases (regardless of the length of time it has been allowed) it is appropriate by our behavioral guidelines. No, it is actually wrong in both cases. Just because it is done...doesn't make it right. In fact, stuff like this is why so many editors lose respect for admin and other experienced editors. It really looks like a good deal of excuse making to simply work around our guidelines. Now...having said that, why not face it and simply look to write that into the guideline? Surely we should not be rogue editors who do whatever we want, whenever we want. The answer to both situations is to remove the entire discussion, replies and all or simply place a disclaimer that sates "Original comment removed". But...then again, this isn't the most important issue we face. Just part of the smaller issues that go unattended or noticed. But these things do sometimes catch up to us.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Mark, I don't mind at all you bringing this issue here. It's the obvious place to bring the discussion since it was closed (and rather tangential) at the noticeboard, so you are 100% right to bring it here. However, you may not much like what I'm going to explain to you.

If I am writing a piece of software to a particular specification, and the specification outlines that in certain circumstances the software must do something, and in certain other circumstances the software must never do something else, and I ignore those stipulations, then I have written faulty software. (I could decide to re-write the specification, or point out problems with the specification, but that's different.)

Somewhat similarly, in an educational setting, pupils of approximately middle school age are generally provided with clear rules that say what is and what is not acceptable behaviour, and they are expected to follow the rules. (This may seem horribly patronising of course, but in reality kids of that age genuinely are happier with, and benefit from, having known boundaries and structure.)

When rather older - in many cultures this might be high school or college age - there is less need for such a rigid set of rules. This also reflects on the sort of academic work the pupils will carry out; at the younger ages they require close guidance as they learn basic facts, principles and procedures, while at the older ages they can increasingly be encouraged to work independently and further develop their reasoning and analytical skills. This is not to say that one can't have discussions with younger pupils about why certain rules are in place and what they think of them, but they are less in a position to develop a reasoned analysis of why the rationale behind a particular rule is not relevant in a particular (perhaps unexpected) situation.

On Wikipedia we have people who span these categories both in terms of their chronological age and in terms of their general maturity. (Some will change category as they age, and some will not.) Editors who need close guidance and specific sets of rules can contribute very valuably. One sees them working away every day, and they are served well by simplistic rules like never change another editor's post, and never revert more than three times, and always wait until after the fourth warning before reporting to AIV. (Ever wondered why the question about blocking sooner than that turns up at RfA so often? It's not to check that the candidate has rehearsed likely questions and can give a pre-learned example of where one blocks sooner - it's to try to sniff out if the candidate has a level of mature reasoning beyond "I have seen this rule so I will follow this rule".)

In other words, sometimes we should go beyond just following rules blindly, and actually think about the purpose of the rules (the reasons for them) and what the interests of the project are. It's not like writing software to a rigid specification, or following rules in middle school, or keeping score in a tennis match.

And so we come to the example I provided you with at the noticeboard. Editor A makes a bad edit to an article. Editor B, who happens not to have registered an account, fixes it, including an edit summary to say why. Editor C, who is using a semi-automated tool to do "recent change patrol" but not looking at the changes properly, reverts that fix without an edit summary, and leaves a level 1 templated warning on Editor B's talkpage. Editor B, quite rightly, fixes the article problem again. Editor D (perhaps also using a semi-automated tool) reverts Editor B again, and leaves a level 2 templated warning on Editor B's talkpage. Editor B opens a dialogue with one of the reverting editors on their talkpage, but is misunderstood by them and gets no sensible answers.

At this point, editor B goes to ANI, but what if he hadn't? (We generally encourage new editors to avoid it!) What if he'd done what any reasonable person unfamiliar with Wikipedia processes might do, and re-inserted the correct version of the article? Well, most likely ClueBot would have seen an unregistered editor removing material that two registered editors had re-inserted, and would've given him a level 3 warning. How close is this good-faith and correct editor B to being blocked at this point? What sort of impression will this (potential) new Wikipedia editor take away, if that happens?

Hopefully by now you realise that those two templated warnings are dross that need dealing with. Damaging dross, in fact - damaging to the encyclopedia, potentially, in one of the areas it is suffering most.

So, how should we deal with those templated warnings. Well, remember what I said about thinking about the purpose of a rule. The rule about not changing others' comments has two purposes. First, to avoid misrepresenting what someone else has said. Second, to avoid annoying people by doing spelling corrections on their minor typing errors and suchlike. So, in this case neither of these purposes apply. My edit quite clearly indicated that I had struck the edits, and why. And the people who left the warnings were already in no doubt that those warnings were erroneous and needed to be marked as such. Which is more important, a potential new editor being blocked for improving the encyclopedia, or a careless semi-automated template-splatterer potentially being upset at one of their erroneously-splattered templates being struck through?

Unfortunately your tone here remains in the middle-school category - it's all rigid rule-following and no reasoning. "it is how we are expected to behave and are literally given the guidance". "In this specific guideline we are actually directed". Your comments express fear that we might be "rogue editors" if we act in a manner based on our reasoning rather than rigidly specified by rules. "The community has set the standards" - no, the community has accepted a guideline that also has commonly used (and thus equally well accepted) exceptions. You think that we should write every single exception into the guideline - no, a guideline does not require that, a guideline is not a rigid set of rules. You may benefit from treating it as one, for your own behaviour, but you shouldn't be trying to lay down the law for other people based on a misunderstanding of what a guideline is.

The editor who raised - and pursued - this "rules or else" discussion about WP:STRIKE, in his running from one talk page and dramah noticeboard to another, exhibits nearly the same middle school "rules are rulez" emphasis that your edits on this topic do.

And finally. I believe you are wrong when you claim that "many" admins are visibly unaware of talk page guidelines. I personally think that those admins are aware of the guideline, but are also capable of taking a rather more reasoned consideration of a situation, and do so. If and when you find an admin that is completely unaware of talk page guidelines, I would be interested to hear about it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Greed (film)

Hi, If you're interested I'm attempting to get Greed promoted to FA again.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know. I will try and take a look when I have some time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Olchfa School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, now fnixed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Aha! A volunteer?

Sip 'n Dip Lounge is at GAN. I need wikicup points before the end of the current round or I'm SOL. Just saying.... ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 00:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've never been involved with the Wikicup, so am not really sure whether that would be appropriate. Also I don't normally do GA reviews! (Maybe I should, lots of them need doing I think...)

While you're here, imagine if you were an extremely serious person, for example the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Crimea, Natalia Poklonskaya. But when searching yourself on the internet, you only saw lots of this kind of thing?

See how lucky you are, comparatively :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the suggestion. Point well taken and changes made. 71.139.142.249 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)