This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

• Zackaback ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has continued to violate WP:BRAND after I told him/her not to do it again, and has had a history of other disruptive editing. This user does not seem to want to discuss his changes. I wanted to bring this to ANI, but first want to check with you. Jasper Deng (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

He's made nearly 400 edits, yet hasn't made a single talk page (or user talk page) contribution. Sounds pretty disruptive to me. However, there's no need to go to the drama boards, I'll leave him a slightly firmer warning - and can always block him for a short period to help him respond. Worm^TT · ( talk) 17:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually decided to try to avoid the warning route and leave a non-templated welcome message telling him how he can improve the encyclopedia. I am not aware that he has violated anything found in the essay WP:BRAND. His only problem seems to be a refusal (or probably ignorance of the ability) to collaborate Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 17:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep. you beat me by seconds ;) But as your note pointed out, his edits appear to be in good faith, it's more important that we get him talking than anything else. Unfortunately with zero edits outside of article space, that may be difficult... Worm^TT · ( talk) 17:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Since he has been clearly warned I believe that a block could be appropriate if a response is not forthcoming. Once blocked, the editor will be forced to use his talk page. At that point it can be ascertained as to whether or not the editor is ignorant of the ability or just refuses to collaborate. Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 17:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

He has just edited again after the warnings. I think it is time to force some conversation. Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 17:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he's edited for an hour... correct me if I'm wrong with a diff :) Worm^TT · ( talk) 17:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, the warnings were delayed. I commented on the talk page of the editor who posted. Maybe you can give some input. Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 17:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I agree with you. Might even be worth moving mine into the same section as your too. If he disagrees I'll weigh in :) Worm^TT · ( talk) 17:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

He does disagree and reverted my edits. I have gotten slightly more agreement but ugh... Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 17:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, all sorted now though, thank you both, Atomician ( talk) 18:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it Atomician. These things can be infuriating. Remember he's likely to be a new editor though, so keep WP:BITE in mind. Worm^TT · ( talk) 18:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I was just wondering if you had seen my comment and what your thoughts were on the project. Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 17:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I did see your comment and I did reply. In my head. Anyway... Wikinews is a great project - it's a much more journalistic version of WP, and I do like it, however I'm never that interested in writing about current events, so I've never felt the need to get involved there. I think I've got zero edits there! Well done though on getting the Steve Jobs story first! Worm^TT · ( talk) 17:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've always had some problems with it in that by the time the news is published it is relatively old. I actually requested that someone review my article. A person who had the reviewer bit told me the article was a good one, then they told me that since I had requested it, the article would probably be up in 24 hours. By that time the news was relatively old. I'd like to see the project get articles out sooner. Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 17:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

24 hours is very slow, I agree, what an odd system Worm^TT · ( talk) 17:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

	The Half Barnstar
	For your help and input with User:Zackaback... Atomician ( talk) 18:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to move the Pre-RfA proposal out of my userspace fairly soon. I leave for college in 4 days and there is a possibility that I don't edit Wikipedia for months. I would hope to initiate discussion on the idea before I leave. Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 19:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Go for it - don't wait on me. Every time I go near it, I come up with about 90 different ways to take it. Worm^TT · ( talk) 19:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This is my 808th edit, but anyway, I just would like to find out if you think I am ready to become an administrator. I will accept both yes or no. I am willing to become an RfA and make all of my edits in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCRules ( talk • contribs)

( talk page stalker)I don't think so - editors in general need to have created a few good articles and have had at least several times that edit count, as well as having a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policy, to pass an RfA. But you are welcome to try if you can meet all of that. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Another ( talk page stalker). Hi JCRules. Jasper Deng is right on the nail, but it is also absolutely essential that you read Advice for RfA candidates first and follow all the links in it. It will be a few hours bedtime reading but it will be well worth it, and you will then be able to assess perfectly whether or not you are ready for adminship. Also, admins must know how to sign their posts ;) -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 23:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Jasper, one recent initiative at rfa is to get more good editors to put themselves forward, and so we now have WP:REQUESTNOM. Worm^TT · ( talk) 23:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look at your edits in the morning, and whilst it is likely that jasper is right and you are not quite ready, I'll certainly be able to give you some hints as to where to focus your efforts if you do want to become an administrator. Worm^TT · ( talk) 23:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted your opinions of if I was ready. I will take your words and thoughts into consideration. JC Rules! ( talk) 23:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

First, I have completely modified my proposal. Hopefully you can look at it because I would like to advertise it when I get back to the computer in about 30 minutes. Second, what should be done about JCRules' User:Health4Kids Campaign I moved it to his userspace. Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 16:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Replied at the talk page - Still a decent proposal - still needs more input IMO and from the task force - not emotive people at Jimbo's page. As for the Health4Kids Campaign - I'll have a look at it as soon as I can, but I'm a touch busy at the mo. Give me an hour or so :) Worm^TT · ( talk) 16:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying, I was at the doctor and apparently I'm a fainter. As you may have seen in the past, I'm not the biggest fan of waiting. I usually try to rush to get things done right away, but I will let it sit in RfA reform's hands for a while to at least work out the kinks. My only desire is that this does not become like most discussions in which it gets discussed, argued, and then forgotten. I don't care if it is at some point approved or if editors say its the worst idea they ever heard, I just want a decision. Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 17:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hope you're alright mate. By the way, am on IRC for the next...half hour? if you fancy a chat. If you don't mind waiting, I'll ensure that the proposal doesn't get forgotten. I'm planning to send out another update to the RfA Reform chaps and chappettes soon, and will make sure I mention it. Worm^TT · ( talk) 18:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so what channel do I use? Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 18:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I use #wikipedia-en-help the most. If you pop in, you'll see me there Worm^TT · ( talk) 18:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

An IP, without an edit summary, reverted my reversion of his/her edit. I'm requesting a 1RR exemption for this, since I'm highly knowledgeable in this field. Jasper Deng (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm on my iPod so I can't thoroughly examine the issue, but I generally think multiple reversions should only be used against vandalism. The edit is sourced, although I wasn't able to examine the source. I'd say rake it to the talk page if you haven't done so already. Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 15:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I only really saw an issue with the last sentence. The "current" and "older" are unnecessary qualifiers, since the page says IPv6 is "designed to succeed" IPv4. We can't adaquately source the 1% of traffic, despite it being likely to be true. We can, however, cite sources that say many providers still aren't ready for IPv6, or maybe the reverse, that few provides are ready for IPv6. -- Avanu ( talk) 15:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

( edit conflict)Well, it seems that it was undone at least partially by Avanu, so I'm now confused on whether reverting the other half other IP's edit is a real revert. I consider IPv6 to be current based on the fact that its the latest version, and that's what I believe to be the use of "current" on Wikipedia. For example, Windows 7 was described as the current version of Windows even when it only had a measily market share. Jasper Deng (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

To be technical, both IPv4 and IPv6 are currently used, so why should we have a qualifier like that in the article? The names of the protocols themselves make it fairly clear anyway. -- Avanu ( talk) 15:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I mean, I'm sure Windows XP is the most commonly used version of Windows, but it's not the current one. "currently-used" has a different definition than "currently." Jasper Deng (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The Windows 7 page says "latest". -- Avanu ( talk) 15:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

History of Microsoft Windows and that article used to say "current", and the former still does. Jasper Deng (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that is exactly why you shouldn't revert and should go to the talk page. Many editors can have a difference of opinion as to whats current. I consider xp to be stone-age, but maybe I'm just a little too high tech. Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 16:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the IP decided to re-add it again, also without an edit summary. I left an edit warring warning on the IP's talk page because the IP does not seem to even want to explain his/her actions. Jasper Deng (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am going to be bold by putting __NOTOC__ tags on your adoptees pages since on your adopt HQ page, it really isn't neet because of them. ~~ Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 20:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's not a big deal :) Worm^TT · ( talk) 20:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I have decided that it is not expedient for me either to answer your message, or to comment on what I have just read on Kudpung's user talk page, or to continue to participate either at RfA, or anything remotely connected with RfA, including in particular, RfA reform 2011. So I will not be participating further in any of these areas. James500 ( talk) 11:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well we provided all references and links + details. -- Bioplus ( talk) 18:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Bioplus, some links were blogs - non reliable. Others talk of his ethnicity, not his religious beliefs. Other items I removed were unsourced altogether. Please ensure that you use reliable sources. Also, please refrain from using CAPS as it is considered rude and shouting. Worm^TT · ( talk) 18:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

well here i give you references and something more than blogs to show that this man is a party animal in st tropez.

- http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/karstadt-investor-nicolas-berggruen-auf-den-spuren-von-jimi-hendrix-1.982877 - http://www.bz-berlin.de/archiv/meine-wilde-partynacht-mit-nicolas-berggruen-article936728.html - http://www.daylife.com/topic/Nicolas_Berggruen - http://www.am-ende-des-tages.de/photos/100730-grown-ups-party-felix-st-tropez/

and one can find more than 20 ref on that -- Bioplus ( talk) 18:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

again here the reference to show that mr berggruen money comes from inheritance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/arts/design/27berggruen.html

-- Bioplus ( talk) 18:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, he probably is an party animal. My opinion and yours are both irrelevent. If not source is calling him a party animal, Wikipedia can not put 2 and 2 together. It is called original research and not allowed at all. Regarding St.Tropez - I removed this because it appears it's not an annual event in St. Tropez - a minor technicality. Oh, and I don't think I removed anything regarding where he got his money from. Worm^TT · ( talk) 18:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

well here you removed the fact that berggruen made most of his money from inheritance. should be:

"Forbes magazine estimated Berggruen's net worth at $2.2 billion as of 2010[update] and he made most of his money from inheritance and business. ref -- Bioplus ( talk) 18:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

and here if you quote this with the chateau marmont party you can ad the st tropez details.

"Berggruen hosts an annual exclusive party at Chateau Marmont, which draws the wealthy and the famous.[7] and attends mayn parties in st tropez france" how about that ? -- Bioplus ( talk) 18:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No I didn't. You can see my full changes here. That was made as part of an edit war, prior to my involvement - and should be discussed on the talk page of the article. As for the St Tropez parties, I don't hold an opinion either way, but again worth taking to the talk page. Worm^TT · ( talk) 18:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

well look at the disscussion page. you have all the info and consensus has been made you need to ad that berggruen's money comes from inheritance and that he is a regular and or party animal in st tropez.

-- Bioplus ( talk) 19:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Make your case at the talk page. I'm a touch busy at the moment, and you have a week before the article is unprotected. If consensus emerges at the talk page, I am willing to make the changes. Worm^TT · ( talk) 19:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

seems that consensus was reached until berggruens staff called you !!! all details and info is on the talk page you on need to revert and ad that bergguens money comes from inheritance and he is very much a party animal or if you can not use the word party animal just say that he is a regular in the parties in st tropez...

-- Bioplus ( talk) 19:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Black Kite was disagreeing with you, as was the IP editor. If you think that's consensus, you've got a long way to go. But please, my talk page isn't the best place to discuss this - the article talk page is - where I see you've made no recent edits. Worm^TT · ( talk) 19:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI: [1] and [2]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Worm, do you agree that Wenderholm Regional Park is a copyright violation? I used a particular website as a source, and it got deleted by User:ErikHaugen. - Porch corpter ( contribs/ public policy) 20:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm just about to switch off the computer for the night, so can't investigate now. I'll let you know in less than 12 hours, if you can wait until then. Please keep calm Worm^TT · ( talk) 21:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just compared the article with the source, and although it might be disputed whether immediate deletion was the best way of dealing with it, I have to agree that the article paraphrased the source much too closely. Source: "Maori lived here for close to 1000 years because of its plentiful natural resources." Article: "Maori lived close to this park for 1000 years because of the natural resources." Source: "The coastal forest on the Maungatauhoro ("mountain with the eroding cliffs") headland is a haven for native birds..." Article: "The coastal forest on the Maungatauhoro headlands is a haven for birds." -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge, the second sentence you mentioned has some differences. First, those words in brackets weren't added to the article sentence. And second, at the end of the sentence, the source had three dots, while the article had only one dot. - Porch corpter ( contribs) 04:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Porchcorpter, a smattering of changes, like eliding the word "native" or pluralizing "headland", does not make it your own words. It is still a close paraphrase, even though it is not 100% identical. It is still a copyright violation. Instead, you really do need to write the whole thing from scratch, using just the information from the source. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 04:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for explaining Erik. - Porch corpter ( contribs) 05:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as Erik is correct. If you're pointing out the differences, you're thinking the wrong way about copyright. The idea is to write articles in your own words, whilst citing the information to it's source. There should be no similarities at all, saving for things that can't be changed (eg proper names). If you fancy having another go in your userspace, let me know where you've created it, and I'll collaborate with you to make a decent article :) Worm^TT · ( talk) 08:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have decided that I am going to continue to participate at RfA and related pages, except for RfA reform 2011. Please disregard my previous message above to the extent, and only to the extent, that it says that I will not. I apologise for being inconsistent and for any confusion that this might cause anyone. James500 ( talk) 12:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. As I mentioned before, if you'd like to chat about RfA or reform, or indeed anything else - you know how to contact me. Worm^TT · ( talk) 12:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You have a new email Worm. Thanks Jenova 20 15:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Also how do i find a deleted article? I'm looking for Tribal Fusion - the old one about the advertisement software. Thanks Jenova 20 16:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You can't. (Only admins can use Special:Undelete. :P) I've found the article ,though, and it is located at Tribal Fusion (ad network). Cheers! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 20:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Was there any reason you wanted access to that item? Worm^TT · ( talk) 07:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The article was originally very biased and i changed soe wording a while back with sources to show that it is seen as spam and malware by many reliable sources.

I'm just wondering if the company itself had any hand in having it deleted after that bit was added to save its reputation?

Any chance the talk page is viewable still?

Thanks Jenova 20 10:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted after an AfD - so by consensus. Feel free to have a read and make up your own mind. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribal Fusion (ad network) Worm^TT · ( talk) 10:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mixed feelings, i spent a while finding a reliable source for criticism in that article only for it to be deleted.

It's good and i agree with the delete, it's just a shame i wasted time trying to make it more neutral only for it to be deleted.

Can you check out the small changes to "Homophobia in the media" at you know where and tell me your opinion so far?

Thanks Jenova 20 14:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

shame on you for comming up with treats and unfounded claims, i bring lots of information here and all is backed up with valid sources and facts. this account is valid for more than a year and done many edits.

-- Bioplus ( talk) 08:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Let's keep this there. Worm^TT · ( talk) 08:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

well again your treats are unacceptable and not in line with wikipedia's policy. as i said i am free to comment and disscus on the talk page and this is what i do , at the end i am the one who requested that this article must be blocked. look at the information i provide and then you can devellop something that looks more realistic. dont be fool anyway anyone who googles berggruen sees imediately what is going on .

-- Bioplus ( talk) 09:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• I HAVE DONE NOTHING EXCEPT BRING FACTS I WANT YOU TO SAY THAT HIS MONEY COMES FROM INHERITANCE, REFER TO HIS JEWISH ROOTS, EXPLAIN THAT HE IS NOT HOMELESS BUT BASED IN A 5 STAR HOTEL AND THEN EXPLAIN THAT HE IS A PARTY BOY AND NOT MUCH MORE.

-- Bioplus ( talk) 09:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• well you have to accet that wikipedia is not a place to promote what berggruens want but to come up with facts !!"berggruens interest is not the reality. this man is an opportunist and one day he claims he is jewish and the other day he does business in germany and doesnt want to say that he is jewish. as said mamy times you have all the information on the talk page.

you re claiming that i am here only to devellop on berggruen is not true and makes no sense. wikipedia is a place for everybody. you dont want to promote berggruen's as advertisement this is unaaceptable.

--
Bioplus (
talk) 09:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Worm That Turned, You say you back up the information with the sources but I dont think they match up to explain fully. Also I dont think the information was needed especially as there negative points . Thanks, Please can this be continued on your talk page or please understand that it is best that you forget about this article. Aviation^Expert  ( talk) 17:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been asked to be an ambassador for a course in the spring semester... and also, I sent you some email, did you get it? Thanks a lot for your help so far, by the way. Sharktopus ^talk 13:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Sharktopus. I'm sure you'd cope being an ambassador, I did :) It's not that difficult at all, as long as you're happy talking to new editors. I did get your email yesterday, and I did reply (I've just checked and it's got a "you replied" icon!). I'll forward the reply to you again if you like (later, when I get home). The jist was - get help from the excellent person who offered it, let me know and if she doesn't mind, I'll pop in and offer comments/suggestions. Worm^TT · ( talk) 13:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Dohh there it is. Thanks. I need to improve my mailbox-reading skills too. Sharktopus ^talk 14:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Foo' ;) Worm^TT · ( talk) 14:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• I did check – she and I would both welcome your advice any time. The page she created is User:Sharktopus/ADCO. Thanks! Sharktopus ^talk 18:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Worm. I've started my own adoption scheme, based on yours, at User:Rcsprinter123/Adopt. I've got two adoptees already, although one accepted and vanished, but the other is going through the modules. Thought I'd tell you so you can come have a look and comment. Rcsprinter (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I already knew ;) I've got your page watchlisted and had spotted a couple of comments. But thanks for the offer, I'll have a snoop, see if there's anything I can add. Worm^TT · ( talk) 09:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Looked yet? Any comments? Rcsprinter (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I had a quick snoop. You've changed things a bit, which is fine, what matters is that it works for you and your adoptee. I might suggest that scoring isn't the best idea - it can be demotivating. The idea of the "test" is to find out their understanding, and help them along the way - rather than a marking system. But again, it's up to you. Worm^TT · ( talk) 11:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! I saw your name at WP:RRN and decided that the admin at the top of the list was as good a choice as any... I'm a long time vandalism fighter, and this has been my primary focus as a Wikipedian. In addition, I've edited various articles (ranging from Ford Mustang to Oranjeboom). I haven't started articles (other than Charlie the Unicorn, which recently went back up thanks to some good sourcing), but feel that the admin toolbox would greatly help me to efficiently and effectively fight vandalism. I realize that there are many who feel that a more rounded Wikipedian is a more appropriate admin, and I agree, but I also feel there is room for someone like me, who is foremost a vandalism fighter, but also contributes with various gnomish edits and re-writes. Either way, I appreciate your opinion. Cheers! -  superβεεcat  02:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Superbeecat, great to meet you. I'll have a good look through your contributions, it might take a short while, but I will get back to you. I don't suppose you could opt in to X!'s edit counter, which would help in my evaluations. Worm^TT · ( talk) 08:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, having looked at your contributions, I see you've taken a very long wikibreak between July last year and September this, with only 3 edits inbetween. That's not a major issue, but I think you should leave it a couple of months before applying for adminship. If you could spend a little time working on articles in the mean time, that will help also. I'll still do an in depth review if you like, if you could opt in to the toolserver. Worm^TT · ( talk) 09:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking back even further... that appears to be quite a pattern. Big gap, flurry of 1000 or so edits in a couple of days, big gap. Might be quite a problem if you want to become an adminsitrator. Worm^TT · ( talk) 09:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Understood! I've taken breaks as my career has changed (Lawyer to Restaurateur), though invisibly, I've anonymously performed minor edits just about every time I find myself looking up something. I'll take your advice, and spend some more time doing some real editing before applying. Also, I'll opt into the toolserver. Cheers! -  superβεεcat  15:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to come back when you feel ready, or indeed when you feel like you will be ready in about a month. I can help guide you through the final stages / write a nomination / generally help out. Worm^TT · ( talk) 19:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~~ Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 19:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:

• Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
• Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
• Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that some errors were encountered while processing your delivery request (RfA Reform update). Please deliver the messages to the following users manually, if you wish, because the bot was not allowed to do so:

• Ancapp - User is blocked.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 21:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

28bytes is requesting that you comment here. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Look I appreciate your attempts to rehabilitate me, but I have actually been on wikipedia for some time now, and am pretty certain that there are some fairly serious governance issues around here. I generalise about Admins because I have observed general patterns of behaviour amongst the admins over the years. WP:IAR is used to justify the arbitrary exercise of power, WP:POINT is used to justify the inconsistent application of rules, and so on. -- Surturz ( talk) 11:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there and thanks for the kind words. My main worry for wikipedia is that I see people with a huge amount of contributions leave it or be sick of it. That should be minimized and a good way is to entrust those people with admin tools. We should be able to have article writers stick around for as much as possible, hence my proposal. An encyclopaedia is 90% history and geography, but what's the ratio of professional historians and geographers to that of IT people in the admin ranks? We need mediators here between several POV pushers, but I see that many admins have no clue or are too bothered to do research on content, and they decide mainly on civilty, and that's all they do. It's sad to see that the bad apples win, because the admin handling the issue is not prepared enough. Divide et Impera ( talk) 15:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I am here to ask you to nominate ArcAngel for adminship, he has around 14,000 edits, been on wikipedia for four years, and was never blocked, Thank You -- ChristianandJericho ( talk) 08:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Worm That Turned/Archive 10. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and they are hard to find - same applies to ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page. I've therefore spent a couple of hours organising, transferring, and collapsing some of the older threads at WT:RFA2011 - experience has shown that people are quite happy to follow a link to a new, more appropriate location. I've also added some slightly more blatant edit notices in the hope that newcomers will take notice.
If you can, please consider collapsing and copying new threads started by newcomers to the appropriate talk page, drawing their attention to the navigation aid at Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Pages, and the edit notices on each talk page. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but someone came to my talk page asking for mentorship and I've again recommended you instead. You just seem to have the mentorship thing down to a science and I'd be making it up as I go. You can find the thread on my talk page.--v/r - T P 12:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for Mentor-ship

Hi, I would like to seek your kind attention in improving my editing skills. I read your pages.-- Day000Walker ( talk) 14:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Worm. I've adopted a multitude of editors in my time. I've always handled it informally; I make it clear that I will help them with anything whatsoever and essentially mentor them on an "as needed" basis. I was wondering if you think that the more formal method that you use is better. Most of my adoptees ask for at least some degree of help or advice, but I've yet to see any of them be significantly active in the long run. Do you find the case to be different when they've graduated in in-depth "class"? Do most of your adoptees complete the class? Have they become active? Swarm ^{u | t} 16:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there are a few different factors at play here. First of all, editors being mentored (or adopted) have very different needs. If a herpetologist comes to Wikipedia with the specific intention of improving articles about snakes (which seems very common these days, tee hee), then they will probably be quite happy with the "hands-off" unstructured approach - they already know which articles they want to create or edit, they probably already know what a reliable source in the field of herpetology is, but they might need to come and ask you for help if they have problems figuring out image copyright, or if they get into an edit war, or something. (In that sort of case, unless you are regularly watching their contribs and giving them unsolicited advice when you see them do something not quite right, then mentorship/adopting provides not much more than a more personal version of what they could pretty much get at the Helpdesk or IRC Help).

By contrast, if someone comes to Wikipedia just because they feel like editing Wikipedia, and particularly if they are going to spend more of their time on policy and process and behind-the-scenes work, rather than working on content, then it makes a lot of sense for them to get a reasonably good overview of different aspects of policy, early on.

Some of Worm's mentees and some of my mentees are a bit younger than average, and these editors can find themselves running into problems by branching off into way too many different areas all at once, without really taking the time to understand each area before diving in. (Although just about everyone skips reading manuals if it looks like something can be worked out by observing existing practice, some teenagers skip the manual and skip the observation step - it's a patience thing.) These editors definitely benefit from the structured approach, as it gives them at least a chance to have seen some theory on the area before jumping in. Also, as educational theorists will tell you, young people do benefit from and appreciate a structured approach with "rules" and tasks and objectives and so on. I've seen only one mentee who was resistant to the lessons/quiz format of the structured approach, and even that one did make a start on it anyway.

I would also say I don't think the choice of structured or unstructured approach really makes a huge impact on whether mentees continue editing. One of Worm's mentees stopped editing due to being indefinitely blocked, one of my adoptees (who received an unstructured approach) had a clear choice of the content area they wanted to edit but gradually lost interest and now only edits sporadically; an adoptee/mentee that we share (and completed the "class") was very active for a long time but currently doesn't edit because they're very busy in real life. I believe most (but not all) of Worm's mentees do complete the class, and I think most of those that completed the class are still active, usually editing every day. I think one of the benefits of mentoring is that it can help avoid new editors becoming disillusioned with Wikipedia by running into problems of one sort or another. If mentees receiving the "unstructured" approach have indeed run into problems and then got disillusioned, a structured approach might have been better; but then again it might have happened anyway. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 13:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Demiurge has put up a very good response above. I'm mildly disillusioned at the moment as my recent adoption attempts are failing - so you may do well to take my answer with a pinch of salt. I've mentored/adopted quite a few people so far this year - a total of 13 or so, plus put a few more through my adoption school. Many do not stick at it, I think less than half have completed it. I've had two of my failures blocked (one by me, one of the hardest things I've done on wikipedia). I've just ended my mentorship of my longest term mentee, after he went back to his old ways after his topic ban expired.

It's not all bad though. I've spent my mentoring time working with some of the more difficult members of the community - those who are either very recently blocked or about to be blocked. And I've had a good number of success stories - editors who were hot headed and had no clue are now going working as decent members of the community. Others who were young and impulsive are now young and impulsive but in a better direction.

One editor, though he's on a break, was so eager to learn from me that he read miles around the subject and got somewhere near 100% on his final test. I'm seriously considering nominating him to be an admin.

So to answer your question - I'm not sure my structured approach is the best way going forwards, but it certainly works for some people. I think anyone interested in learning about the back end of wikipedia, but don't know how best to go about it would benefit from the course. I don't think it increases activity, but it can improve the activity. Worm^TT · ( talk) 13:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Two immensely helpful perspectives; I can't thank you both enough. I've had some "herpetologists" (i.e. users with a concrete goal) where a "class" simply isn't needed and an "as needed" relationship would work best. I've also had some users who just want to "get involved", and when I think about it, the structured approach would probably be more effective than me slamming out heaps of text. But it would seem that the structured approach is not necessarily superior or even effective all the time. I'll certainly use the above comments to improve my own adoption methods. Now to go work on this backlog. The program is in a sad state. I remember when there weren't enough adoptees to go around! I think I'm going to make an ad, hopefully that will help somewhat. Anyway, I digress. Thanks again, Swarm ^{u | t} 18:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dave. Porchcorpter has requested edit filter rights, and I have declined the request. I believe it is far too soon after the expiration of his topic ban to be requesting advanced permissions, but I told him that if there is consensus on his talk page to re-open the request for wider review, I would do so. Your input there is welcome. Thanks, 28bytes ( talk) 03:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Center I've been under the impression that Centre and Center had different meanings. Thanks Jenova 20 15:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

First I've heard of it. I was always under the impression that Centre was the english spelling, and if you find a Center in England it is intentionally mis-spelled. Worm^TT · ( talk) 15:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right, i don't know where i got that idea from [3] although the Oxford Dictionary confirms it.

Thanks Jenova 20 15:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your ongoing and tireless work to make Wikipedia a more pleasant place to edit, I award you this barnstar. Sincerely, thank you! VQuakr ( talk) 05:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what I've done to deserve this - but I really appreciate the sentiment! Worm^TT · ( talk) 13:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, OpenInfoForAll ( talk) 22:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Worm, I have reviewed a nomination made by User:Porchcorpter, whom you are mentoring, at Template:Did you know nominations/Wenderholm Regional Park. Would it be possible for you to work with him/her to improve reference formatting in the article? I understand that s/he may not understand the importance of reference formatting yet. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 04:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Worm! Sorry to be off IRC. I've had non-stop people at my door, and have been avoiding all live contact. :) I would love to IRC when you get a chance. PM me whenever you like. I would be most grateful. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anna. I generally pop on each night for about 20 mins to half an hour and have been checking for you recently. When I see you, I'll PM you, but don't worry - there's no rush. Worm^TT · ( talk) 11:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comparison of Windows and Linux (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TurboForce ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I had warned TurboForce for this, which was followed by this, despite my warning. This user has shown a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude toward what I've been trying to tell him (specifically, NPOV, CIVILITY, and EDITWARRING). Jasper Deng (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In view of this, I think it's time for a block. Jasper Deng (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but that diff, while not the most appropriate way to behave, isn't a blockable offense. Unless I'm mistaken, the "edit warring" has been fairly minor in scale, over a very short piece of text, and 3RR has not been breached. With this in mind, I would suggest discussing their concerns with them politely and civilly, and if they're clearly getting too emotional, remind them that it's just a website and conflicts can be discussed coolly and civilly. Repeated warnings, notes, and templates on the talk page generally aren't helpful to a highly stressed and angry user. As I'm sure you know, there are designated forums for discussing suspected conflicts of interest and incivility and, though I'm not sure if that would be helpful or is necessary, you should try to resolve conflicts through those forums before starting talk of a block, which certainly isn't necessary at this point, IMHO. Swarm ^{u / t} 01:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with TurboForce is the fact that he is not listening to us (IDIDNTHEARTHAT). I have already talked to him before about incivility, but he just would not listen (see this). I have been directed by my mentors (which include Worm That Turned) to stay off ANI and WQA unless I ask one of them first. I had tried to get TurboForce to listen, and so have other editors ( including Worm That Turned - I don't think his message was confrontational). Jasper Deng (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no block-worthy disruption. That's the main idea. I can see one revert. Second, this is not an IDHT case. TurboForce is not incessantly arguing against an established consensus. This is merely a case of a fairly long-term editor of an article being upset over the sudden addition of (in his opinion) the insertion of biased content. The incivility is a byproduct of that stress. In a nutshell, Jasper, further intervention is not needed at this point. Their later comments look fine. I'll leave it at that and let Worm advise you from here on out. Regards, Swarm ^{u / t} 03:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is a IDHT case, regardless of whether this is block-worthy or not, since TurboForce does not seem to be getting any of our messages to cool down and not let stress get in the way of consensus. Edit warring is a problem for him because of his comments. See the latest diff I provided (in my second comment). Jasper Deng (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Then you need to re-read IDHT, because you're not understanding it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

TurboForce is not accepting my input on his civility, and persists in saying things like "The article is carefully worded to imply Windows is more secure than it really is" despite me telling him that he had a NPOV problem in that (Uninvolved parties found no neutrality problems). Jasper Deng (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You still have not read it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I read it, yes. He's not accepting input and kept making comments implying WP:BATTLE (according to Worm That Turned's comment on TurboForce's talk page) despite being told that he was not going to get it that way. See the diff I supplied in the second comment. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not WP:BATTLE, but certainly WP:WIN is obvious: Talk:Criticism of Microsoft Windows#Time for change, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linux#The Wikipedia article .22Comparison of Windows and Linux.22 - bad things are being said about Linux. Please help.21 and "If I were to express my true opinions of Bill Gates and Microsoft itself, I would be permanently banned from Wikipedia!!" Talk:Comparison of Windows and Linux/Archive 8#System performance over time, "You CANNOT convince me otherwise END OF!" Talk:Comparison of Windows and Linux/Archive 7#Windows with no swap space. It's just annoying to have an editor running around, shouting, not listening and sometimes even exploding. -- DanielPharos ( talk) 06:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but WP:WIN is just an essay, whilst WP:BATTLE is policy - I do appreciate it's annoying, and will have a word to see if I can improve the situation - but at the moment I don't see anything terrible. Jasper, I'm sorry I'm not always around at the same times you are, but as you can see, I've got quite a few talk page stalkers. In general they offer very good advice, possibly not as I'd say it - but certainly with the sentiments mine would carry.

So, looking at the situation - You seem to be reading his comment as negative, and deserving a block - my reading is that he acknowledged my comments and will ensure that he tempers himself in future (the "okay okay") but he still thinks that the articles are not written correctly. Now, that becomes a content issue - and as I mentioned to Daniel, I'll leave him some feedback about the best way to handle that. There's nothing worth chastising in his second comment, let alone blocking. Worm^TT · ( talk) 07:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll see how the content dispute works out. As it's now not disruptive editing, there's no more need to talk about this. Jasper Deng (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

On 15 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wenderholm Regional Park, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Wenderholm Regional Park includes a house built by Sir Robert Graham? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wenderholm Regional Park.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.

Materialscientist ( talk) 08:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

... and Doom Bar is on the Main Page today as well! -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 13:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I missed that! I thought it was odd people were working on it! YAY! Doom bar! cha cha cha! Worm^TT · ( talk) 13:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to rush you but, how far have you come in researching ArcAngel -- Christian and Jericho 13:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Not far at all I'm afraid. It's on my to do list, but unfortunately these things can take days or even weeks. Worm^TT · ( talk) 13:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Worm. I responded to your questions posed my talk. If you don't mind, I'd also like to bring in HJ Mitchell to overlook me as well as he stated he would be willing to nom me when I felt I was ready.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that bringing HJ Mitchell on board would be a great idea, he's certainly an editor I respect and would value his opinion. Worm^TT · ( talk) 12:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hows this for a strange and unexpected article!? Gay Nigger Association of America Just when you think you've seen it all there's stranger articles out there in WP land lol. Political correctness clearly isn't as bad in America as it is in the UK. Jenova 20 12:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, GNAA is one of the banes of wikipedia - I'm well aware of it! It's properly contentious and has been attempted to be deleted about 20 times, hit deletion review a couple of times, Jimbo's talkpage, and even a grouping of the afds was itself deleted! Great fun... Worm^TT · ( talk) 12:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Actually political correctness is an American invention, and is still less extreme in the UK than in the USA. However, people taking extreme positions, often results in others wanting to mock or provoke them, as in this case. Sometimes such mockery can make a valid point; but often it's just tasteless satire that serves no purpose other than trying to get a reaction. Incidentally, an "internet troll" was jailed for trolling in the UK this week, and I do mean for trolling, not for hacking or denial of service attacks or death threats. The principal contributor to the article you mention is currently indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 12:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"an 'internet troll' was jailed for trolling in the UK this week" ← LOL. Swarm ^{u / t} 19:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey there! Just wanted to check in with you. Someone is missed in the Ambassador program this semester. ; ) I'm guessing that the 2011 RFA reform is keeping you busy, but if not, we could use some help over there. (Throwing out a lifeline.) We have several classes starting without online (or campus) support. If you know of any Wikipedians that may be interested in applying to serve as an Online Ambassador, send them here. Campus Ambassadors can apply here. Taking applications now! ; ) Cind. amuse (Cindy) 14:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There are a few good applications for ambassador pending approval. In particular I was hoping maybe you could comment on this one. -- My76Strat ( talk) 16:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Worm. Please put your opinion in these AFDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced SystemCare and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Vista Optimizer. - Porch corpter ( talk/ contribs) 08:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd seen them. I'm not sure what best to suggest - I'm not certain they are notable topics, the comments made by the opposers are reasonable. I should also point out that a large part of getting you to write articles was to allow you to take pride in them and feel how bad it is when you lose them - ensuring greater empathy if you become an admin. I'll make a comment soon - I'm a little busy this weekend, but do try to keep calm and not make personal attacks. Worm^TT · ( talk) 12:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 14:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't ;) Worm^TT · ( talk) 14:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm so sorry I missed you on IRC last night. I noticed you on in the middle of the night when I got up for 2 minutes. We can try again, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Dont worry about it! It'll happen sooner or later! Worm^TT · ( talk) 06:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

hello ,Worm please take a look at my article Suzhou Harmony Times Square, and give me some advice. thank you NNU-02-05100143

I've replied on your talk page. Worm^TT · ( talk) 08:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We need you. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Eek, I can't I'm afraid. I'm at work, so whilst I can help out on here I can't actually get to IRC. If there's anything specific you'd like me to do, feel free to email me or leave a note here. Worm^TT · ( talk) 10:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Worm: What happened was as follows: I asked a student to come up and show the class how she could ask for help from an editor for her article, the Suzhou Harmony Times. Under my guidance, she did that. But when it was done we noticed that I hadn't signed out from a previous exercise; nor she in. So she replaced the tildes with her username in as the signature. Sorry. Didn't realise this could be an issue. Njnu-ban-xueshenghao ( talk) 12:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Worm, you long ago (June) said you'd help me set up the archiving process for my Talk page. I have read the bot page several times and I simply do not understand it. I don't have lots of Talk page activity, but would like a 6-month archive process. Can you help me? I am happy to do something in return, like proofread or copyedit something you need help with. Or do your laundry. Anything. Thank you.-- TEHodson 04:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. No need to beg . I'm sure I'll come up with a job for you though. Worm^TT · ( talk) 06:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that you did something on the page, but I don't understand how to use it! I'm sorry for being so thick, but when it comes to programming stuff (and this is programming stuff, to me anyway) I am in the dark!! Is there some command I now give it? Thank you for getting me started, but I don't know what to do next.-- TEHodson 06:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait. I think I understand something I just read. It will run automatically at a certain time during the next 24 hours. Did I get that right? Can it be that I understood what it says?-- TEHodson 06:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed you have! Basically, there's a bot which comes along every day, looks at the rules I've put at the top (I can explain them if you like, so you can change them in future) and then archives anything that it's allowed to. I don't know if you've missed a run, so the first time could be up to 48 hours away, but after that it will be regular. Worm^TT · ( talk) 07:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I learn by seeing what's there, rather than by reading a text, and I can see by looking at what you did that you put in 180 days for the cycle, for example (in college, I skimmed my Art History text, but studied the paintings and what my professors said, and always aced the class--what was in the book became just bits of ink on paper, while the paintings were teaching me just by being there, if you follow me). So anyway, by looking at what you did and going back to the Bot page, I have a much more concrete idea of how it will work. I thank you very, very much.-- TEHodson 07:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Just one thing though, in case you weren't aware, rather than it checking every 180 days, it checks all the threads on your page every day, and ones that have no posts in the last 180 days are archived, if that makes sense. Same effect, slightly different execution. Worm^TT · ( talk) 07:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I got that. I just didn't say it correctly. It will always scan for and pick up anything over 180 days old. If I get more active, I can change that number to a lower one, and it will change the parameters of its archiving activity accordingly. I wanted to tell you that for the first time I was one of two people responsible for taking an article up to GA status ( Restless). I know it's not much compared to what you do, but I was proud of myself. And the guy I worked with, Drovethrughosts, was a great collaborator. No arguments, no power struggles, just "I'll do this." "Okay, and I'll do that." "Okay." It was so nice. I feel I did some good writing and organizing, and had fun. As you know, Buffy pages can be a trial, but this was a pleasure. I'd take on more challenging articles, but I just don't have the time to do much beyond work on improving the prose and structure of existent ones. I leave the big stuff to those who do it well, and contribute what I can.-- TEHodson 08:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a great job. I wouldn't put me on too much of a pedestal, I've done very little decent work on WP recently, just the odd tidy of a BLP. My last GA was months ago and the only DYK I've had in months was because I was helping someone else. I'm glad there are still people out there doing decent article work and if there's anything I can do to support you in that, let me know. Worm^TT · ( talk) 08:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, thank you and good-night (it's 3 am here). Call me when it's laundry day.-- TEHodson 10:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I found the said users' mentioning of me in his leaving message to be an attempt to troll me knowing full well that it would wind me up. I done my edits based on TPG Section "Editing Comments - others' comments" - point 3: "Removing harmful posts" - the post in question I felt to be trolling. Colofac ( talk) 15:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing harmful, nor trolling (ie to get a reaction) in that comment. It was certainly poor judgement for you to make that change, given your history. Now, walk away. In fact, I've just seen you're on IRC, so I might see if you're interested in discussing that there. Worm^TT · ( talk) 15:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The decision is yours ultimately, I accept your decision. Colofac ( talk) 15:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Very well. Worm^TT · ( talk) 15:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 16:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Good news: We now have an important new member. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 18:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ambassadors!

I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.

On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.

Courses looking for Online Ambassadors

Still waiting to get involved with a class this term, or ready to take on more? We have seven classes that are already active and need OA support, and eleven more that have course pages started but don't have active students yet. Please consider joining one or more of these pods!

Active courses that really need Online Ambassadors:

• Sociology of Poverty
• Architectural Design
• Introduction to Educational Psychology
• Intro to Mass Communication
• Psychology Seminar
• Theories of the State
• Advanced Media Studies

Courses that may be active soon that need Online Ambassadors:

• Housing and Social Policy
• Anthropology, Wikipedia, and the Media
• History & Systems
• Horror Cinema
• Digital Media... just bits in a box
• Composition I
• Telecommunications Management
• Training Systems
• Stigma: Culture, Deviance, Identity
• Art and Terrorism
• Political Violence and Insurgency

-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 23:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that interaction ban should be turned into an AfD ban for topics I'm not familiar in. I support a self-ban from interacting with that user and want to make it so that I can't bite any more editors. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can see that point of view - but I think you might be a little too harsh on yourself. Your interactions with that user have not been helpful, and an interaction ban is sensible there - but I think most of your self bans come down to the same thing - not quite assuming enough good faith. I know it's a difficult thing to do, but I think you'll need to modify your attitude, especially with newer users, to put the wikipedian first.

I know you deal with a lot of vandals, so deciding where to draw the line is hard - except to stick to the letter of policy. If an edit is clearly designed to harm the 'pedia, it's vandalism - if not, it's an editor who is trying to improve the encyclopedia and is may need your help.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to focus on helping out at the helper boards - WP:HELPDESK, WP:EAR and maybe even WP:3O or WP:RFC and trying to empathise with whoever you're helping - seeing things from their point of view? Worm^TT · ( talk) 04:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The help desk was something that Eagles247 (a user I've interacted with for a very long time) asked me to stay off of in his !vote at ANI. Any place where new editors show up is a chance to BITE, in my opinion, and must be avoided. Normally, users don't get bitten by things like a sockpuppetry accusation, but I have to be more sensitive about the user's reaction, especially when English is not their first language. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, I'm just beginning to feel that you are already severely restricted and restricting yourself further isn't the solution. You're not learning anything that way and we move whatever problem (problem might not be the best word, but it's all I've got at 6am!) on to the next area. New users show up everywhere - it would be better if you could avoid biting rather than avoiding situations where you might bite.

Are you sure that users don't get bitten by a sockpuppetry accusation? Basically biting means that a user has either been told something that doesn't make sense, been insulted or told off for something they didn't know was wrong. Any user who is not a sockpuppet who is told that they are playing the system is likely to be insulted - if they're a new user, they'll firstly not understand and then if they do put the effort in to work out what you're talking about, they'll then be insulted. So they're doubly bitten! Worm^TT · ( talk) 05:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Then again I cannot expect all users to have the objective response Wikipedia expects. The thing is, I've learned the policies but don't put them into effect. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about more than policies - you know every policy in the book and still struggle with interactions. I do think you need to work on your people skills . As for your objective response, WP:BITE specifically points out that terms like "sockpuppet" are derogatory. Worm^TT · ( talk) 05:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

TW has been used for biting but has many legitimate uses. I've noticed that when TW is unavailable (when I'm forced to use IE) I usually don't bite. Jasper Deng (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the following summarizes it: Bad faith edits must be reverted, good faith edits only scrutinizable within the realm of my knowledge and not including newbies (I'm knowledgeable in technology, hence my involvement with Adam Schuck). Jasper Deng (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think Twinkle makes you more bitey, don't use it. 28bytes ( talk) 17:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Eagles makes a good point: Jasper is still way too bitey for the help desk. The only way I could see it working is if he committed to only answering helpfully, e.g. no telling the person they're in the wrong venue, no reverting "suspicious" questions, no tossing warning templates, no telling the person what they want can't be done: only responding if he can say "the information you're looking for can be found [here]" or "here's how you do it:" or something similar. Leave the "can't help you" responses to someone more diplomatic. Thoughts? 28bytes ( talk) 17:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and the same should be standard for the entire website, especially the "can't help you" and "no, see ABC, DEF, GHI, and JKL." Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I've taken so long to reply, things went crazy at work. I've now actually been up for... far too long, and really need some sleep, so please do take whatever I say with a pinch of salt - I may reword in the morning. On the one hand, I agree, Jasper is bitey and I think it's very good that he can see areas that are making him moreso (TW). I would suggest that he only use Twinkle for bad faith edits - actual bad faith ones. If it's not bad faith, then any edit should be done by hand - forcing Jasper to take a little more time over what he writes.

However, I think the outside comment on Jasper is a bit arse about face. There are plenty of suggestions of what he shouldn't do "Don't Bite" "Don't edit here" "Don't talk to these people in this way" but not an overarching what he should do. 28bytes, my thought for what Jasper should be doing at the helpdesk would exactly match your suggestion (though again, I haven't said what he shouldn't do, but what he should - focus on "helping" and seeing things from the other person's point of view).

Jasper appears to have dealt with area's he's had trouble with by moving on to new areas - this is admirable, as he recognizes that he is at fault and does not want to cause more issues (I can think of some of my other adoptees who have to be told VERY explicitly to move along). However, I think that many of these troubles come from the same root cause and if these can be dealt with it might sort the whole thing out.

If I have time tomorrow, I might create a little "quiz" for Jasper, I'm curious to know how he'd handle certain situations. Worm^TT · ( talk) 19:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the Help Desk is not for me, and the fact that uncontroversial things rarely come up (like NLT violations), I need to go make a GA (I have several good ideas) instead. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Update: I have de-watchlisted the Help Desk. The problem will not go away unless I learn how to tell what's good/bad faith (the first thing that must be addressed before dealing with something). Jasper Deng (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for triple-posting, but this looks like something to work on. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about triple posting. Perhaps I'm a little ambitious with my thoughts, and helpdesk can come later - I'll have a look at your guide, and see if there's anything I can add. Worm^TT · ( talk) 09:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, do you know how i can add a green tick to my "Current Project" section on my user page? I wanted to tick each car done but don't know how lol Thanks, hope all is well Jenova 20 10:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

{{ done}} - it looks like  Done (which goes along with {{ doing}} and {{ notdone}}). Or you could use {{ tick}} - which looks like Y. It's pretty much as you'd expect! Worm^TT · ( talk) 11:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I remember that now, we used it on one of your tests! =]

Thanks for that Worm Jenova 20 12:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm off to a good start with 5 done already, think i'll rest for the day.

Let me know what you think of their addition to the articles if you can.

I personally think they're brilliant as they're unbiased and tell the truth more than any other review ever could.

Thanks again Jenova 20 14:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea at all :) I think it might be that you could turn it into a template - but the wikitable seems to be working. I would suggest you move the reference to somewhere inline so it's not just floating out there. As for whether they're a good idea or not, I suggest you ask at WP:AUTO - where they'll be able to give much more relevant feedback Worm^TT · ( talk) 19:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you show me an example on the original template?

Thanks for the feedback Jenova 20 09:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Something like my change at Toyota Verso perhaps? Worm^TT · ( talk) 09:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I like that, but why does it show up twice?

Thanks Jenova 20 10:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Because I put it in twice . I named the references, and put it on both the score and points columns, so it was clear they were both from the same source. You can see how I did it in the code if you like. Worm^TT · ( talk) 10:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

So what about what i did?

That still works right?

Thanks Jenova 20 10:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly - I was probably going for the overkill Worm^TT · ( talk) 10:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"A nuclear land mine is an example of overkill." LMFAO!

Thanks Dave! First laugh of the day!

Jenova 20 10:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Worm! I was considering an article on Ikechi Nnamani and noticed that an article had been deleted on him in 2009. Would you be willing to email me the contents of the article or to restore it in the subpage User:Ryan Vesey/Ikechi Nnamani? Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 20:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully, he's done something since then! Worm^TT · ( talk) 09:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I was sort of led to believe that he had done more than he had. I will probably start on the article, but it looks like it will be another 2 years before he is deserving of an article. Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 03:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Worm, we haven't talked in a while. I'm wondering if there are Wikipedians I can contact who have subscribed to the New York Times and are willing to purchase an article for a WP article. Thanks! (Oh, and BTW, can you comment in my editor review?) HurricaneFan 25 17:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi HurricaneFan! Long time no chat, I've had my eye on you though and nothing has concerned me :) My head may be going soft, but I have a vague recollection that Ironholds may be able to help you with your request - I think he has access to such things. You could possibly ask (or search the archives) at the NYT page on wikipedia. Otherwise, if it's actually down to spending money, I think it might have to be out of your own pocket I'm afraid. I'll do my best to look at your editor review as soon as I can. Worm^TT · ( talk) 19:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi HuricaneFan. If you're still needing a NYT article drop a note on my talk page. Cloveapple ( talk) 05:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox musical artist. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 23:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• TurboForce ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Comparison of Windows and Linux (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This dispute has been going for about a month or a half. My concern with TurboForce is his comments on the mentioned article's talk page, which seem to be rants against Windows (COI warning: I love Windows), after being told repeatedly that such comments are not appropriate for talk pages ( WP:IDHT seems to apply in my opinion, but I may be wrong), and that consensus is against them. His edits to the article are fine enough though, so I need your advice before I can go to a noticeboard. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jasper. Sorry about the horrible delay here, I've been thinking about what to suggest on and off for a week - not ignoring you, honest! The thing is, as you yourself point out, his edits to the article are fine. And there are strong opinions at work here - you clearly are a Windows fan and he is clearly a Linux fan. Throw my opinion into the mix (which is, if you're interested - comparison articles are almost impossible to keep WP:NPOV, they will undoubtably favour one and be based on opinion, they're not encyclopedic and should be removed all together) and we have a proper little melting pot. That he's suggested corporate influence isn't helpful but the end result is the same - each side favours their O/S.

So, back to the question. No, I don't think it's worth going to a noticeboard. If there are specific issues with the article, I would agree that you could start an RfC, and if you feel specific comments are problematic and you are unable to ignore them, then try to address them specifically. If you are still unable to resolve those comments, feel free to come to me.

I'd like to make a couple of points though. Firstly, NPOV doesn't actually apply to talkspace, nor does verifiability. I could go to an article on, say Toyota Prius, and say that it's the best hybrid car in the world because its battery is the fastest to charge, and I'm looking for references to back that up. That's certainly not NPOV, but also a reasonable thing to put in talk space as I'd be discussing the article.

Secondly, WP:IDHT applies after consensus has been reached, not after a couple of editors disagree. If there was a consensus, and he ignored it, then you might have an argument - here, not so much. Worm^TT · ( talk) 10:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN/I#Request for lifting of GA topic ban Hello, Worm That Turned. Rcsprinter123 has filed a request at the above page to have his GA topic ban lifted after six months. Your input would be appreciated.

Rcsprinter (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen on his talk page that he has been harrassing Adam mugliston. I would just like to say I'm almost certain charles has been looking over every edit I make which does make me feel uncomfortable. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 15:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Umm, umm, slow down a bit. I don't think anyone is accusing Charles of harassment ... it's just that his discussions with Adam tended not to be productive. You can ask Charles - politely - that he not post on your talk page, if you wish.

People viewing your contributions is permitted - all of your contributions, if they're really that interested. If it gets to the level of WP:WIKIHOUND then it's a bit more serious, but if the issues raised do need discussing, then it's not harassment.

If you really want to fix the colours issue on that buses article, then you should format it like List of bus routes in Colchester. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 15:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly as Demiurge says. I never suggested that Charles was harassing Adam, I pointed out that if he carried down on the same path after Adam had politely asked him to stop, then it could lead to harassment. Anyway, I'd follow Demiurge's advice if I were you, if you're finding that discussions with Charles are getting nowhere, ask him politely to not post on your talk page. there's nothing untoward about that. Worm^TT · ( talk) 17:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't go around moving your posts around, so kindly extend me the same courtesy. PumpkinSky talk 17:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"the project", you mean you and pyfan. I'm the project too. that's one of wiki's innumerable problems, someone always thinks they have to stick their nose in your business. PumpkinSky talk 17:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page, Worm^TT · ( talk) 17:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you sir for your message on my page, was it Σ who told you? How thoughtful of him. But yeah thats perfectly fine, you seem like a really busy guy anyway. The majority of my edits are to do with either politics or 19th / 20th century history. Is there anyone else you would recommend who could take me under their wing for a few months? i did have a previous mentor but unfortunately he doesnt go on much these days. Goldblooded ( talk) 22:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Worm!

Been so long, since we've had a chat - better yet, since I last went to Your Adoption School. Well, if you have the time (going through your edit history, you edit as if you don't sleep!), would it be possible if I could proceed with my education at the Adoption school? I apologise for not returning to it for a while - I fail miserably when it comes to procrastination, and that's definately not a good thing to have at my age! :D

Would I be able to start it sometime tommorow? (Monday, 10 October)? If not, some time this upcomming week?

Thank You! -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 12:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Worm :) There's a possible third DYK/2nd GA up my alley :). Would you mind giving 1906 Florida hurricane a quick copyedit? Thanks! HurricaneFan 25 16:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey HurricaneFan. I've had a look through and it looks good to me. Worth checking with someone more knowledgable though. Worm^TT · ( talk) 14:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi WTT, thanks for your message a while back. I just wanted to let you know that I haven't completely disappeared, but I recently started a new job in real life and have had no time for Wikipedia of late. I should be back again before too long though, so if you are still happy to be my adopter then could we leave my page archived until I get back and then re-activate it? I am still very keen to learn from you and take your course as soon as real life settles back down again!

And congratulations on becoming an admin a few months ago. I hope it is going well. Sincerely, Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

replied at AA's page Worm^TT · ( talk) 12:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Would you be willing to review my edits to see if I'm ready to be nominated for adminship? I have previously run unsuccessfully under the username Wikiwoohoo. Cloudbound ( talk) 02:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. There's no rush so I look forward to hearing from you when you have the chance. Cloudbound ( talk) 14:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please take a lookat the Daily Mail talk page and give me your opinion on the "my chemical romance" section. It's Jenova20 here not logged in. Thanks 90.209.124.27 ( talk) 22:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm a bit too busy to get into it at the moment, but basically, the guys on the talk page have it right, at first glance - I don't see anything that implies that the My Chemical Romance criticism should be in there, it would be giving the whole thing undue weight. I'll have a look at it again in a few days hopefully though. Worm^TT · ( talk) 11:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks 90.209.124.27 ( talk) 16:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello again!

Just wanted to say thanks again for all your help early on! Hellblazer now has a little green plus sign at the top right! Couldn't have done this without all your help, and your great adoption course. Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 07:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! I knew you could do it :D See how many more you can do... You'll be beating my 7 in no time, I'm sure. Worm^TT · ( talk) 11:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Another edit war is going on, with a guy who is insisting that a band member Tweeting that it was his band whose song was played over a TV show is a reliable source. Twitter is not considered a reliable source from my understanding of WP:IRS, but he won't stop putting it back. The page is Running Up that Hill and there's a discussion on the Talk page, in which he is rude and just doesn't seem to get it. I wrote to him on his talk page User:Brandon, but nothing is helping. I can't understand the form to fill out. We need a second opinion or two. Can you help?-- TEHodson 04:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Oh dear. Up front, you've exposed yourself to an possible block by reporting the situation (as you've violated WP:3RR); I've left a comment there to hopefully avoid that. Now, on the content matter, Twitter can be a reliable source, but you have to use judgement to decide whether it is. In this case, one of the Twitter accounts was that of Allison Scagliotti, an actress on the show Warehouse 13. Another one is Eddie McClintock, another actor on that show. If they were sharing information about Mount Fuji, would it be reliable? Of course not! But they're sharing information about their show's soundtrack, and that's almost certainly going to be reliable, because we can safely assume that they're knowledgeable on this matter. Does that make sense? Twitter can actually be a great source of information for insider information or announcements. Even look at the iTunes customer reviews. They're not a reliable source, but if iTunes customers are talking about hearing that cover in that episode, common sense can come into play and you can assume that the song was there. I don't know when Worm will be back, but until then, feel free to ask me if you need this clarified further. Swarm 06:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea. If you can see what I wrote there, I read that there was an exception for users trying to keep unsourced material off the page. I also had found that on WP:IRS Twitter was specifically cited as not being reliable, and that one should go to another source. How is anyone supposed to know who the Tweeter is (can't anyone have an account under any name?), and even if they're on the show, does that mean they know all the details of post-production? I would be wary. Is iTunes considered reliable? I was just reverted for using IMDB, as it's not considered reliable here, but is generally considered the bible of online film facts. So how to judge? The situation was made murkier by another user insisting that it was Placebo's version of the song, and they had a source to back that up, too. Whatever you want to do, I will abide by your decision. I don't like to fight, but so far his other sources are a site advertising their services and using the song to do so, and the other is iTunes. Also, Kate Bush page editors usually are really tough about sources. This really doesn't belong on her song's page, except tangentially. Maybe putting it on the actual band's page would be better, esp. if they're not so tough there. You would not believe the fan crap we deal with on her pages! Thank you for your help.-- TEHodson 06:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, everything you're talking about is sort of a grey area. There's no straight, "textbook" answers to your questions. You may need to just rely on your judgement sometimes. But for this situation, you may be overthinking a bit. This particular actress has 37,000 followers and she's tweeting about the show with a fellow actor. It's fairly obvious she's the real deal. Does she know all the details of post-production? Of course not, but can you assume she actually knows what she's talking about when it comes to this one particular song (that she's probably very intentionally advertising)? Most definitely. I think you and Brandon can discuss whether the other sources are unreliable at this point. Just as an aside: as a general rule, dubious, poorly sourced information can be removed, but never at the expense of edit warring. Next time, place a {{ rs?}} tag on the content and then discuss it on the talk page. Remember this in the future and you'll definitely stay out of trouble! :) Swarm 07:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Got it. It might have helped had he told me she was the actress on the show (or if I'd ever heard of her, or the relatively obscure show)! I thought he was saying the Tweet was by a band member, and self-promotion is, as far as I know, not allowed. Twitter has definitely added a new variable, and I think it's best if it can be backed up by the sorts of sources we usually rely upon, which is what WP:IRS says to do. Right now, for example, my daughter's cover version of "Ain't No Sunshine" is being used in the UK by Channel 4 to promote the show "The Killing" over there, but I'd never use her Facebook page annoucement, or a Tweet from me, as a source were I to put this into an article (even though we're certaily "experts" on this point). I'd use Channel 4's page, which credits her, as the source. I was considering this exact example when trying to decide if it should stand. My thinking was "outside sources." Anyway, thank you for your help and for the explanations. I appreciate it. I try to do good here.-- TEHodson 07:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm a little too busy to get into all this now, but I see you've managed to get a bit of a hand from Swarm, an excellent contributor. Hopefully, he's explained everything! Worm^TT · ( talk) 11:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone else just came to the page and absolutely declared Twitter an unreliable source and reverted the edit you restored. I'm not touching it again, but he cited the same things I did. Interesting to see if the edit gets re-reverted (you know what I mean).-- TEHodson 22:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sega Genesis and Mega Drive. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 13:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey there WTT, sorry to bother you but ive got a quick question; something ive noticed is that a lot of editors when they sign their posts have their name in different colours or have "return fire" or "shout back" etc next to it , do you know how to get this? Goldblooded ( talk) 12:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, basically, that's custom signature - you can change colours, words or anything to be how you like. There's some guidelines on what you should/shouldn't have (no pictures, must be under 256 chars in wiki code, etc etc) which are outlined at WP:SIG. To change your signature, you just need to put your new signature in the signature box of my preferences Worm^TT · ( talk) 12:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah right , ive got the jist of it but how do i add colour? Goldblooded _{Return Fire} 14:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

and is there a way to get the latter part to be aligned at the top as opposed to at the bottom? Goldblooded _{Return Fire} 14:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You just need to know your html wizardry. Have a look at User:Worm That Turned/Sig Test to see some people I've helped in the past. I can put one together for you if you're struggling - just let me know what you'd like. Oh, and if you use "sup" instead of "sub", it'll align to the top. Worm^TT · ( talk) 14:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, ill look at that in a bit thanks :) Also , are you allowed to "borrow" an idea off another editor? Not nessarially just for sigs, for example i noticed this other user had a page where other users could post reviews/complaints about that user; would i be able to copy his idea? (or part of it) Goldblooded _{Return Fire} 14:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia has been released under the terms of WP:CC-BY-SA, and I mean everything. As such, yes you can freely use anything, as long as it's been attributed (ie, mention where you got it from in the edit summary per WP:COPYPASTE). My adoption school is a bastardised version of Hersfolds, my userpage is a bastardised version of Jimbo Wales old one. Reuse is a great thing :) Worm^TT · ( talk) 15:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And also, im a little confused by the archive system - is there a way to create a seperate archives for the complaints page? [ [4]]

Yes, in the same way you would for the other. I'll do it for you, save you a bit of time. Worm^TT · ( talk) 15:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help :) thanks for doing the coding too, much appreciated. Goldblooded ^{Return Fire} 15:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

One last thing, do you by any chance know how to make a page redirect?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stavtordt Goldblooded ^{Return Fire} 20:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, nice and simply, you just need to use the magic word #REDIRECT - rather than just Redirect. Have a look at my edit and you'll see the difference. Worm^TT · ( talk) 11:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright , thank you :) Also concerning the sig; how do i get a part of it in colour? say i wanted the return fire bit just in black what would the coding be? User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 15:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

[[User talk:Goldblooded|<sup style="color:#000000;">(Return Fire)</sup>]]. You can find the hexadecimal values of other colors by putting in "color+color+color" in this. → Σ τ c. 23:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

... that they got mentioned here. Wow, wtf? Oh dear. Do people not have anything better to do than think up new and silly variations on my username? I would've thought the obvious humour was plenty to be going on with. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 22:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project and consider adding your name.

The scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project is mainly concerned with new articles.

According to the teacher's instructions, this group of students may not create a lot of new articles, but may instead focus more on improving existing articles.

So, there may be little for us to do in the way the Wikipedia:WikiProject China/NNU Class Project required. The students may, however, still call on us for guidance in other areas. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 09:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you snow this? Or do you think it's too early? -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This is my 12000^th edit! I have definitely got them up since April! Thanks for all your help as ever, Worm. Rcsprinter (rap) 13:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't catch editcountitis, sprinter :) HurricaneFan 25 14:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

He's right - there's a lot more important things on Wikipedia than your edit count. But well done anyway :) Worm^TT · ( talk) 15:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you're around, could you look at this message which I just placed, and possibally chime in. The referenced conversation is this page. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I already know how to and I'm putting it on now. I gotta get away from this. JamesAlan1986 * ^talk 13:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Good good. Email me if you need it taken off, or if there's anything I can do. Worm^TT · ( talk) 13:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi it's James I already put the break on so I have to use my IP. I set it for the 22nd. It should end at 12:01:01 am, if it doesn't look right you are more then welcome to fix it. 74.83.199.78 ( talk) 13:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I do want to ask if you could just blank the conversations off my talk page. That might help put an end to it all. They're already in the archive. 74.83.199.78 ( talk) 13:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Consider it done. let me know if you need anything. Worm^TT · ( talk) 13:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay I will. ^_^ 74.83.199.78 ( talk) 13:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I do wanna make note that I started my JamesAlan1986 account back in May of this year. And I am still very new to a lot of Wikipedia stuff. I'm still trying to get the hang of things as I'm always learning something new everyday. Status knows this better then anyone as he and Novice (as well as a few others) are the ones I have turned to when I've needed help. So when Status called me a "newcomer" it was on the bases that I still got a lot to learn about Wikipedia and I do know there are pages that are around to help but even when I read them, I still don't always fully understand and usually I have to get it literally explained to me or I give up out of pressure. LOL! But I thought I'd explain to you about Status' statement, he's always got my back and I always got his. 74.83.199.78 ( talk) 13:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, good point. I got my maths wrong, that's not 18 months at all! I wouldn't call you a new user though, but I do see what you mean. Have you ever considered adoption? I run a good course if you fancy trying it out. I can take you through the basics of the "behind the scenes" parts of wikipedia and be able to help out with any questions. It's up to you, of course. Worm^TT · ( talk) 13:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That'd be awesome! You are more then welcome to add my JamesAlan1986 account to it. ^_^ 74.83.199.78 ( talk) 14:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay saw what you posted on your history page. And you're more then welcome to e-mail me anytime. I'm waiting on status and novice to get ahold of me on there right now. 74.83.199.78 ( talk) 14:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Worm, mind removing [redacted] from the history? Don't really want everyone seeing his email, do we? — Status { ^talk _contribs 14:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's really worth WP:REVDEL, it's not really personally identifying information. It's been removed from the current page, which is what might be crawled - so it shouldn't be an issue. Worm^TT · ( talk) 14:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Worm,

I've started reviewing GANs, and now I feel that I'm worried about whether I'm on the right track, reviewing articles (like am I too tough?). [This concern was sparked by finding out about a GA-nominating/reviewing topic ban for a user.] My two GA reviews so far are this and this. I'm going to work on this one soon. Although I consider our relation via adoption is over, I'm hoping you can mentor me now, especially in the GA reviewing section. Thanks! HurricaneFan 25 17:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do :) Worm^TT · ( talk) 17:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the #: thing [5]; I was trying to figure out how to do that. Where's the embarrassed smiley when you need it? CRGreathouse ( t | c) 16:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No problems. It's amazing how stupid they can get, I've dealt with a *:## before, or something like that. Worm^TT · ( talk) 17:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Worm. I considered replying at the ANI thread for TreasuryTag but I guess this turned into a bit of a rant that is only tangentially related to the case at hand. I'll put it to you here instead.

On the question I asked you about 'last chances', I suppose my concern is that Wikipedia is effectively a toothless tiger when it comes to problematic long-term editors. It seems every month there's one of a familiar list of names appearing in ANI over yet more misbehaviour, with a chorus of people saying 'enough is enough', and a vocal group of supporters trying to downplay the whole thing or rationalise that the editor's contributions somehow give him immunity from all of the rules we expect people to follow. Inevitably either nothing happens, or a block or ban is placed only to be overturned a few days later by yet another sympathetic admin, and the whole cycle repeats month after month.

I applaud Wikipedia's patience and forgiveness (as well as your own) in dealing with situations like this, but we really need to be able to have the teeth to show some of these people the door. The way things go at the moment, these editors have no real reason to change. Why would they, when we've proven that any time someone finally takes a stand and does something about it, it doesn't matter because there's always someone else around the next corner who will have sympathy or reverse the decision? We've created an environment where 'barely tolerable' is all an editor needs to be for a few days to reset the entire process back to square one. We've communicated clearly to people that would take advantage of it that many of our policies and guidelines are effectively weightless. Personally, I'm sick of seeing serial-incivility pests getting free run over the project because nobody can sustain a civility block on an established editor without it being overturned.

I understand that to you, this situation looks like 'he gets one last chance and I'll give it my best to help him' but to me it looks like 'another name on the list of people I'm going to see complaints about month after month without anything being done'. I guess that's an AGF issue on my part, but it just wearies me to see good editors and new editors with a lot of potential giving up on Wikipedia, driven away by those same people we see complained about regularly, because there's a systematic failure to draw a line in the sand and really stick to it. I haven't voted in the discussion on TT at ANI and I remain neutral on that specific case, but I think these things are worth consideration in the way we approach situations like this. TechnoSymbiosis ( talk) 03:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I honestly think that this does come down partially to how we deal with long term disruption. I do agree that long term disruption is a problem on Wikipedia and that it should be stopped - however, I don't believe that outright blocking is the way to do that. For one thing, if we were to block outright - leaving him blocked for say 6 months (per WP:OFFER), he could sit it out, come back and repeat the same behaviour. People will have forgotten how they found that annoying, and they'll start again from the bottom. On the other hand, if we focus on rehabilitation and work on changing TT's editing styles to be productive - especially whilst it's fresh in everyone's minds - we may actually be able to stop the issues long term.

I understand the perception that pests can run riot - breaking civility regulations and I do agree they should be taken to task for that. Civility blocks are difficult, because it is largely based on perception and circumstances, but we do have other methods for dealing with incivility. In fact, I've recently filed an RfC on a user which was largely complaining about civility issues. I agree that there should be no free ride - though I do not think anyone is irredeemable.

On this case specifically, many of TT's issues stem from his interpretation of policy along with the forceful methods he uses for putting his views forwards. The disruption comes from the latter and that's why he's blocked. All of the policies are open to interpretation - there are no firm rules. Dweller (who mentored TT previously) has explained that TT did make progress and improve, though he has recently backslid. That does give me a lot of hope. Worm^TT · ( talk) 10:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Worm! Kind of relieved that's over. Just wanted to thank you for the RfA nom. It was pretty cool that you held out for #100 (and that you wagered it would reach that level in the first place). I (quite seriously) could not have asked for a better nominator or nom statement. Thanks again, Swarm ^X 04:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help. The nomination statement was only ever meant to persuade one person - the rest of the community already knew he should be an admin! Enjoy the tools, until you realise it's actually just a burden and everyone looks at you funny. Worm^TT · ( talk) 06:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I was certain you'd get the 100 and was rather worried when you nearly didn't! Worm^TT · ( talk) 06:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ha, it certainly was a slow climb up until the very end! Let's just hope I don't accidentally delete the main page, or something. :) Swarm ^X 07:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't delete the main page, that issue has been fixed, (but don't try it anyways, since the last person that tried after being told he couldn't actually did delete it). Sven Manguard Wha? 08:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Playboy Club. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 02:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Pffft, some people get all the luck. That silly bot usually asks me to comment on things like Communist terrorism and different sorts of suicide and such. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 07:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not complaining. I'm sure you're to comment! Worm^TT · ( talk) 07:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)