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 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Hey Dave, hope you're well. I am going to be starting an RFC soon to follow up on the work at WP:UWTEST, and I was wondering if I could commandeer your time to close it after the comment period is up? I would love to get a few admins chosen beforehand so that no one is left wondering. What do you say? :) Steven Walling (WMF) •  talk 23:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Certainly fine by me, just give me a shout when the time comes. Of course, if there are any objections, let me know and I'll step back. Worm^TT( talk) 07:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll drop you a note later. Steven Walling (WMF) •  talk 17:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Bfrancom17 is clearly a sockpuppet of recently blocked vandal User:Bfrancom and is vandalising Android version history constantly today (just as his last account did this morning). Can you do something about this Dave? Thanks Jenova 20 13:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I've taken this to AIV: if an account is clearly being used for vandalism and/or blatant sockpuppetry, AIV is the place to go. → B music ian 13:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, they're a lot faster there! I checked what you said, went to block and it was already done. Good ol Jac16888 Worm^TT( talk) 13:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well thank you both very much. Im going to add sockpuppetry to my User page help box =] Thanks again and have a nice day Jenova 20 14:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You have Hurricanefan25 listed in User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Stats as productive. I just thought I'd let you know that he was blocked as a sockpuppet.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 20:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that at the time. Just goes to show that our policies do keep out productive users. Forgot to update my stats, but have done now. Worm^TT( talk) 07:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It upset me to find out too. Editors are wary to apply ignore all rules in that area, but I'm not sure that it would've been a bad idea. It's been a while, but I can't recall any unproductive editing on his part.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 12:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay as you can see here and here there is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on and now I believe the guy is using WP:Sockpuppet with an IP address to get his way as an IP address did the same thing he has been doing on both pages and removing a reliable source over a strong possibility that Cartoon Network has not updated their site and the source clearly states a premier date and time schedule for Cartoon Network. I'd also like to point out that Warner Bros. Animation are the creators of the show. Zach suggested I report SymBionicTitan for possible sockpuppet but before that Josh told me to talk to you first before I do anything rash. So that is what I am doing. I already tried to talk to the guy but he will not listen so I am wanting to know how to handle this situation especially if there is sockpuppetry afoot. Swifty* ^talk 20:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Swifty. It's great that you're checking with Worm before steaming ahead with sockpuppetry concerns etc. Unfortunately I don't have time to look into this properly myself right now, but this is just a note that Worm more often edits during UK daytime (i.e. about eleven hours from now) than UK evenings (i.e. now). So you may want to wait for his reply, unless another talk page stalker can step in or Worm happens to be working late (or very early!) today. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks Demiugre I figured as much after Zach pointed that out to me. So I'll just wait on someone or Dave/Worm to look in on this. Swifty* ^talk 21:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Never mind I give up and am done with it and will no longer continue to edit on it. Swifty* ^talk 21:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't give up Swifty, just come back to the situation with a more coherent argument. If you disagree only on points of view then get him to see yours in a different way. If on the other hand you just think he's wrong then a third opinion is a good idea. Thanks and have a good day/night. It's 12:45 AM here though so Dave is likely sleeping (as i will be in a few minutes) Jenova 20 23:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Swifty's done the right thing by taking a break. I'm sure he'll be back soon to do more excellent work on articles :) Worm^TT( talk) 07:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, question time Dave or the watchers of this page. Is purposely misrepresenting a reference vandalism? Example:

• Addition in article"Exodus still maintains that homosexual behavior is sinful."
• Reference - "While the group holds that any sexual activity outside a heterosexual marriage is sinful"

This isn't the same thing at all, especially since "behaviour" is far too vague for what it could mean (especially from the people who use the words "practicing homosexual") Thanks Jenova 20 12:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it vandalism, though it's getting awfully close to it. The word is so charged, you're more likely to lose a debate because people will deflect the discussion onto "mislabelled vandalism". It's certainly a very vague comment, suggesting that any sexual conduct outside of marriage is sinful. Worm^TT( talk) 12:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I got from it 2 meanings:

• Behaviour as in just being gay, even if you live an abstinent life
• Behaviour as in being "a practicing homo", which is usually sex and the like

So as the source only mentions "sexual activity" (which again can be vague as some don't consider oral/anal/foreplay etc to be sex) so the statement added was too vague and is not what the reference says.

Opinion? Thanks Jenova 20 12:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? I don't see this as a "straight/gay" thing. I see it as a "sex before marriage" thing, with an "oh, gay marriage doesn't count" tacked on for good measure. If it's being used for "straight/gay", I think that's misrepresented. Worm^TT( talk) 12:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It was being used for a straight/gay thing for the Exodus International article (one of those "God and prayer can cure the gay" organizations). Reference 10 if you want to make an in-depth analysis. Thanks Jenova 20 13:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is both a "straight/gay" thing and a "sex before marriage" thing. If it wasn't a "straight/gay" thing, I doubt the source would have mentioned "outside a heterosexual marriage". It is clearly misrepresentation to use this to attribute only one half of its meaning.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 13:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree Ryan, but I see the "straight/gay" issue as the minor issue, not the major one - so it's attributing 1/3 of the meaning and ignoring 2/3 ;) That's not even going into the fact that there's a difference between "sexual activity" and "behaviour"... Worm^TT( talk) 13:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

In the context of the organization, I believe it is more concerned with homosexuality than it is with sexual activity outside of marriage. In addition, viewing the actual source, it becomes easy to read that it is focused on activity outside of marriage. Except it comes right after a comment about influencing Minnesota voters. There will be a constitutional amendment on the ballot in Minnesota that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. When viewing that source in its entirety rather than just the one specific sentence, I believe that it is much for focused on homosexuality. Link to source for easy access  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 13:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with you. It does appear (in my personal opinion) that some pressure has been put on Exodus, and a large u-turn has been made. They want to hold to their ideals though, and I think it's very likely that there is an undertone of focus on homosexuality - but it's still a misrepresentation of what they said. Worm^TT( talk) 13:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well i saw the addition by Lionelt and he's a learned editor so i saw it clearly as misrepresentation over any "newer" doing it and used rollback. He's an accomplished editor, i assume he wouldn't misrepresent a source this badly accidentally. I just wanted feedback afterwards from someone more knowledgeable on this. Thanks Jenova 20 13:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've left a comment on his talk page. On vandalism, there's no need to label it such - you can make your point without using the loaded word. Worm^TT( talk) 13:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Okedokie. Thanks for clearing this up for me Jenova 20 13:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Misrepresentation of text to that extent can lead to a block" I think not. The context was clearly related to homosexuality. My addition "homosexual behavior"--arguably not comprehensive-is within the understanding of "sexual activity outside a heterosexual marriage." It is unnecessary to list all of the sinful behaviors when the context is homosexuality. I stand by the edit, for the most part, although adding language such as "for example" would've been clearer. I am surprised you pulled out the block card for an issue which is content-related and not disruptive. An issue that is best resolved not on user talk pages, not with a block, but at the article talk page. Blocks are to prevent disruptive behavior and are not punitive. A block based on these grounds would be easy to overturn at ANI.– Lionel ^{( talk)} 22:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt, this is not a one-time event. You've been misrepresenting text for a long time now. It is far past time for a topic ban. This has nothing to do with a content dispute and everything to do with a documented pattern of disruptive POV pushing across multiple topics related to your pet interests. Viriditas ( talk) 01:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I know very little about Lionelt's history, but this is not an instance of misrepresentation, though I can understand how you might think that if you are not familiar with the context. That line in the news article referenced is clearly meant to indicate that the organization still views gay sexual activity as sinful. It states it in a way that puts it on a par with straight sex outside of marriage, but that is irrelevant for the context of the Wikipedia article in question. I am rephrasing the statement to clarify the meaning of "homosexual behavior," which means gay sexual activity in some contexts (such as the Catholic discourse I am most familiar with) but is apparently misleading here. Hugetim ^{( talk)} 21:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC) p.s. On the "homosexual behavior" phrase, compare the lead at Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism.

Misrepresentation of text to that extent can lead to a block

This has been going on since day one and shows no sign of stopping. In fact, he does it on purpose, again and again and again. How much longer do we have to put up with it? Viriditas ( talk) 01:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, I'm one who believes in the idea that "serious allegations require serious evidence". If Lionelt is doing this on purpose "again and again and again", then I'll need some diffs to confirm that. I'll have a look through now, but when I've run into him, I've found Lionelt to be a reasonable editor who responds to compromise. Depending on what diffs you can provide (or I find), a block, a topic ban discussion or an RfC/U might be appropriate. If you (or I) cannot find evidence of this accusation, I do expect you to retract it. Worm^TT( talk) 07:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Contemporaneous with the misrepresentation listed by Jenova20 above, he did the same thing over at Cristiada (film), and to make it even worse, he submitted a DYK based on the misrepresentation which appeared on the main page. I addressed it at Wikipedia_talk:Did you know#Using DYK to push a POV and at Talk:Cristiada (film)#Misuse of source, completely unaware that Jenova20 was addressing the same problem on a different page. Are there are other examples? I believe the answer is yes, but I'll have to find the diffs. Viriditas ( talk) 07:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look at them, but the more you can turn up the more weight this will have. I know it's an onerous task. Worm^TT( talk) 07:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm off and on for the next few hours, so I'll leave whatever I find below. Viriditas ( talk) 08:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't currently have time for listing diffs but he was quite active in the discussions on the Talk:Straight pride talk page and also had a questionable presence on the Talk:Homosexuality. Those are the 2 that spring to mind other than Exodus International where he tried rewriting the thing before to exclude conversion therapy (even though Exodus admit to using it). Thanks Jenova 20 08:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Incidents

• Misrepresents a source by Steve Nelson [1] and attributes an opinion to Nelson not found in the source [2] and adds it to Straight pride. Lionelt is reverted by NatGertler who notes in the edit summary, "no, the source does not say that." [3]
• Cites "Newsnet14" as a source in Straight pride. [4] "Newsnet14" is a self-published website that appears to be run by white nationalists.
• Appeal to hypocrisy amounting to trolling. Personally attacked Jenova20 on Talk:Straight pride three times ("are you deranged?...Stop making up lies...Give me a diff or get ready to get your ass dragged to ANI) while citing WP:TPNO. [5]
• Added Category:Anti-Christianity to Dan Savage. [6] Probably just to troll the LGBT project and disrupt the Savage article.
• Claims to be a "Democrat" on his user page, but pushes a conservative, fundamentalist POV. Claims to be an African-American, yet cites a news website run by white nationalists.
• Involves himself heavily with Wikiproject Catholocism yet claims to be Jewish - "I'm not going to defend being antisemitic because I am a Jew" (Taken from Archive 2 of Talk:Straight Pride)

He tries to win arguments by claiming to be offended. Any mention of antisemiticism and he becomes Jewish. Mention slavery or civil rights and he's black. (as currently seen on my talk page) He's a troll Jenova 20 08:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• "I find the wisdom of Holy Mother Church invaluable. I am certain that Satan is present in the world and under the right conditions can possess people. I'll go a step further than Andrew and say that through exorcism these people can be saved as demonstrated by Jesus. Am I an extremist? Uninformed? Completely ignorant? Do I have "think brains"? – Lionel (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)"

That's from Talk:Homosexuality and isn't an appropriate attitude to me for someone majoring in religion and LGBT articles. Not to mention that he pushes an obvious anti-gay and pro-religion bias in his edits to Straight Pride, Exodus International etc Jenova 20 08:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

He sounds just like Andrewrp ( talk · contribs). [7] Probably no connection, but somebody should check. Viriditas ( talk) 09:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do carry on

Well, it looks like there's a lot more to go through than I thought. I'm doing a bit of analysis on Lionel's edits over the past few months, and will come back with some thoughts as soon as I can. However, I'm not very active during the weekends, so it might be Monday. Feel free to drop any more incidents on my talk page. Should Lionel turn up, he's welcome to rebutt anything here, or wait until I'm finished looking through things. Worm^TT( talk) 15:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

He's still doing it right now. He's over at Jared Lee Loughner misusing another source, trying to make the subject an atheist when no source actually says that. There are numerous diffs and the talk page is full of editors telling him to stop. He can't go a single day without misusing a source because he is only here to push a POV. Viriditas ( talk) 18:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Where is the misrepresentation? See http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-7229463.htm

An ardent atheist, he began to characterize people as sheep whose free will was being sapped by the government and the monotony of modern life.

After the material was removed, Lionelt started an RfC rather than reinstating the material. In addition, the edit in question occurred 5 days ago. No comment about the fact that there was a discussion going on at the time of his first inclusion. I am just pointing out that you are grossly misrepresenting his actions.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 18:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, you haven't followed the discussion or watched the page history to see him edit warring over this BLP and NPOV violation. The subject of atheism is one of Lionel's pet topics and be frequently disrupts articles over it. In this example, he is using sources that report the subject was described as an atheist and using it to state it as a fact. That the CBS source you cite above fails to note the difference is one of the problems with using CBS. We've had discussions about mainstream sources misrepresenting a topic, and CBS was particularly egregious when it came to climate change. The solution is to always rely on the best sources we have and to use them judiciously and within the scope of policy. Clearly, Lionel is not doing that. When we talk about the religion of subjects in controversial articles, we rely on self-identification. Failing that, we represent the best sources we have in a fair and reasonable manner per BLP and NPOV. Consensus on the talk page shows that Lionel is not doing that, and his past history on the topic of atheism speaks volumes about what he is doing here. Viriditas ( talk) 18:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My main point is that it is unfair to state "he's still doing it right now" when he isn't. If CNN misatributes a source, then that is CNN not him. The edit warring and earlier edits made against consensus are cause for concern, but it is unfair to treat that as something that has occurred after Worm's most recent warning. In any case, he is certainly not misattributing sources in the RFC he started. The daily mail says "On MySpace, Loughner complained that when he joined the military, he was given a 'mini-Bible' despite telling a recruiter that he was an atheist."  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 19:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is hardly a RS and that particular claim has been challenged and found to be baseless. There are several books on this subject and they say little to nothing about his religion. The sources are just as varied. The bottom line is, this is not just some innocent editor who stumbled on to the article. This is Lionelt, an editor who has been waging a POV campaign against the left, liberals, and what he perceives as "atheists" and homosexuals. This latest incident is only one of dozens, and I will collect the diffs together which will show a clear pattern of disruption and non-NPOV editing. There is little to no evidence that the subject was an atheist. There is, however, at leased one acquaintance who referred to him in that way (which doesn't make him an atheist) and I believe there is another person (it might be the same) who said he wasn't very religious. The point is, there is no evidence he was an "ardent atheist", that's just the usual sensationalistic journalism that makes shit up in the hopes that nobody will read beyond paragraph two. Lionel has a documented history of misusing sources to promote his POV, and in this instance, he's promoting the right wing conservative meme that Loughner was a liberal atheist, when we really don't have that information. The best we can say is that he was mentally ill. Goldwag (2012) covers this on pp. 272-275, showing how Pamela Gellar and Rush Limbaugh tried to paint Loughner as a left-wing, liberal Democrat. This is the culture war Lionel is fighting. Viriditas ( talk) 22:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments on other incidents:

• Cristiada film article - Viriditas found so support for his NPOV complaint here and it seems inappropriate to me. The information Lionelt added was appropriate for the article and supported by the source (and many other sources - the connection of the movie with the contraception mandate controversy seems absurd to me, but it has been made repeatedly and reported on in prominent sources). The proper course would have been to propose edits to the wording, not revert and accuse.
• Straight Pride incidents: the first edit was misleadingly sourced and the second source is not reliable. I agree with these criticisms.
• "attacked three times" is an overstatement since all of the offending phrases are in the same sentence. The language is overly aggressive, but the context is one in which Jenova20 has just made a false statement about Lioneltz's edits, which she admits shortly afterwards.
• On Dan Savage, consider this: WaPo blog: Dan Savage offends with comments on Christianity. I don't personally think the category fits, but there are other people currently in the category (perhaps also inappropriately).
• The remaining "incidents" are complaints about the way Lioneltz represents himself, which is understandably suspicious and annoying but not the sort of thing that gets someone blocked on Wikipedia, in my understanding.

Hugetim ^{( talk)} 22:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Your reading of the Cristiada film article NPOV "complaint" is completely in error (and it sounds like you never actually looked at it) as Lionel's original DYK (and content) was disputed by multiple editors and he eventually voluntarily removed the unsourced content [8] but continued to deny it was ever a problem. I explained this over at Talk:Cristiada (film)#Misuse of source. Sorry, but your "understanding" is incomplete. The diff I've offered directly disputes your assessment. It's one thing to hold a different opinion, but it is quite another to ignore the evidence. Viriditas ( talk) 06:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The only other person who commented on the talk page agreed with Lionelt, so I'm not sure how that vindicates you. I also agree with Tom Harrison that the text Lionelt originally added was supported by the source (and many other sources). That Lionelt edited his contribution in response to your concerns is hardly evidence against him as an editor - it looks to me like he bent over backwards to achieve consensus. Hugetim ^{( talk)} 20:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Again with the fallacious response? At least three editors expressed concerns with Lionelt's misuse of a source in Cristiada, including one from the DYK talk page discussion and two from the DYK nom discussion. You would have known this if you had honestly read the discussion instead of blindly defending a fellow traveller. Lionel did not "bend over backwards"; he removed content that couldn't be supported—content he added to push a POV. That you continue to deny this is ridiculous, as I've described how this content is impossible to support in at least two discussions. The noticeboard "complaint" was simply a pointer to those threads. And, while I disagree with Tom Harrison, he did improve the article and help resolve this issue. Lionel still maintains that his use of the source was fine, however, his removal of the disputed content is a positive outcome, so he deserves some credit as you say. Viriditas ( talk) 00:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I've had a good look at Lionel's contributions, and I do agree there is a problem. Hugetim, I understand you may feel this is a witchhunt, but I've found another 3-4 sources which I believe have been misused, plus a general battleground atmosphere. I would personally recommend an RfC/U on Lionel, I believe this is too large an issue for one administrator to take action on unilaterally and I think that the areas that he causes issue are too broad for a topic ban. I would certainly be willing to certify the RfC/U, if that's of any interest. Remember, they are non-binding, and Lionel does not even need to participate, though it is an important stepping block to further action, should that be necessary. Viriditas, if you do not feel any interest in taking it further, I will happily explain my findings to Lionel, and suggest that he watch his step in future. Worm^TT( talk) 08:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think i have one here:

• [9]

There's no section or wording corresponding to that in the article it points to. Thanks Jenova 20 10:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You need to keep the chronology intact to follow the links. The diff you point to above is Lionel's addition to War on Women on 08:49, 15 May 2012. However, he added that link because several minutes earlier, at 08:46 he added the following "controversy" section to Presidency of Barack Obama. [10] As expected, Lionel was reverted by Wikidemon at 09:10 with the edit summary, "undue weight, source does not support contention". [11] Good work, Jenova. Exactly how many of these are there? And let's keep a bit of perspective. If any of us did this, or had a pattern of doing this, we would immediately be indefinitely blocked. However, Lionel has gotten away with it for three years. My concern here is not so much with Lionel, who admittedly is good at tugging heartstrings and making himself likeable. What I am concerned about is why the community, particularly the regulars, allow Lionel to do this over and over again. I'm starting to question whether I should continue participating in this project. Viriditas ( talk) 12:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Quite simply we (as a community) are bad at spotting patterns, let alone dealing with them. I don't agree that "any of us" would be blocked immediately, because of the way good faith works and wikis operate. However there is certainly a problem and so we have a few ways to deal with it. A gung-ho administrator can block the perpetrator outright. If you're looking for that, you've come to the wrong place, I'm not gung-ho. I will block if I see that as the only option, but there are other options here. So, what can be done -

• Start up an RfC/U on Lionel - this is the correct venue for issues with an editor. The theory is that he should be able to explain himself or at least be told that there's a problem by multiple wikipedians. If he carries on the behaviour, when it's clear that the behaviour is problematic, it will ultimately increase the chances of a ban from wikipedia. As I said, I'm happy to certify, and add what I've found.
• I can talk to him, show him what I've found and warn him that such behaviour will lead to a block. This would hold less weight as it only comes from one editor/admin, but if you are not willing or not interested in going through the laborious process of RfC, then that's a reasonable alternative.
• You can try and find a gung-ho admin at ANI. Who knows, you may do.

Other options such as arbcom aren't really available to us until at least one or two of the ones above have been tried. Worm^TT( talk) 12:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

There is general agreement that the RfC/U process doesn't work. If I filed an RfC/U on Lionel, I can predict exactly what will happen because I have developed my pattern recognition skills based on past experience. The discussion would be shifted from a focus on Lionel's contributions to a dispute over LGBT, Christian, Catholic, and Conservative content topics, and this shift in focus would distract away from the RfC, leading to a "no consensus" result. This is the "tu quoque" distraction pattern. Each time someone brings up a problem with Lionel's edits, the response is an appeal to hypocrisy. When this ad hominem is ignored and the position is maintained, we're then told that Lionel has never been blocked, he's a wonderful user, he's black, Jewish, a Democrat, a living saint, etc. Then, when that appeal is ignored, we're told that Lionel will change his ways, that he will seek mentorship, that he will stay away from this or that topic, etc. This is how the scenario will play out. Meanwhile, nothing gets done, but a lot of time is wasted. Wikipedia is a game I've grown tired of playing. The trolls haven't just won, they are running the site. Viriditas ( talk) 23:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I wish I could disagree with you, but I am disillusioned with the RfC/U process myself. I'll leave a detailed note at Lionel's page, and hopefully it will be useable if he carries on. As for the "trolls taking over wikipedia", It's an unfortunate byproduct of letting anyone edit, passionate individuals are always going to be able to control articles where other people don't care. If there are passionate individuals on both sides of the argument, then we get a mess, and arbcom turns up. That's not all that wikipedia is though, there are better areas :) Worm^TT( talk) 09:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The irony, of course, is that it is Lionel's passion that makes him likeable. The problem, as I've been saying for years now, is that we spend too much time teaching users how to engage in maintenance processes, and little to no time teaching users how to research, create, and write articles. Even our essay on Wikipedia:Process derides it, calling article-making "a loose process" (it isn't) and devoting only 16 words to a description of this process. The fact that Wikipedia has become a bureaucracy more interested in maintaining its bureaucracy, rather than a knowledge base devoted to improving accuracy and coverage while endeavoring to become a premier information provider, tells me that something is wrong. Viriditas ( talk) 09:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, as would many of the people who actually create content. Those who try to work on content in controversial areas often struggle against a tide of editors with particular views. Do you happen to have any thoughts on how to improve that situation? Any I come up with fundamentally go against the way that the encyclopedia works, like assigning an expert status to certain editors or forcing reviews of edits in controversial areas. Worm^TT( talk) 09:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

More reviews would definitely help. Viriditas ( talk) 10:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Certain wikiprojects have articles they all work on and change on a weekly/monthly basis. These projects will often edit in a view viewed by another project as biased and so the circle goes round and round from there. Expert status would be pointless on an anonymous wikipedia where even long time editors with 20,000 edits plus carry a bias.

Start a random article wikiproject where the target changes weekly/fortnightly/monthly Dave and it can make a real difference. More eyes on an article will cut down the bias being added. Just an idea Jenova 20 10:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have eaten Bacon ice cream! Just today I did. Not your kind, it was actually ice cream with bacon offered by Burger King in their Bacon Sundae. Do you think it is worth mentioning in Bacon ice cream?  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 08:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh my.. ⇒ T A P 21:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I had noticed it and was thinking of putting it in. Why don't you go ahead and do so! Don't forget to find a source Worm^TT( talk) 07:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Include it in notable uses maybe? Otherwise it would need to be some sort of a variations section, since in the Burger King example, the ice cream is just vanilla, with bacon in it.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 11:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I can't believe you still haven't reached burnout yet. I hope your adoption course is doing well. — cyberpower ChatOffline 11:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol, thanks Cyberpower. I haven't actually done much on the adoption course for a while, I need to get back into it and reboot WP:ADOPT :| Worm^TT( talk) 11:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, talking about, adoption, ping :-) -- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 11:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been monitoring the way you teach in maybe starting my own adoption course. I would respond sooner but replag is at 15 min and it takes that long for me to see it.— cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 11:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

943 seconds does seem a bit excessive. How will I find the time to complete my final test? -- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 11:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing still works. You can do it now, as soon as worm sees this of course.— cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, wander over to your adoption page Gilderien. And Cyberpower, I'm not enjoying the replag either :( Worm^TT( talk) 12:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've started the test, but have left a few questions.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 12:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You've got a week. Take your time :) Worm^TT( talk) 12:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

They're keeping us in the dark. I'm thinking that a bureaucrat performed a rename Kumioko style.— cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Kind of off the subject, but does anyone actually know what can cause a 1500 second replag?!  Adam Mugliston   Talk  13:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A massive database change. So, for example, a large rename, as cyberpower suggested. Worm^TT( talk) 13:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That must've been gigabytes! How long does it usually take to go back to normal or at least stop increasing?  Adam Mugliston   Talk  13:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Depends very much on what's causing the lag Worm^TT( talk) 13:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note on the lag, I have Popups installed. Among the many other benefits, I can hover over the "hist" link of an article in my watchlist, and it still shows me the changes, despite the server lag. I still have to refresh my watchlist for it to change, and that takes a minute or so. If there was a community wide 1 minute moratorium on editing, would that fix the lag?  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 15:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really the replag is at 30 minutes now and the toolserver for this Wikipedia has a replag of 4 hours, 33 minutes, and 20 seconds. Wikipedia would need to be put into a read only mode for at least 10 minutes before the replag disappears and even then, the problem that is causing the replag is still there so before any of that happens, the problem needs to be tackled first.— cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, some devs are probably sweating bullets right now. Think it's related to this? I know some foundation people are without power right now.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 15:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No. If the server didn't have power, the watchlists wouldn't load. I don't even think Wikipedia would load. Right now the server that's lagging is updating as our watchlist makes apparent. It has to be a technical or software problem related directly to the server. Perhaps the servers are getting too hot. :P I live in the east and I can tell you it's grueling over here as well. We have failing air-conditioning and overloaded power lines left and right around our area. Fortunately I still have power and have enough reserves to keep ours running if necessary.— cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible the lag is created or excasserbated by the extra 1 second added over the weekend? It did mess around with a few high profile sites after all. Thanks Jenova 20 15:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely as there isn't a system that requires a precise time. There is a clock on the server and as far as I am concerned, the server would be running a second ahead now. Other services were completely taken down as a result of this. Wikipedia is still up and running but, who knows.— cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been around for a several months and have acquired familiarity with some of the Wiki processes. However, I would like to expand the scope of my contributions and foray into more unfamiliar territory. Is adoption suitable for this and how would you advise that I proceed? Ankh. Morpork 13:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Worm adopted me after I several months of experience and I believe the program was perfect for expanding my scope and knowledge of policy. If Worm doesn't have the availability, there are several people who run his program, including myself. I could run the program for you, or you could ask any of the other users running it.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 14:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought that. The program is ideal, but I unfortunately don't have the scope to take on more editors. I spend a lot of time checking back over my past adoptees and since I have nearly 30, I'm quite exhausted with just that. I would recommend Ryan, and if you or he want any help or discussions, you know where to find me. I'll be overhaulling the Adoption course at some point, and moving it under WP:ADOPT, then trying to reboot the ADOPT project. There's a lot to do, unfortunately. Always so much to do. Worm^TT( talk) 14:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I am currently studying Worm's adoption methods in hopes that I may expand Worm's program and allow more adoptees as well. I don't have first hand experience at being a mentee of Worm but just watching also helps.— cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I forgot I never officially adopted you cyberpower! If it helps, I've always thought of you as an adoptee... that might not be a good thing. Worm^TT( talk) 15:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In what ways have you thought of me as an adoptee and why shouldn't that be a good thing?— cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If someone asked if you were my adoptee, I'd have said yes. I always meant to put you through the course at some point, but never got round to it (you asked when I was really busy, and now you don't really need it). Whether it's a good thing, is up to you! Worm^TT( talk) 15:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

My current mentor is inactive at the moment so you can put me through the course if you want. I believe it will more beneficial than you think. Especially since I intend to imitate your adoption program.— cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you say?— cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 13:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Going off of your contributions, I am assuming you accidentally missed the comment above. Therefore I am bumping it.— cyberpower ^Chat_Online 12:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed I did. I've got to catch up on my talk page! Been dealing with crises. I'll certainly set up a course for you :) Just give me a little time ;) Worm^TT( talk) 12:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Just ping me when you're ready.— cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. There is an editor who needs a bit of attention. Well-meaning User:Oakley77 has been approving articles at AfC that are not quite up to snuff. I'd talk to him myself, but his talk page is blocked for me. He's been editing some China articles, and there may be something on his page that the great firewall of China doesn't like. Plus, I'm a bit wary of conflict after the thing that happened.

Anyway, he approved about 20 all together, many with issues such as needing cleanup, GNG, and copyvios.

• Small pumped-storage hydropower
• Sustainable Competitiveness Index (During a copyvio spot check, I found that this one had only 2 refs, one of which contains text and images that were added to the article as pure copyvio.)
• Count Ignazio Alessandro Cozio di Salabue
• George Henry Hoyt
• Dissident Ulster Loyalist Campaign 1998 - present
• The Wu Experiment
• Rising Sun Lodge 29
• Kyan Khojandi
• Model Driven Interoperability
• Academic Lyceum under Westminster International University in Tashkent
• Chamberlain Hrdlicka
• List of Israeli Football Transfers Summer 2012
• Arctic Anthropology
• Russian Direct Investment Fund
• American Standard International School of Dhaka
• Madrid Metropolitan Plan
• Kenya Make a Difference
• Musquodoboit Rural High School
• Journal of Business Finance & Accounting
• Flat convergence
• Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis

Could you please drop him a line and gently ask him to be careful? He's not very communicative, and has been having trouble at WP:GAN. Sorry to dump this one in your lap. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 11:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you revdelete the prior revision of Talk:Qatar? I removed some personal identifying information.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 13:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor left his name and some contact details. It's something that happens regularly on wp, and whilst it's sensible to removed them to stop spam, it's not really worth a RevDel. Worm^TT( talk) 14:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you pointed out a gadget to try a few days ago and i have...that being said i am enjoying it, but i'm confused as to why the image i see when i look at my signature is what it is... Can you explain that and how to change it without deleting the infobox on my userpage? Thanks Jenova 20 16:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There's 2 pictures i see, the one corresponding to my user page is the one i'm asking about and not the one linked to my user talk page. Thanks Jenova 20 16:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe it searches for the first jpg on the page (at a guess). You could reorganise your page or transclude that userbox, that'd fix it. Worm^TT( talk) 13:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I may leave it after all then. It's not too bad i suppose...bit embarassing to explain.

I like how your questions have adapted over time for your adoption test btw. Maybe you could think a really tricky trick question up for an even 10 though? Thanks Jenova 20 15:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I've been considering this for a while, but only now finally got round to asking: would you consider adopting me?

I've been hanging around here for about a year, mainly involved at the RefDesk, but I'd like to do more constructive editing as well. I've got a few pages on my watchlist that I dabble in from time to time, but I can't seem to make the next step and break out into really substantial improvements to articles. Something on my radar is to look at getting involved as a Teahouse Host, but I feel that needs to wait until I have a little more well-rounded experience under my belt.
I'd be delighted if you think you could work with me, although I note that you're quite busy now. If you want to say 'not now; but come back in a few months', that would be fine; I'm in no hurry. I would hope that I wouldn't require too much micro-management, but I know that you put a lot of effort into your adoptees, so I understand if you want me to wait a bit.
If it's 'not now; not ever', that's fine too, but I wonder if you could recommend someone else? I didn't pick you at random to ask this - I like your style and your attitude to people - but if you know of someone using your material who has a similar disposition then I'd be interested in hearing about them.
Thanks for your time. I look forward to hearing from you! I'll watch here for a reply - no need to go to my talk page, although you're welcome any time :-) - Cucumber Mike ( talk) 18:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You unblocked User:Swifty with some pretty specific conditions not long ago, and he's already gotten himself blocked again (this time for edit warring). I'm not sure the unblock was appropriate and in any case Swifty absolutely does not seem to be sticking to his promise to be good. Strongly suggest re-blocking. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Starblind Swifty comes across as passionate about what he's doing and he has done some good work. I don't think giving him the benefit of the doubt and a second chance was too much at all and i doubt his mentor saw it that way.

I trust you also noticed that Worm did block Swifty 2 hours before you wrote that message? Thanks Jenova 20 14:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Check Swifty's block log. Swifty had been previously indef-blocked and unblocked by Kww in March, then AGAIN indef-blocked by Boing just a few days later for threats. Even ArbCom declined to unblock that time, but Worm unblocked anyway. Worm didn't give Swifty a second chance, more like (at least) a third. And he's now squandered that too. Sometimes there's a fine line between being permissive and enabling abuse, and I'd say that line has been thoroughly crossed here. [And yes, of course I'm aware of the latest block, that's what I'm discussing, but 24 hours is ridiculous for such a wide and recent history of abuse]. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Starblind. I did have some fairly strict conditions on Swifty, and as far as I am concerned he has not violated any of them. As for the timeline, indefinite does not mean infinite - and I worked with Swifty to understand the issues that lead to his block. Kww was aware of this, as was Arbcom. Indeed, a representative from Arbcom specifically stated on my page that they were unlikely to unblock based on his statement and his eventual unblock would be down to me. I wasn't overrulling Arbcom, by any means.

24 hours seemed reasonable for the offence. I originally protected the page in question for that period, but then realised that the edit war was based on Swifty, so instead blocked him for the period. Even could be considered as more than was required - there was no likelihood of the edit war carrying on.

Whilst unblocked, he has helped get at least one article to GA, along with countless other good edits. I'm satisfied that he's a positive influence here. Worm^TT( talk) 15:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Worm. I am a believer of second chances of a certain action. That means he can be blocked for one thing and prove himself through a second chance. Every block he had was for something different. If Swifty consistently edit wars, then I would have a different mindset and would consider blocking indefinitely. I hope I'm not confusing you here.— cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's hardly a vandal or trouble maker, he's a good editor...he just gets a bit hot-headed sometimes (don't we all). At the end of the day he will run out of chances eventually as everyone would, but it would be a shame to lose another editor like him over something like this. I'm interested in Worm's thoughts on this too though. Thanks Jenova 20 15:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts? Having thoroughly looked into the incident, it looks like a misunderstand on a large scale, where Swifty behaved poorly compared to the other editors. I don't see personal attacks, I don't see labelling of vandalism, but I do see an edit war, 3 v 1. The subject of the edit war was not cut and dried, as it was over WP:SPAM, where SPAM was obviously not the intention and the links are not clear SPAM links. So, in these circumstances, I felt a short block was warranted. I don't subscribe to "every different offence deserves X chances", but I made a call based on the information I had to hand. I still believe that call was reasonable. Worm^TT( talk) 15:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting theory... you get a second chance for every possible type of offence? It's a good thing the courts don't think the way you do: "Okay, you've been convicted of murder, but it's your first one of those so we'll have to let you go. You can still do a kidnapping or an armed robbery if you feel like it, but remember, just one of each." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That is hardly an analogy to use. Armed robbery or murder is unforgivable as they aren't reversible. Actions on Wikipedia are. You can undo vandalism, you can stop an edit war and revert it but you can never undo the death of a human being. If it's also apparent that the user is takiing advantage my belief then I also will have a different mindset. Also let me add that you go to jail for a crime and you get blocked for violating policy. They let you out if you can demonstrate you won't do it again and you get unblocked by doing the same.— cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, things on Wikipedia aren't always reversible. Yes, you can revert an edit but if an editor annoys the community to the point that other editors leave, that's permanent damage. Enabling disruption isn't a victimless crime. See WP:RANDY. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What people decide to do with themselves is their own business. From what I've seen, people don't leave from the acts of one person. If that were the case, I would've plastered a {{ retired}} notice up on my userpage long ago because of a certain user who I am not going to disclose. They made hurtful comments. Other users such User:DePiep, I believe, consistently insulted me after closing an ANI thread that didn't go in his favor. Like I pointed out. If they blatantly get themselves blocked and don't show that they are trying to learn, then I won't give them that second chance.— cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Swifty isn't murdering people or causing a massive deal of headaches for people though Andrew, he's edit warred a few times inappropriately and occasionally overreacted. I think Worm's right on this one and spot on Jenova 20 16:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Worm. Swifty is a fine editor, he just had and still has issues with getting upset and leaving the project. He was also dealing with a very personal matter yesterday, which probably made him a bit more upset than he would usually be. Statυs ( talk) 00:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Worm, I discovered User:Sohamlive and User:Sohamjava that both appeared to be the same person. I contacted each account on it, and Sohamlive stated that he created both accounts but Sohamjava had been compromised. Unless you see any indication that Sohamlive may be imitating Sohamjava (which I would doubt, because his editing appears constructive) could you block Sohamjava as a compromised account?  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 13:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. He stated that Sohamlive was created BECAUSE Sohamjava was comprimised, yet Sohamlive's first edit was in Feb 2010 and Sohamjava in June 2010. He's not abusing the two accounts, I'd say this is a live and let live situation. Just tell him not to use the Sohamjava account. Worm^TT( talk) 13:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, that was a bit of an omission on my part. I'll leave the note (If I can get past all of these server errors).  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 13:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Worm, can you see what i did there? It's 25% unreadable. I changed to using the colours to compress the wording but the yellow is a problem...Can you help with this?

I also have User:SplashScreen playing dirty here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Born This Way Foundation and i don't mean you to vote at all (trying to avoid a canvassing argument) but he twists my every argument, sticks every policy violation he can think of in there and edits previously replied to comments to made a constructive discussion heated and impossible. Sorry to lump this all on you but if you can take a look i would appreciate it. Thanks Jenova 20 19:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

He's now accusing me of canvassing here where i tried to involve Swifty in improving the article, hence why i didn't provide a link to the vote, but i did to the article.

I was under the impression canvassing is purposely soliciting people with similar opinions to influence the vote/argument in your favour. I mailled someone to improve the article and avoid deletion, not knowing if he would argue to keep it or delete it.

Is that a breach of canvassing rules? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 11:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a problem to me. You were specifically bringing someone with knowledge of the topic to the article to help work on it. It might be worth being a little more careful with your wording in future. As for the yellow, there's no easy way to fix it - perhaps try a few different colours, see if any are more easy to view. Worm^TT( talk) 13:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Okedokie, i was just trying to cheer him up that's all. If i was to canvass i wouldn't do it so obviously and would have specifically asked him to go to the vote page.

And i've tried yellow, gold and orange but is there a way to make that more easily readable without writing them all in black again and following them with "red (Labour), blue (Conservative), yellow" etc? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 13:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Worm. You mentioned at User talk:Worm That Turned/Archive 16#A barnstar for you! 3 on 13 June 2012 that you would close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI if you had time. Would you take a look at the 3 July 2012 close of the RfC by Victor Yus ( talk · contribs). The account was created on 1 February 2012, the same month the RfC was initiated. While the close looks reasonable, I don't think a contributor to Wikipedia for only five months has the experience and standing in the community to close an RfC like that. Would you take a look Victor Yus' close and endorse it if you agree with it and amend it if you do not? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 18:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

As the closer involved, I'd just like to endorse this request for review, and would be grateful for any comments (though closing RfCs is probably not the sort of thing I'm going to be doing often). Victor Yus ( talk) 07:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Will do my best to look at it over the weekend. Not sure it was a good idea to close as a non-admin, remember there's no deadline - it would have been done. Worm^TT( talk) 13:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to comment, but I'd not been aware of the community discussion about CU/OS appointments until recently. I noticed that you're a candidate for oversight access. I think you'd do a really great job. I've seen you around all over the place and have never had any reason to doubt that you're one of this site's better admins (also why I supported you for ArbCom back in 2011). Master&Expert ( Talk) 02:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind comments. I do appreciate them. I just hope I'll be able to live up to the thoughts of everyone! Worm^TT( talk) 13:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've been helping a newbie whose initial contributions were a little problematic and brought to my attention by Dougweller. We are making good progress but I've just dug myself into a hole: there is no way that I can succinctly explain how to use the article history tab, in particular not at the moment because I've got some real life stuff going on. Is there any chance of you butting in at User_talk:Rayabhari#New_Edits_:_Malwan and doing the necessary? I know that you do a lot of adoption work and are highly regarded for it, so you may even have something prepared for this eventuality.

BTW, I had some Doom Bar last week, as a guest beer in Manchester. Bloody fantastic, until I had to find my way home. - Sitush ( talk) 12:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Have dropped a note on his talk page, hopefully that will explain things. I'll be around for a bit if he's got any questions too. Feel free to give me a shout if there's any other situations like that. Oh, and as for Doom Bar, it's a very reliable beer, nice to know you're almost always going to get a decent pint. Have been spending my time experimenting with different Northern beers recently though, have got myself quite attached to Pride of Pendle. I do keep meaning to pop along to the Manchester meetup sooner or later. I was all set for going last month, when I realised it was Olympic Torch day! Worm^TT( talk) 13:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I made File:Sebastian Lake talk page.png for Sebastian Lake once and it has some information for those who don't really understand all of the buttons. I could reformat one later with Sebastian Lake's name blanked so it could be used for any user. It doesn't actually explain how to work the view history tab, but it tells you how to work it. I do know that it is confusing, it took me at least a month to figure out how to make a link to a diff.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 13:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wonder... I think it wouldn't be too hard to do some clever CSS stuff so it generates the name automatically... Worm^TT( talk) 13:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

In an image? You'd have to have it saved in some funky file format, wouldn't you? If you can do that, go ahead.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 13:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You could position the text over the image. Worm^TT( talk) 13:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(multiple ecs) Thanks very much for that. I do little of this type of work but it really does seem to me that this contributor has much to offer, is willing to learn and was at risk of disappearing due to prior events. Regarding the Manchester meet, I too opted out because of the seemingly interminable relay I've not tried Pride of Pendle but as a kid I did stay for a weekend in the cottage of Alice Nutter - and was thoroughly scared by the stories that the akela told us! - Sitush ( talk) 13:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were online, otherwise I would have gone right to you. Want to close the ANI discussion I started?  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 20:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't. I glanced at my watchlist and saw the note on cyberpower's page. I don't really have time to deal with the ANI at the mo, I'll drop a note there though. Worm^TT( talk) 20:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I'm doing a quick sockpuppet search, but I'm not turning up any editors with similar behaviors. Not that it would matter a ton.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 20:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Just got back and I noticed several pings and two e-Mails from Ryan here. I was about to send Androzaniamy a very angry message until I saw it wasn't Androzaniamy at all. I'm glad it's settled. It appears someone is trying to get her in trouble. Does she have any relatives maybe that just wants to play a joke on her?— cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope that my first email would have dissuaded you from sending a very angry message, even if it had been Androzaniamy.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 20:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw your e-Mail but something like that just couldn't be ignored. I would've said something like "Your comment on my talk page is unwarranted and highly inappropriate. If you ever make such a statement again I will report you to ANI." I would've probably then added her to my enemies list. She and I don't get along very well anyways and I agreed to stay off of her page per the request of Worm. I made an exception and notified her of this.— cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Understood. On another note, I've thought for a while that you should get rid of your enemies list and your annoying editors list. Similar lists may have been allowed in the past, I'm not entirely sure; however, that's a matter best kept to yourself.   Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 20:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much finished. I know I have a few days left, but I won't have internet access from tomorrow to next week, so I got it finished.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 20:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Turns out I'm pretty rubbish and never got round to marking it. I will do as soon as I can Worm^TT( talk) 21:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

How about removing this: [12] -just because of a minor detail? I readded the section and added a citation needed tag but i think this shows just how biased our friend is on these matter that he has to remove any mention of "conversion therapy" (which they admit using) and negative attention (which again they caused themselves). Comments Worm/Viriditas? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 12:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

He continues to censor information here about how the leader of Exodus International admits reparative/conversion therapy doesn't work (like he did before) even though the leader of Exodus International states it himself and it is reliably sourced. Lionelt challenges it first as a "BLP violation" [13] and then later deletes it in the edit after this disputing "relevance" and tags the section after it also. His continued editing on religious/homosexuality topics is too much of an issue and he's too biased to even edit fairly. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 22:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Now i have an accusation of copyright violation and plagiarism here from said user on my user talk page...Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 08:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not really available to look into this at the moment. I've still got a half written draft of my comments to the user, which I will do as soon as I can, but I'm afraid I won't be able to help out in the short term. I'll look into it as soon as I get back, hopefully that'll be soon enough. Worm^TT( talk) 20:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you perform a revdelete at User talk:MichaelCrawford? This one is a bit more important as the person in question has schizoaffective disorder and is harassed on the internet.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 13:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ryan. The deletion of personal information should be done by oversight, not an admin. (It doesn't fall under WP:REVDEL except WP:RD4). I've revdel'd and passed it that way because I haven't got the time to look into it now, but if you have any more problems of this sort, please use the oversight procedures. Even if I become an oversighter, the best place for this sort of request is and will be Wikipedia:Requests for oversight - it's faster and more reliable. Worm^TT( talk) 20:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll head there in the future.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 13:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Check out the February 24 DYK from 2004, Wikipedia:Recent additions/2004/February. 199.199.176.9 ( talk) 20:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Chuckle* Someone pointed that out to me recently! Worm^TT( talk) 21:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

February 23rd! =P Or is that an inside joke i didn't get... ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 21:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right Jenova! Worm^TT( talk) 21:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha =] have a nice week Worm ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 21:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Jenova was correct (the IP was me by the way) Have a good vacation.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 13:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I just saw the post mentioning you're an Oversighter now. Congratulations, Dave. On a somewhat related note, I hope you'll consider another run for ArbCom in the future. I would very much like to see your input on that committee. Best regards. 64.40.57.81 ( talk) 07:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've known for a few days now, and was astounded by the support I've received on the matter. As for Arbcom, I'm not particularly keen on another run, the arbs who would be reconfirming are excellent, and I really didn't enjoy the character assassination I was subject to in some of the voter guides, unlike a discussion, it's much more difficult to rebutt them - especially when they are changing so frequently. I might change my opinion closer to the time, but my enthusiasm for the project was at a peak last year, and unless I reach those dizzying heights again, I'm not certain. In any case, thanks for all your support! Worm^TT( talk) 08:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, running for any kind of position (Arb, Admin, Crat, etc.) is definately not a fun ordeal. Back in the day, it wasn't fun, but it wasn't anything like it is now. It has gotten far, far worse over the years. Same for everything I think. It's much harder to get a GA or FA nowadays. Even regular editing is more difficult with many edits reverted as unsourced. The community is much more critical than it used to be. Anyhoo, congrats on your appointment. All the best. 08:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.57.81 ( talk)

Hey, dear. I want your help. Please warn (or whatever) to User:Gary Multani. Check his edits on Babbu Maan, he spoiled the article badly by repeating same statements many times and more. I can't handle such new comers, so requesting you to give him a sense or tutorial. It irritates me on someone unfamiliar with wiki spoils articles created by myself because created then after reading much about wiki, it's rules, article layout, neutrality etc.. 'll be grateful to you. TariButtar (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tari. I hope this can wait until next week. If it can't, please do try and find someone else :) Worm^TT( talk) 20:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tari. I've finally managed to have a look at this, sorry about the delay. Gary Multani's edits were reverted by Qwyrxian, who went on to explain this issues at his talk page. The edits Gary made were in good faith and I am afraid there's not much more I could do than has already done. Remember, we were all new once, and that being helpful and less irritable is a good thing. Worm^TT( talk) 13:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi! You probably remember me, who rated you at your admin review. I've just come across here to ask that my old chap, Penyulap(aginst whom you opened a sock investigation) has been becoming disruptive in editing these days so is it wise to impose santions on him? Mir Almaat Ali Almaat ☏ From Trivandrum, Kerala, India(UTC+5:30) 11:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mir. Yes, I remember you, not so much from my admin review, but more from my work at the Teahouse. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking with regards to Penyulap, but I didn't open a sock investigation on him. Indeed, I believe I defended him at the sock investigation as I didn't believe he was being disruptive. If you believe he is being disruptive, please do pass me some diffs which show the disruption, so I can investigate further. Worm^TT( talk) 09:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Should probably be changed to the The Adoptee Graduation Diploma unless you include this -->*<-- The world's tiniest barnstar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 ( talk • contribs)

Why not wander over to Template:Adopteegradbarnstar and boldly fix what no man has fixed before? Worm^TT( talk) 12:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done— cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Barts1a needs a lot more mentoring. If I can find some spare time I can write a detailed explanation via email. I hope you have enough time to spare to deal with him. Arcandam ( talk) 05:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You may also want to take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:AniMate&oldid=501838418#Barts1a.2FArcandam , http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Barts1a&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Arcandam&diff=501833398&oldid=501831559 . Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 05:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I am on my phone so haven't investigated, but Arcandam, I did see you leaving multiple messages on Barts1a's page even after he asked you to leave him alone. Perhaps actually disengaging would be a good idea? Feel free to email me, but I hope to hear that you walked away from the situation, whatever it was. Barts1a, I expect you to disengage too. Worm^TT( talk) 08:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Roger that. Disengaging Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 08:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL. You just responded to me on AniMate's talkpage. Do you honestly think that WTT isn't smart enough to realize you did not listen to him? Arcandam ( talk) 08:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

And do you honestly think you can evade the consequences of your actions by taking a quick wikibreak? Arcandam ( talk) 09:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Left a long message at Arcandam's page, explaining the situation as I saw it. Was quickly removed [14]. I hope that Arcandam will be moving on from here. Worm^TT( talk) 15:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, Dave. I was wondering if I could get your help. I'd like to thank a few people as part of the 4 millionth article celebration (see here), so I started this draft at AFC. Could you have a look at it and if you think it's alright, could you move it to WP: space? Could you also create the WP:4MIL redirect for it also? Thanks in advance for the help. Kind regards. 64.40.54.194 ( talk) 08:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm away at the moment, but I'm sure one of friendly talk page staplers could help out! Worm^TT( talk) 09:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks. 64.40.54.88 ( talk) 09:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Talk page staplers"? JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  Probably an autocorrect issue.— cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've moved it, a little ahead of the 4 millionth article mark, but this allows other editors to collaborate on setting it up. Thanks for your assistance and appreciation for the project.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 13:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean "watchers" but i don't take offence to being called a stapler...

	Stapler/autocorrect award
	Autocorrect fail of the day! Have a stapler! ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 13:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ryan, thanks very much. Much appreciated. 64.40.54.88 ( talk) 13:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Stupid iPhone autocorrect. Anyone fancy making me a "this user page is watched by friendly talk page staplers" user box? Thanks for your help Ryan. Worm^TT( talk) 15:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I created User:Ryan Vesey/TPS based on the talk page stalker barnstar. I already reduced the text size from extra large to large, you might want to reduce it further. You can modify it any way you like if you want to use it. No problem if you don't, it's nothing special.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 15:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I made this one ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 18:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Love it Ryan! Can you make a "this user is a talk page stapler" userbox for me too but in the usual tiny size?

Worm, you've started an internet meme now... Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 16:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I started this. Do you have any thoughts on improvements?  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 16:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What's the deal with the jaguar image on the left? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 19:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The jaguar image is the symbol for talk page stalkers. See Wikipedia:WikiJaguar which redirects to Wikipedia:Talk page stalkers.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 19:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Silly kind of autocorrect, since "stalker" is a reasonably common word. However, I've put Ryan's invention to good use on my talk page. JamesBWatson ( talk) 18:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Would it be too bold to replace {{ TPS}} with what is currently at User:Ryan Vesey/Template sandbox? You can see User talk:Ryan Vesey/Template sandbox for the result.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 19:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Very nice Ryan =] i'll use it right away. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 08:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably a bit too bold to take an in-joke that template level. I might make a couple of tweaks to make Ryan's "barnstar" one into a "user box"... and I hope a few of you will use Bwilkins userbox on your page :D Worm^TT( talk) 08:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

And i hope you won't forget to put your stapler away in your awards drawer, lest you ever forget to check your message content before sending =P Have a nice afternoon ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 15:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

(referring to WP:ANEW#User:TheSpecialUser and User:IllaZilla reported by User:Editorofthewiki (Result: ))

Hi WTT! I wanted to know that is it possible to held 2 editors responsible for breaking 3RR where no single editor actually broke it? As I and someone else was just reported and weren't even warned prior to the report. Actually the reporter himself has violated to rule. I m starting an RFC to fix the dispute, but just wanted clarification. —  TheSpecialUser ^{( TSU)} 15:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Bah, stupid 3RR. The relevant policy is WP:EW, which you can be blocked for with or without going over the magic 3RR number. It's not an entitlement, it's a "If you've gone this far you are clearly so stuck into an edit war, that there's no hope but to block you". So, yes, it's possible to be held responsible, without breaking it, without being warned. Worm^TT( talk) 15:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I am too lazy to do the research and write a long email at the moment, and it is probably not really necessary, time is on my side. But maybe I'll change my mind. Arcandam ( talk) 15:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just posted a note on his talk page, so hopefully we won't have a repeat of the issues faced in the past. I've said all I needed to say in the note I dropped on your talk page, feel free to re-read it at your leisure. If there is anything else you'd like me to cover with Barts1a, or anything you'ld like to discuss with me generally, you know where I am, and my email address is open to you. Worm^TT( talk) 15:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi WTT! Since he has retired in the middle of my adoption program, can you move my adoption page as your sub page? I m probably on the last assignment and you both have same course. No problem if you are busy or don't want to do that. Cheers!  —  TheSpecialUser ^{( TSU)} 00:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi TSU. I'm just a touch busy with some real life stuff this week (all happy events!), but I've made a commitment to make sure that none of Bmusician's adoptees will go without. I'd be happy to take on your course and finish it off with you. I'll move your course over as soon as I can. Worm^TT( talk) 20:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Your course has been moved. I see you're very close to the end. Once you've finished off, I'll run back through the questions, and if there's anything I think you could do with brushing up on, I'll make sure they're added in to the final exam :) Worm^TT( talk) 12:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer to carry on with BM's adoptoin and I accept.-- LoganLopez ( talk) 19:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Just alerting you to my question there... Egg Centri c 22:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Egg Centric! I'm planning to get the train in for this one, I keep having to leave early and end up disappointed that I can't drink, this time with the train, things should be much better. I would have recommended RexxS, but I'm not even sure if he's going! If he does, he'll be driving, so see if you can persuade him to turn up ;) Worm^TT( talk) 09:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Same subject, different issue - it's a shame there's not been a Birmingham meet-up organized for a year as i would seriously consider going ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 08:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As with everything on Wikipedia, if you want something done - do it yourself. Why don't you drop a message to the people who were at the last one and are still editing, maybe even a couple of people who seem to turn up to them no matter where they are in the country (HJ Mitchell and RexxS jump to mind), and see if you can get something organised. Worm^TT( talk) 09:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not be the one to set it up but i suppose i can nudge those two. Thanks Worm ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 14:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering I live in Tipton, a Birmingham meetup would be very convenient for me. However, we have got a meetup scheduled for Coventry on 3 August and I can easily give lifts to anybody even vaguely on the route, if you would like to go to a "pre-made" meetup. I should say that the summer sometimes has fewer people meeting because of holidays, etc. so maybe we should think about meeting in Birmingham in the Autumn? -- RexxS ( talk) 15:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm just outside Tipton by a couple minutes so that would be brilliant =] small world ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 19:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bug ya again. I have a warning on my page and a short disagreement where Lionelt mentions names of 2 others, then tags their pages to the discussion on mine here and here with a not so subtle message, even though he bought their names up. This is misrepresentation and he's took the mickey the last 2 weeks. Can i request your involvement for advice? Thanks and have a nice evening ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 16:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Just heading off, but I'll look at this tomorrow. Worm^TT( talk) 16:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be in Weston tomorrow but i'll be back wednesday if i can't check in. Bye ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 16:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Right. First things first, it is polite to inform someone that they've been mentioned in a conversation, especially if it's one that they would want to know about. I've felt aggrieved before when I didn't realise there was a conversation happening about me.

So, let's look at the actually heart of the issue, your note at WT:LGBT. Posting there was reasonable, as it's directly related to the project, but the wording you used " I have 3 people connected to Wikiproject Catholocism trying to censor information and remove verifiable information they don't approve of from a conversion therapy organization. Can i get some more eyes here?" was not. The wording should be neutral, and should not mean that editors who read it go in with preconceived opinions. So, I would expect something like "More eyes needed at ARTICLE NAME, over whether or not to remove contentious information" Worm^TT( talk) 13:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, hothead issue there. I accept the wording wasn't the best. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 19:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

And what about the obvious plagiarism [15]? Setting aside that Jenova didn't bother to read the source when he blindly reverted, when he was notified that his action had put the encyclopedia in jeopardy, he didn't fix it!!! Another editor had to intervene. If he is willing to push his personal POV so hard to the point where he refuses to correct blatant copyright violations that he himself has added to the encyclopedia, then we have a very serious problem here.– Lionel ^{( talk)} 20:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll check that out in the morning. It depends on the seriousness of the plagiarism and the circumstances about it. Worm^TT( talk) 21:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like the copyright violation was inserted by an IP here. Lionel removed twice it as "no mention of Love Won Out in source" and "BLP violation" (I'm not sure how it's a BLP violation) Jenova restored it twice without much explanation. Only then did either of you appear to notice the copyright violation. In other words, you both appeared to edit war over the offending material, and if I'd been around I'd have likely shouted at you both.
The copyright violation was sorted as soon as it was pointed out, by another editor. I think suggesting that the violation was blatent (since you had not mentioned it in your first two reverts) and that he refused to fix it (he passed the information on to 3 editors in the hour between him logging on and it being fixed, and that was all he did in that time period) is disingenuous. You two are going to have to learn to get on better, be civil and stop assuming bad faith, or you are both likely to end up topic banned from those sorts of articles, along with an interaction ban. Obviously that's not something I could invoke myself, but I'm sure AN would be happy to. Worm^TT( talk) 08:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was told it was a BLP violation but couldn't see how and Lionelt wanted to delete the section instead of rewording it. It turns out the wording is too similar to the original, which i thought was different enough, but then that was never explained so it just looked like he wanted to delete it and censor it. I asked others and eventually someone (I think IRWolfie) sorted it. If i hadn't got outside help things would most surely have gotten worse. Thanks again Worm ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 08:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the second sentance was identical to the original, so there certainly was a problem. I can accept that you were unhappy to fix it yourself, but you took action on the matter. I'm less concerned about that than the edit warring - was there any reason you couldn't have discussed on the talk page? Worm^TT( talk) 08:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see a BLP violation after reading and i didn't copyedit it because of that. He then deleted it anyway which reinforced the strong impression i got from Lionelt that he just wants anything negative on Exodus International and Homosexuals Anonymous deleted (like removing conversion therapy mentions before) and will twist policies in any way to get that done. I was much more comfortable getting others to look in to see if i'm doing things properly and behaving appropriately or if Lionelt is behaving questionably. Usually i ask you but you were away and so i had to find someone else i thought would respond quickly and give usable feedback/advice.

I accept i did wrong too, i'm not perfect but i had to take a short wikibreak and i tried to get others to sort it for me so i wouldn't hit 3RR and could have it sorted in some way before i got back. I don't want to think the thing i have to go back to is an edit war and argument when i next log in. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 08:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I must admit, that's a new one :) -- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 16:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ooops. Sorry :) Worm^TT( talk) 13:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Worm TT,

Thanks for the response and link. I'll try that route.

usrealtor 20:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggarver ( talk • contribs)

Hi, just got this edit summary "(BOT: Adding file to MTC Priority list (Bot Build 2))" on an image i uploaded and have no idea what that means. Do you? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 08:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Is MTC - Move To Commons? ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 08:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Link me :) Worm^TT( talk) 08:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• (diff | hist) . . File:Birmingham Gay Village Rhinoceros Artwork.jpg‎; 08:38 . . (+14)‎ . . ‎Svenbot (Talk | contribs)‎ (BOT: Adding file to MTC Priority list (Bot Build 2)) [rollback]
• (diff | hist) . . File:Birmingham Gay Village Map With Labels.png‎; 08:34 . . (+14)‎ . . ‎Svenbot (Talk | contribs)‎ (BOT: Adding file to MTC Priority list (Bot Build 2)) [rollback]

Ah, yes, that's moving to commons. Commons is a multisite repository, so the images can be used on different language Wikipedias. There's more about it at Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons Worm^TT( talk) 08:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, i see. I'm fine with that but i upload here so i can access them easier and because some aren't too notable (BBFC). Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 09:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you should be able to access them easily enough, and notability isn't a requirement of commons, just plausible educational value. However, there are a number of editors who do not approve of commons, so the {{ keep local}} template was created. This will mean that the image may be copied across, but a local copy will be kept. Just add it to the images you want to keep local. Worm^TT( talk) 09:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to keep them local at all, i just want them in my edit history so i can see them and improve on them without having to hunt them down. Plus i have no problems with the bots copying them to the Commons as it doesn't break any links and i still have them in my history. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 09:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, all the links will stay the same - so the file page would look like File:Kite at Morecambe Kite Festival.jpg. To update the image, all you need to do is one extra click on the "Information from its description page there is shown below" link Worm^TT( talk) 09:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Very nice! I got lots of photos of the pier in Weston btw. They have lots of plates with facts about the place too, should be useful for both the history sections of Weston and the Pier's articles. They're on my to-upload list after i deal with my Picasa backlog =P. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 09:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I added the information to Bacon ice cream and went to redirect Bacon sundae to it when I realized an article exists at Bacon sundae. It was previously redirected to Burger King, but overturned. I feel that it should be redirected to Bacon ice cream since Denny's also made one. Do you feel like it is fine on its own or should it be redirected?  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 13:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, tough one. If Denny's also makes one, the article does have an issue. I'd rather see Bacon sundae expanded though, because it's not really the same as bacon ice cream, it's bacon AND ice cream. Worm^TT( talk) 13:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, in that case, should we remove Bacon sundae from Bacon ice cream and create a see also?  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 13:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the priority should be trying to improve the sundae article, to see if it can be expanded into anything worthwhile, and then making the decision on the ice cream article from there. Worm^TT( talk) 13:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Now he has opened a sock against me. I feel that is a revenge investagions against my comments with you WDGraham, at WP talk of WP Spaceflight. Please Cooperate. Unpresidented welcome to almaat chat 07:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Mir, If you have not abused alternate accounts, a sock puppet investigation is nothing to worry about. There's no point in considering it revenge, as that's not assuming good faith. Remember there are many legitimate uses of alternate accounts and it looks like these are they. In any case, the best thing to do here is to leave it to the experts, and answer questions asked by them - otherwise move on with your life. Worm^TT( talk) 07:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Worm,

Sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if I could ask some advice in regards to incivility matters. I've witnessed a user (user A) post uncivil remarks towards another user (user B). At the moment it doesn't appear to look like user B is online, and therefore may not be aware of the comments being made at them. As I have witnessed it, would I be within my rights to report user A through the appropriate channels, or should I ignore it until user B has seen it for himself and allow him to make the report? Wesley Mouse 08:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. In case you wish to see for yourself, the remarks been made are 1, 2a, 2b, and 3. Wesley Mouse 08:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

They appear to have been removed/retracted Wesley... ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 08:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The uncivil comments are still on the other users talk page. No comments have been posted on my own talk page. Wesley Mouse 08:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Now uncalled for remarks such as referring to myself as "doomed" are being made, as well as foul language. This is getting beyond a joke. Wesley Mouse 08:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you want my opinion, I don't see any incivility there. BMK was explaining that something wasn't needed and why - I don't see that comment as assuming bad faith or being uncivil in any way, just to the point. Yet you two both assumed that he was not assuming good faith, which in itself is not assuming good faith (see WP:AAGF for more).

The only comment that was even bordering on uncivil was "grow a thicker skin", but I've got to say, I think it's appropriate, given both of your reactions to the first comment. If you must take it further, WP:WQA is the way to go, but I'd hope this comment would be enough. I'm happy to discuss further. Worm^TT( talk) 08:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but the comments are getting out of hand now. Telling me to "take a hike" and calling me "doomed". What gives the right for anyone to cast such bad remarks like that? Wesley Mouse 08:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wesley, "take a hike" and suggesting that you are dooming another editor with your attitude are perfectly reasonable responses in this situation. At the moment, you are being oversensitive and you need to stop the accusations. Worm^TT( talk) 08:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding User_talk:Lionelt#Issues_raised, User:24.45.42.125 caught Lionel doing it again today. [16] This seems to be a daily occurrence regardless of your repeated warnings. Today, over at Political positions of Mitt Romney, Lionel said that Josh Rogin of Foreign Policy magazine "does not say that [Romney's] policy is 'confusing'". [17] However, once again, when we look at the actual source, we discover that Rogin did say, "Republican candidate Mitt Romney's policy on the future of U.S.-led war in Afghanistan war is unclear and confusing". Isn't it time that Lionel was blocked for this behavior? Viriditas ( talk) 07:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

He was removing information, rather than adding it. I would like to see how he handles the comment first. Worm^TT( talk) 07:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC) (Just looked further, and [18] I think this is a perfectly reasonable mistake. AGF and all that.) Worm^TT( talk) 07:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the difference between removing and adding information based on false statements about the source? I'm not following you, but I would like to. AGF is reasonable when an editor does it once. When they do it dozens of times, we should not appeal to AGF. The source said "Republican candidate Mitt Romney's policy on the future of U.S.-led war in Afghanistan war is unclear and confusing". [19] Lionel reverted it with the edit summary "source does not say that his policy is "confusing" [20] That's a false statement, just like all the other false statements he's made about sources, whether he's adding or deleting them. If that doesn't deserve a block, what does? Viriditas ( talk) 07:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In general, adding information should be subject to more scrutiny, the onus is on the editor who adds the information to ensure it is accurate and balanced. However, information removal can be for a number of reasons, not all of which may be covered in an edit summary. (Obviously, that's just the general case, and concepts like NPOV do come into account) In this case, I am willing to believe that Lionel looked through the source and didn't see "unclear and confusing", so removed it. Yes, there's probably some bias there and yes, he should be more careful, but when the error was pointed out to him he reverted immediately. That's a good faith mistake in my book, very different from cherry picking information from sources and denying problems. Worm^TT( talk) 07:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thrown off by this edit sum "Article is about the opinions of Mitt Romney, not the senators" (emph. mine). I focused--perhaps singlemindedly--on searching the article for statements by the senators interviewed for the article and posted my understanding of the material on talk. [21] Yes, I missed the first sentence. Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees. I made a mistake.– Lionel ^{( talk)} 08:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hang on, Worm, you're glossing over an important point that supersedes what you just said.

Viriditas, please try to ignore the edit summary and just realize that Lionel has as much right to remove that material from the article as you have to put it in, regardless of how well it is sourced, until there is consensus among editors to the contrary. There are a several other considerations besides sourcing to be taken account of - just being able to prove something is no guarantee that a given bit of material gets to stay. Lionel wasn't not the first editor to deem that material be removed from the article, but you put it back in anyway, and now you are crying to an admin about it without starting a discussion on the article talk page. Please take a moment to review WP:BRD, which may result in a more enjoyable Wikipedia editing experience for you. Belchfire ( talk) 08:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, you might want to notice that Viriditas has not editted the article, Lionel undid his own edit. I've also looked into Lionel's behaviour, and posted on his talk page, which Viritidas followed up. Let's not make this into something it isn't. Worm^TT( talk) 08:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My bad, I confused Viritidas with another user. I apologize. Nevertheless, the rest stands - verifiability alone is not a guarantee that material stays. Some people have trouble with that, and I sensed a teachable moment here. Belchfire ( talk) 08:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the rest doesn't stand because it's irrelevant. The stated reason lionel gave was false, and Viritidas is accusing lionel of intentionally lying. That's the whole point. Whether the verifiable material should be removed for some other reason has nothing to do with this and is merely a distraction. 24.45.42.125 ( talk) 08:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The sentence with "confusing" was the very first in the article, so even a casual look would have shown him that he was wrong to remove it. Personally, I'd rather not assume malice where incompetence will suffice. When I pointed out the error, Lionel corrected it and didn't try to make any excuses (unlike with the per-plate fee issue). As a result, I'm willing to believe that Lionel made a stupid, but innocent, mistake.

That being said, I don't know him. It's up to you to decide whether there's a sufficient pattern of apparent mistakes to convince a reasonable person that he's doing it intentionally. 24.45.42.125 ( talk) 08:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

24.45.42.125 you should consider making an account since you are at risk of being blocked (after looking at your talk page). Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 08:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why I should care if I'm blocked. 24.45.42.125 ( talk) 08:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Have a nice day ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 08:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A commenter on my talk page suggested that I "basically gave the finger to the rest of the community" by saying that the threat of blocking doesn't concern me. Just in case you misunderstood it in the same way, I'd like to point out that no insult was intended. I'm simply not worried about being blocked because I'm ok with not helping out on a project where my help isn't wanted. I don't treat this as a game to win, so I don't worry about losing. Hope that clarifies things. 24.45.42.125 ( talk) 23:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support block. I have seen Lionelt engaging in similar behavior on various occasions where he dismisses good sources as bad sources and edits in a similarly POV way. I would strongly support a block. Lionelt can be a disruptive editor, but he seems to cover up his tracks by either gaming the sysytem or wikilwayering. Pass a Method talk 10:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  This isn't a vote. Nor is it a !vote. I'm not going to be blocking Lionelt for this - it appears to be a genuine mistake, which he corrected when he was made aware. I have raised issues with Lionelt's behaviour in the past few days and I would like to see him given a chance to accept that criticism. If he were to carry on with that behaviour, then I would block him, but I'm not going to block him for past behaviour.
  If you want to take it further, ANI and RfC/U are open to you, but I doubt it will accomplish much. Worm^TT( talk) 10:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt just bought me breakfast. *cough* bribery *cough* =P. Seriously though i hope the new Lionelt is more careful than the old one. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 11:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That was due to an edit conflict. I didn't want to lose my work when i went off gallavanting and had to save it. I just wanted to see how it looked. Any chance you can move the bubble under the lede as it includes the citation for it? Thanks for watching and helping out there btw ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 15:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what's best to do. I generally try and keep citations out of the lead, because the lead should summarise the article and the article should be cited. Also, I try to not put anything in the gap next to the Table of Contents, because I believe some editors (and devices) don't use the TOC. Worm^TT( talk) 10:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So maybe better to leave it as a paragraph rather than a quote bubble? It looks terrible as is i have to say. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 10:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Then drop it back into the paragraph ;) Worm^TT( talk) 10:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Okedokie. If you see any more areas i can work on with he article then let me know here or on the talk page and i'll get right on it. Thanks and have a nice day ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 13:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Worm, you are wonderful! " :) loved seeing that at the Teahouse this morning!! You are!!

Sarah ( talk) 16:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah! Didn't do that much, I guess it must be the way I say it! Worm^TT( talk) 10:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried to raise a legitimate concern about another editor's rather frequent incorrect use of the mark edits as minor checkbox and I got this in response. Going through their contribs shows a continuing tendancy to constantly mark non-minor edits as minor. Maybe you could try raising this issue with them as I am having no effect... Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 05:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Looked and commented. Worm^TT( talk) 10:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Just be prepared to escalate should they remove your edit as they have done with everyone else who made similar comment. The WP:IDHT alone would probably be more than enough grounds for a block... Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

They've not removed every comment on the subject, just ones based on yours! IDHT is rarely grounds for a block and even if they were to remove the comment, that's perfectly legitimate - it depends if they carry on doing it. Don't worry, I've got this in hand. Worm^TT( talk) 11:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Brilliant. ⇒ T A P 09:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers TAP :D Worm^TT( talk) 09:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I came across that and perhaps could you suggest me few sigs? I tried but didn't get an idea. Cheers :) — TheSpecialUser  ^(TSU) 13:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Messaged you there. Worm^TT( talk) 12:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)