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.

How do I do it? Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Worm,

MiszaBot III seems to have stopped archiving my talk page, have you got any ideas to why that might be?  Adam mugliston   Talk  19:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The bot won't archive anything that doesn't have a specific date field on it... so the cookies and YGM will stay around until you delete them manually. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 07:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't think of that, thanks!  Adam mugliston   Talk  07:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case, but wanted to confirm this morning. You could also reply with thanks and a timestamp ;) Worm^TT · ( talk) 07:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the word to the wise -- the process was actually quite enlightening! I learned a lot from all the comments and will keep in mind how much more there is to Wikipedia. ch ( talk) 05:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian ( talk) 07:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yay Thankspam! You'll make a great admin. Worm^TT · ( talk) 08:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Since 10.28.2010 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Worm, as his mentor you really need to teach this guy to use the edit summary more often so that we know what he is doing exactly and won't be looking over our shoulders more often than we should have. Thank you for your understanding, best. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dave, thanks for the suggestion, I'll ensure it's something we cover. Since 10.28.2010 has only just returned from a short wikibreak, so I haven't really had a change to work with him at all yet - but I'm sure you'll see a marked improvement over the next few months. Worm^TT · ( talk) 06:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• IMO, after removing his nonsense from my page, I sincerely think that there's room for improvement. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I can understand that point of view. Give us a couple of months, and we'll see how he's doing. Worm^TT · ( talk) 07:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• This could take a while, see his shite on my talk page. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 17:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Look at this page. No this one. No, sorry, the article got deleted.

Here is some evidence of valuable contributions. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's me! (Got the word “insurance” stuck in my head now.) Thanks again, An editor since 10.28.2010. 04:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It was a contested PROD, so I don't think it should have been speedy deleted. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks speediable to me. As a dab page, it's not, but as a "list of insurance topics" it is as a new page duplicating existing information... which is what it was delete for. And don't get me wrong, it would have been deleted as a dab page too, but not speedily. Worm^TT · ( talk) 03:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

“Distinguish” hatnote template

Hey, if you don't mind, I placed this. Thanks again, An editor since 10.28.2010. 04:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's likely it's going to be a mix up, but I'd recommend you leave a note here. Worm^TT · ( talk) 21:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I would've, but he appears to be a retired user (last edit ever 2010, last edit on talk page 2007, you can check for yourself if you want). I took great care to check his history log. An editor since 10.28.2010. 22:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hey, if you don't mind, I moved the barnstar to my page. View it here. An editor since 10.28.2010. 20:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to, but that barnstar is going going to grow ;) Worm^TT · ( talk) 21:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm back. You still fancy a chat at IRC? Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Worm. I just discovered that someone having some sort of hissy fit deleted a whole article. See here: Rorschach Test. I reverted it, of course, and restored the article, but does one then do something about the editor? His fit is on the Talk Page, by the way. I've never seen anyone do this. Advice? (And how are you, by the way?)-- TEHodson 05:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I left a warning on his talk page. In addition your wording was confusing. Deleting an article is an action that can only be performed by admins. What the user did was blank the page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry; I hadn't ever encountered this before, so didn't know the term "blanking." Thank you. Obviously I knew it wasn't truly deleted. He did it again right away, but someone else got there before I did and again reverted it. Can one get into trouble for "edit warring" when one has to do this multiple times??!!!-- TEHodson 06:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for answering that Ryan - TEHodson, per WP:3RR, you won't get in trouble for reverting blatent vandalism - such as page blanking with a hissy fit. Definitely attempting to harm the encyclopedia. Worm^TT · ( talk) 16:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, another barnstar, eh? Or did I fail :O --Since 10.28.2010 06:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.19.240 ( talk)

Have I told you how impressed I am by your mentorship activities? I'm not sure I have, but if I did, it is worth repeating. It may be ironic that I'm posting just as you have failed, but that's part of the point. Not all will be successful, and I think your recent attempt was very unlikely to succeed, and if it had succeeded, it would have required 100% of your energies for a long time. Some aren't suited for Wikipedia. I hope this recent instance doesn't diminish your enthusiasm for the mentor program. SPhilbrick T 14:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If you had any doubt in your mind at all about the block this might help clear them. Personally, I woke up and was thinking maybe everything from yesterday is past and we can start anew. Then I saw that you blocked him. It is a sort of hard feeling considering I have worked with him since June 18. At one point he even had a dedication notice to me. Reading that question at the help desk helped me come to terms with the block. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I really am sorry that it had to happen - due to the hard work you've put in with this editor. I would much rather have seen a positive outcome. Don't let this deter you, you've had more patience with this editor than the vast majority of the community, and I think you'll make a fantastic adopter should you want to do it in the future. Worm^TT · ( talk) 16:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you give me some assistance on my User page? I am not sure exactly how to design it but I know I would like a tab bar across the top similar to what you and other editors have. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Any idea what links you'd like? You could pretty much copy mine ( User:Worm That Turned/Tabs). I'm happy for you to use my layout (which I pinched from the big man) or we can look into making something new for you? Worm^TT · ( talk) 16:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I know that I'll need the link to my userpage, talk page, and a statistics page I created. I guess I'll need a DYK page since I have one coming :). I could probably move a lot of information from my user page to various subject pages. Barnstars→page on barnstars. Projects→articles page.

Well, have a look at commons:Category:Nuvola icons to see if there are any images you like. User, talk, DYK, Barnstars and articles I have something similar, so you can check them out :) Worm^TT · ( talk) 16:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I got the tabs issue dealt with, I'll probably figure out how to do my user page at a different time. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good :) Worm^TT · ( talk) 17:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a template of some sort for users who create an article, get it to DYK, stick with it to Good article status, and finally get it promoted to a featured article and I cannot find it. I can't even think or focus on anything right now because I cannot find the answer. Do you know what it is? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Four award. I will have one... when I get Doom Bar to featured! Worm^TT · ( talk) 17:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you. That settles me a lot. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Help desk#X. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe - there's certainly similarities - but it's a single edit rant. I'd suggest just ignoring it. Worm^TT · ( talk) 07:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Mum's the word, its a she or may be it is he faking as a she but who cares? Remember this: "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

However, while I endorse the block of Since 10.28.2010, an indef seems a bit long. The usual approach is to apply increasingly longer blocks, with indef reserved for socks, legal threats and improper user names.-- SPhilbrick T 15:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The terms of the mentorship were that if he acted up he would be indef blocked. See User talk:Calmer Waters#Since 10.28.2010. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• A tiny question here, what if he is using an IP to evade his block and posting tendentious messages around WP? Anyway, I'm filing for an SPI here, feel free to comment. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, he has evaded blocks before. User talk:71.146.31.102 and here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oh boy, now the pile-on really begins. Oh well, I guess thats how the cookie crumbles, eh? (puns not intended!) -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ahh, but it's much more funny if the pun is intended. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• I would love to but someone obviously doesn't entertain the thought of me being nominated for Adminship, hence the fine prints. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick, an indefinite period of time is not a long period of time. It could be 1 second, or a million years,  Chzz   ►  15:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly as Chzz says. Any definite term would be punitive not preventative. I've certainly not blocked him as a "punishment". I hope that a solution might be forthcoming, but I cannot see one. I would certainly be happy to listen to any solution from Since 10.28.2010 or any other wikipedian. Worm^TT · ( talk) 16:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I myself has noticed that he can seemingly go from writing as someone who shows the characteristic of being very young (trouble with the understanding of figurative language and expressions and uncontrolled emotional outbursts) to occasional responses that appear at a higher level of comprehension. It reminds me much of the sock user:Bad edits r dumb editing style (others have since brought up similar observations by email. I appreciate both editors taking the time to attempt to mentor this user, but unless they come clean with what they were doing and decide to change, no amount of help is going to work. Calmer Waters 00:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

@ dave, I think you are mistaken about using IPs to evade blocks

@ ryan - I didn't know such an agreement had been reached, so I'm fine with it.

@ Chzz, I've heard that argument, but I don't accept it. We need a better process, but I'm watching the World Championships now, so will discuss later.-- SPhilbrick T 00:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know I think you handled this very well - you showed far more patience than most of us would have in the mentorship process, giving Since 10.28.2010 plenty of opportunity to change, but then were brave enough to enact what is in my opinion a fully justified block when he showed he was either unwilling or unable to change his ways. Peter 22:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I see a need for a bot and am wondering if the bot I desire would even be technically possible. I oftentimes wikilink to specific sections of an article and am worried that the section may be renamed without {{ anchor}} being used. Would it be possible for a bot to find sections that are wikilinked from another article and place a similar notice to what I did here

==The schooner ''Allen Gardiner''<!--- Note: Articles link to this section, do not change the section heading without using {{anchor}}--->==

Thanks, Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRQ would be the place to ask, a similar bot could go through and mack a list of section links without a destination. Worm^TT · ( talk) 06:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking out of ignorance, would it be possible for a bot to identify sections that are wikilinked and create the anchor? Then if the section is renamed, there won't be a broken link.-- SPhilbrick T 16:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I read up on your copyright and I fully understand it all now. Just to confirm, is the license I put on the image correct now? Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. - Yes, that's right licence, though you need to explain why it's fair use for each page it's used on. No though, because it fails WP:NFCC#9, which states that it can't be used in your user space. At all. Check out File:HelpWantedTitleCard.jpg for how it should look when it's live. Worm^TT · ( talk) 11:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how experienced you are with good article review, but I just completed my first review here and was hoping you could give me some input. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent review, and something I would have struggled with (I can't believe you went for such a big article as your first review!) The only think I might suggest is that you give them a chance to fix the problems rather than failing outright, but since there are so many issue and one is sourcing I can see why you did. Overall I'd say you've done a good job. Worm^TT · ( talk) 08:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There were a couple reasons I failed it right out. First, the page had been waiting for review since May 25, so it was highly probable that the nominator was not sitting there waiting to respond. Second, the nominator/lead contributor had stated that he was on a Wikibreak until October. Third, the extensive changes to the lead, primary sourcing issues, and MOS problems were unlikely to occur in one week. Finally, I believed that the amount of changes were so extensive that the article would be in such a different state it would require a new review. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What is an acceptable amount of time to spend on a good article review? Are you expected to do the entire review in one sitting or can you spend a day or more reviewing the article? Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen, it's acceptable to take several days over it (and possibly more). Experienced reviewers seem to take on a review and put in an initial comment along the lines of "will add comments over the next few days". -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 08:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly as Demiurge says - If they can take months over writing, why can't you take a little while over reviewing. (Sorry I didn't reply sooner) Also, I absolutely agree with your reasons for failing it outright, now that you've stated them! Worm^TT · ( talk) 08:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The 
Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. 
Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the 
request page, the 
formal mediation policy, and the 
guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 6, 2011.

I have recently finished a good article review for Tim Pawlenty and in light of complete dissatisfaction with the article shown by User:Wasted Time R I would like to ask you to view the review here. Please note that this is an informal request for comment not a formal request for second opinion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well after a quick skim over, I'd say it's a failing of GA criteria, not you. I know there's a bit of an overhaul of how GAs are being reviewed - similar to the one at DYK at the moment. From the looks of things, your review is reasonable. However I can see Wasted Time R's points on WP:UNDUE - by displaying information out of chronological order the user's personal bias to the levels of importance does come into play. On the other hand, I don't agree that there's problems with the length in comparison to other articles - We're WP:NOTPAPER, the information is not irrelevent and should be included. Take his comments on board, discuss them with him, see if you can come up with a compromise. Worm^TT · ( talk) 08:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

G'day Worm,

Mind revdel-ing some libel from an article for me? I'd e-mail the address on WP:LIBEL, but past experience suggests that solution doesn't work.

Is there a venue to talk off wikipedia? - danjel ( talk to me) 07:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Email it over to me and I'll have a look. (I'm not available on IRC just at the mo) Worm^TT · ( talk) 08:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool oh, just waiting for wikipedia to send out a confirmation e-mail to me... - danjel ( talk to me) 08:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If it saves you some time, my email is worm.that.turned@gmail.com Worm^TT · ( talk) 08:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Tah. - danjel ( talk to me) 08:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 14:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

How are my edits on Phodopus and Djungarian hamster? Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 20:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Want to? Just kidding, I certainly don't think I would make it through an RFA right now. I would be honored if you would do a nomination for me some day when I am ready. So here comes the related question, am I ready to start admin coaching? Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly? I think you'll make a fine admin one day, but you'll need to wait. I'd suggest at least 6 months from the block, possibly a little longer - though you've certainly impressed me an I'd be honoured to nominate you in the future :) Worm^TT · ( talk) 22:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So you believe I should start admin coaching in six months? That wouldn't be too bad, I have hoped to run for adminship when I finish school in May which would be a year from my block. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite possibly, if you keep up the good work and remember that we're here to build an encyclopedia, writing a few articles if you get a chance ;) Worm^TT · ( talk) 22:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've created 3 articles in the past week actually. I'm still in the process of a long one. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what I like to hear! Worm^TT · ( talk) 22:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, you'll probably make it once you wait until a year after the block, as long as there are no subsequent blow-ups. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 14:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

... though it's probably too early for me. I like working at DYK, and for some of the heavy lifting there you need a mop. Could you give me some idea of what I would have to do to learn Junior Adminship? I could also help out at science-related AfD, if people want help there. Sharktopus ^talk 23:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I can offer some tips. I know I've seen you around DYK, but I'll have to have a bit of a review of your contributions before I can make any suggestions. It might take a little time, but I'll get back to you with something soon Worm^TT · ( talk) 23:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your quick and kindly reply. Sharktopus ^talk 23:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on my talkpage. I appreciate the spirit in which they are offered and do not doubt your sincerity. However, I do not think that I can be convinced that admins are no different to non-admins. Many day-to-day admins are unilateral, and non-admins seek them out to judge disputes. Admins have technical and political power that makes them a different class of editor. Given that they are appointed for life, I think the power structure here bears a resemblance to the House of Lords in medieval England :-) The funny thing is that I never originally intended anyone except myself to read the AdminWatch page. It's a pity there isn't a way to make userpages private. -- Surturz ( talk) 15:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Worm, I was wondering if you can take a look at the feedback I submitted for two GA nominated article. I realize that new users are not really encouraged to take this on by ourselves, so a second opinion would be greatly appreciated.

Two articles I reviewed are:

• Wicklow Way
• Lady Gaga's Meat Dress

Thank you! Stan mact ( talk) 17:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Knowing how good you are with these things, can I suggest you take a look at Jacobga ( talk · contribs) who is seeking adoption. He is currently on a 24 hour block for disruptive editing (the usual pattern!) but he seems to care and some of his contributions have been good. -- Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} ( Talk) 00:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeing his behaviour this evening, I apologise to you for thinking he was worth helping. -- Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} ( Talk) 20:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It may just be me needing to learn that this "mentoring" thing is not as easy as it seems :S

Who knows, though, all sorts of nonsense can be true... I am still prepared to entertain the idea that actually he really thought it would be OK for his friend to make an account elsewhere and then for he himself to edit "over the shoulder" style. All nonsense of course, but makes sense when you're a certain age. I am very patient as to what-will-happen-next, although I don't seem to manage it with spur-of-the-moment replies (oops). -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too hard on yourself Demiurge, you handled the whole situation well. I generally try to take people on with a little experience, but who are heading down the wrong path and the chap didn't seem like he was really learning from anything. I do wonder if the "challenge" you set him was a little too difficult, but it was a reasonable one for him to do while he was blocked.

Simple Bob, I'm sorry I wasn't able to take up the suggestion, I'm just a little busy in that pesky real world at the moment (to the extent I'll be working on the weekend, something that's unheard of for me!) but please feel free to come to me with anyone else you think might be worth the effort - and you never have to apologise for assuming good faith. ;) Worm^TT · ( talk) 07:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Best editor The.thanker ( talk) 01:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I am thinking that letting the editor decide to dump his old account in these circumstances goes against the spirit of Wikipedia:Clean start. Mt king ^(edits) 09:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I can see that point of view, but given that it's a matter of a few days on the old account, and I will be watching him like a hawk until he's up to scratch, I don't consider it a clean start - more of a lack of understanding. The editors involved in the previous disruptive editing are all aware who he is, and if he does return to the same disruptive behaviours, I'll be happy to summarily block him. What's more, I'll be expecting him to have a link at the top of his new userpage pointing back to User:Jacobca. Worm^TT · ( talk) 09:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I placed a peer review for the article, as I wanted to nominate it as a good article but I'm not sure that it's ready. I am hoping to get Phodopus, Djungarian hamster, Campbell's dwarf hamster and Roborovski hamster to GA and then I will have a lot of experience in content creation and the manual of style in addition to what I already know. I haven't worked on them all yet, but I am going to in the future. Thank you again. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 12:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help and good luck with them in the future :) Worm^TT · ( talk) 12:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

{{ adoptme}} Ethan ate1 20:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious why User:BestGuyHi is signing User:Ethanate1, even if Ethanate does redirect. I'll have a think about whether or not to adopt you, I am open to adoption, but I'm afraid I've got to be quite picky with my candidates as I'm quite busy at the moment. Worm^TT · ( talk) 21:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind taking this one, maybe I could get a little bit of oversight from you Worm? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be a great solution. I'd happily watch over your shoulder :) Worm^TT · ( talk) 21:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

must be something wrong with WP:CHU Ethan ate1 21:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. No, you need to manually change your signature for your new username. If you go to My Preferences (at the top), you can edit your signature there. Don't forget to save :) I think Ryan will make a great adopter if you're willing to give him a go by the way. Worm^TT · ( talk) 21:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

i knoow im lazy

Could I upload the image on this page to Wikipedia commons as an image of the UK government? I cannot find anything to specifically say that it is owned by the government but can also find nothing to say that it is copyrighted by anything other than the UK government. The same image can be found here, here, here, and here. Another option is the image here, but I think I am more concerned about that one. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) In response to your invitation at my talk page, I'm afraid that I can't answer that definitively; have you found the image anywhere on a UK government website? That might help. Personally, I would ask about this one at WP:MCQ, unless Worm knows for sure. Those guys are pretty good in general at digging up image sources. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Brought to WP:MCQ. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl is without a doubt the person I'd go straight to with this question and if she suggests MCQ, MCQ is the best place to go. In addition, is the UK government one that automatically makes all images available? I know the US does but I don't know for the UK. (Which is stupid because I live in the UK!) Worm^TT · ( talk) 08:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(Was stalking MRGs page): If it is UK Gov, it is public domain because Crown Copyright expired in 1990 at the latest. If it is by an unknown author, it has been public domain since 2010 at the latest (publication + 70 years). If it is by a known author, 70 years after that person's death. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 14:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Aha, so it's a combination of UK Gov and age that would put it in PD, that makes more sense. Thanks. Worm^TT · ( talk) 14:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, but we'd need to know a bit about the author before we could be sure (as you've noted above). Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note, the UK government has recently moved to an open data standard for a lot of things more info here, so there's a good chance of a lot of government content now being PD. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 15:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have always wondered if I edit in a similar or different way to other editors and I'm tired of wondering, so I'm going to ask you what you do. First, do you use any form of editing tool such as wikED? Second, do you type all wikimarkup yourself? For example do you manually type three apostrophes to bold something or do you click the Bold button at the top of your window. Do you use the cite tool at the top of your editing window or do you fill the entire template yourself? In the course of writing this I found the {{#tag:ref||group="note"}} button. I could actually imagine using this so I'm glad I brought the subject up. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've tried a number of different methods, and I think the one that works best for me is long-hand! I just didn't get along with wikiEd, so I got in to writing markup. Remember I am a developer, so writing in code is second nature to me, and wikicode is pretty simple, it's mostly just plain text and a few things to remember for styling. So, yes, I manually type everything. The one exception to that is the cite tool, I use the template for citations, because I'm just not great at remembering all the bits of information I should be including in a citation, and that helps remind me. Other templates I either write from scratch, or check the template doc, copy the entire template and delete all but the bits I need. It means that I spend a lot of time with the preview button, ensuring I get things right. I'm always discovering new things though, have you noticed the "insert" bar below save page? it's got some useful inserts, and you can change it to give you wikimarkup too! Not that I use it, I was just pleasently surprised when I found it... Worm^TT · ( talk) 21:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I added wikED yesterday and turned it off right away. I always write my wikimarkup longhand. I have noticed the insert bar, I use → for edit summaries occasionally. I'm experimenting with the various gadgets right now and added this one which shows an assessment of the article on the page. Is there a way to easily modify the script so that the titles don't change color at all? I have also just added Prove it for citations and hopefully that might give me some assistance that the current citation tool doesn't. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've used that script for ages, forgot I even used it! I guess the easiest way to do what you're asking is to copy the script, and copy the css file, updating it so all the styles are associated with black. By the way, I really didn't get on with ProveIt Worm^TT · ( talk) 14:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanklet this page seems pretty blank and I want to miss Speedy delete so what do you think? User:Aviation.expert 13:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Which of the speedy deletion criteria do you think it falls under? Worm^TT · ( talk) 13:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A1 User:Aviation.expert 13:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's an unreasonable judgement. However, since Tanklets redirects to Sandal, perhaps a redirect would be a better option? Worm^TT · ( talk) 13:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me! User:Aviation.expert 13:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know how to make a vandalism notice to post on a talk page as a user has vandalised the ebay page buy deleting mass content it has been reverted but would like to know the code for future reference, also I have been welcoming users using code from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The.aviation.expert/welcome User:Aviation.expert 14:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

{{ uw-delete1}} if they removed content, {{ uw-selfrevert}} if they reverted their own change. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A Brit born in the 80s, you say? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ3N6Ln8DdE but somehow I think it might not be your style of music, lol. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 16:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Worm. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011#What has happened. Thank you, Swarm ^{u | t} 04:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (Just a formality, since the person who started the thread seems to have forgotten to inform you.) -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 13:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so he has. Ah well, I think it's pretty much resolved, I won't bother commenting there. Worm^TT · ( talk) 13:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Worm, you have threatened to drag me through an RfC.

Let me give you advance notice that I shall certainly ignore such a proceeding unless you get the approval of a serious administrator.

On the mathematics project, Charles Matthews, EdJohnston, Geometry Guy, Carl (CBM), CRGreathouse are administrators you might consider. EdJohnston is also on the statistics project. CRGreathouse is also on the economics project. You may also ask any member of ArbCom or any active clerk. This is not an exhaustive list. I have great respect for GWH, but given his positioning on civility, I think that he would be an excellent second "wise man" certifying an RfC worth my time.

This advance notice is to spare us both a waste of time like the ANI, where nearly only the only persons present were already involved.

I remind you of the following policies, which are quoted:

• The following is NOT permitted:
  • Personal attacks.
  • RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary - note that repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process.

In particular, I have viewed the ANI proceedings as part of a campaign of harassment by Demiurge1000, which you in good faith became enmeshed. I have spent a lot of time responding to criticisms in the ANI, and under no conditions am I willing to spend time on an RfC in the next two months. I have discharged my obligations to the community by responding to voluminous criticisms by Du1000's summoned clique, in great detail, and I am under no obligation to respond again in the near future.

In particular, you should avoid even the appearance of having your RfC "harass or subdue" me, after your having prolonged and expanded an ANI brought by TFD.

 Kiefer. Wolfowitz 09:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer, I do suggest that you tone down your aggression. When I came to the ANI, I held no overall opinion on your actions, but the more I see the less I'm impressed with. I'm not going to create an RfC today, I'd rather leave the dust to settle, but since I've seen a pattern of disruptive behaviour on your part along with your behaviour on ANI, I believe an RfC is appropriate. Of course, I will follow all the requirements of an RfC - but I think we have more than 2 users attempting to resolve this dispute.

There is no requirement that I find an administrator who you approve of to approve an RfC, but once it is written I will ask a few of the ones you've suggested to have a read over it, as a gesture of goodwill. What's more, there's no requirement for you to participate, but I think it would be best for you to. I'm trying my best to work towards a better community and I do not see an alternative course of action. Worm^TT · ( talk) 09:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop using words like "aggression" and stop mentioning whether you are impressed or not.

Your offer of asking for a look-over by such an administrator would indeed be a gesture of good will, and again would be necessary to have any participation from me.

Please review my interactions with Demiurge1000, and note that I have volunteered to have a no-interaction agreement with him. Note his role in nearly every dispute mentioned at ANI, and not that he has not been editing the involved pages, but has been hounding me. I ask you seriously to consider whether a no-interaction agreement with him would be the most sensible and quickest way to reduce conflicts involving me.

Sincerely,  Kiefer. Wolfowitz 10:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have seen that interactions with Demiurge do exacerbate issues, and I can see that you two do not get along. Indeed, I agree that an no-interaction agreement would reduce the tension and probably improve the situation. However - there are underlying issues here, which do need to be addressed. I'm not willing to endorse an non-interaction agreement unless the underlying issues are dealt with, many of which have been raised by Demiurge.

If I spend some time (and it will require some time, you know that I'm not up to date on the articles you work on) working up a list of areas that need to be addressed, where I will provide diffs for each and every issue, so there are no unfounded complaints, would you look at them in good faith, hoping to deal with them in a reasonable manner? This is all I would be doing for an RfC, and if an informal process will succeed where a formal one will fail, I'm happy to go down that route. Of course, if that fails, we would still have to look at an RfC. Worm^TT · ( talk) 10:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.

Your acknowledgment of one effort of mine to reduce conflict and acknowledgment that others could help reduce conflict are much appreciated.

Please make your points briefly, and I shall respond the same, by email, after a month if possible. If my reply is unsatisfactory, then make your points with diffs in an "intervention" to break through denial. Again, if the ensuing private e-mail doesn't satisfy you, then you may proceed with a public RfC on the outstanding matters, as I have agreed previously (in 2 months). I would ask for one month before you start, I repeat.

You have repeatedly referred to behavioral patterns. You may wish to view the interaction

• between Carrite and myself, which originally was gruff, and similar to the exchange between tfd and myself. You may wish to view the exchanges between Carrite and tfd, or review how tfd's visits to other noticeboards have gone.
• Melcombe and I have sometimes gruff exchanges, but we know where each other is coming from, and I certainly know that anything he writes is a mainstream scholarly view and well documented.
• There have been exchanges on History of macroeconomic thought, where I essentially have bowed to the state of the economics profession today, happy that the phrase "Arrow-Debreu" no longer stands before "general equilibrium theory" for 2-3 agent models involving entire functions.

These conflicts have been resolved in the usual manner, despite my participation. Thus, any attempt to characterize "behavioral problems" should differentiate between the two cases: consensus and spiraling conflict.

It would be useful for you to read the interviews with participants in the WikiProjects Mathematics and Philosophy, and to consider seriously the explanations of harmonious editing offered by the participants (besides myself).

Cheers,  Kiefer. Wolfowitz 10:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot agree to this being done by email - I'd prefer it to be done on wiki for transparency. I'm willing to keep it as private as possible on wiki, perhaps on a banal sub page like User:WormTT/Workshop (my alternate account, which is never used), with a request that other users refrain from commenting.

As for waiting a month, it will take me a while to get diffs together, I cannot say how long, if you do not participate for a month I can accept that - as long as no egregious behaviour occurs in the mean time. I would prefer that you participate when I have finished gathering the information though.

I will certainly take into account your interactions that your referenced, though I may ask for more information if I cannot find the information. I'll also attempt to be as brief as possible. Worm^TT · ( talk) 11:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Before insisting on a public irreversible webpage discussion, you should consult an experienced arbitrator.

You should seriously consider recruiting an administrator or editor who has some vague notions about the content of the pages that I have been cleaning up, since we reason poorly when we lack background knowledge ( Cultural Literacy). A complete lack of indignation at the state of these pages signifies a character defect or ignorance of politics or scholarship.  Kiefer. Wolfowitz 11:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this needs to be on-wiki, for two reasons. Firstly, in case of failure a record should be held to confirm what steps we have taken - and to allow uninvolved editors to see the dispute resolution which has been tried and secondly to appease any other editors who wish the start an RfC, so they can be sure that their concerns are dealt with also. I do not think this is an unreasonable request. If there is a good reason that you feel this discussion (or part thereof) should be kept off wiki, I am willing to listen, if you'd like to email me with why. Worm^TT · ( talk) 11:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh and regarding an administrator with background knowledge, I'm happy with this for some parts of the discussion, we can agree on who to ask if we get up and running. Worm^TT · ( talk) 11:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Your first motivation is unconvincing. If you are not happy then you can proceed with an RFC, as can any other person. This provides a paper-trail for later use, if needed.

I've written all that needs to be written above.  Kiefer. Wolfowitz 11:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a pity that it has failed, but I do appreciate you taking the time to consider a compromise. Worm^TT · ( talk) 12:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

@Kiefer - Forgive me for intruding, but I'd like to share a story, which I will try to keep short. When I was new to WP, I saw an editor posting in such a way that it made me wonder if it was someone I knew. I emailed him, and he confirmed that it was the person I thought. We caught up on off-wiki issues, but he emphasized that he would not be discussing on-wiki matters with me. While there are some legitimate uses of email (arb confidential matters, etc.), it was far better to carry on WP matters on wiki. I have taken that advice to heart. I occasionally get emails from editors, but I respond onwiki. The editor who gave me the advice is now a steward, so has earned the trust of the community several times over. I sympathize and support Worm's request to post onwiki, I hope you will consider the offer, and recognize that matters handled by email, even the arb issues which have to be, often raise questions. Those questions disappear when things are handles onwiki.-- SPhilbrick T 13:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment from a sitting Arbitrator, as you seem to have asked for one. I must point out that Worm does not need anyone's consent or approval to start an RfC - he just needs to have the requisite number of persons to certify that the dispute exists, and attempts have been made to resolve it. As for needing the permission of an Arbitrator before embarking on his laudible (and I hope successful) attempt to resolve differences by discussion, I would point out that Wikipedia expects editors to attempt to resolve differences by collegial discussion, and you don't need anyone's permission to do it. Drafting up the substance of the RfC in userspace so that the two of you can thrash it out seems an excellent idea. Should you choose not to participate in this process, it will still be considered a legitimate attempt to resolve the dispute. Should you choose not to participate in the RfC (should that be necessary), it would proceed without you. My experience has been that the non-involvement of the subject has historically been more likely to lead to a subsequent sanction, as it becomes viewed as the 'only way to get through to him'. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 13:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Following many suggestions and requests, I have rewritten the comments on the SPA page and on an aggrieved editor's page so they swell with the milk of human kindness and may be more helpful for continued editing.

That done, I remind you about the serious issues raised by the edits that provoked my wrath, particularly the lifting of only "democratic centralism" from "Stalinist democratic centralism". This edit showed some understanding that the history was unreliable and biased but nonetheless introduced the d.c. slander. (There were a number of similar partisan falsehoods otherwise introduced at that time, more easily understood to have been in good faith.) I can imagine that an earth quake threatened the editor, who hit the "Save page" button prematurely before leaving for open ground, or a similar scenario, and that more pressing matters demanded his attention.

I ask the editor and Demiurge1000 to cooperate with similar edits on the talk page of SPA.  Kiefer. Wolfowitz 14:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Took me a moment to decipher the TLA, but SPA means Socialist Party of America - not Single Purpose Account. Hope this helps anyone as dim as me. Worm^TT · ( talk) 14:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Elen,

I would remind you frankly that I have cleaned up many articles that had severe violations of policies in the last few months, far more than the rest of these people put together. For this effort, I have been attacked with political allegations by people who have yet to make a helpful edit to any of these articles.

Given the amount of time I've spent responding to their concerns this weekend at ANI, and elsewhere, I am entitled to a break from what I view as harassment by Demiurge1000 and company. I proposed an interaction ban, and what happened to that?

Your suggestion that I would not be responding to a good-faith effort at mediation is naive and insulting, given even a casual look at this history.

As I have mentioned, I have taken what steps I can to improve things with the aggrieved editor. However, I am concerned that you and others are just ignoring the severe problems with the articles in this area, and haven't said a word about attacks I've faced.

Given this mistreatment, I am under no obligation to jump through any more hoops with this crowd.  Kiefer. Wolfowitz 14:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I do find it insulting that you feel you do more good work for the encyclopedia, I can understand the point of view - if you didn't see what you did as important, you wouldn't do it. I do ask that you consider for a moment that perhaps the plethora of adoptees, IRC helpdesk users and OTRS request which I have dealt with over the past few months might in some way be worthwhile to the encyclopedia. I work hard to help users, just as you work hard to ensure these political articles are up to scratch. If you can start to see my point of view, you might see where my dispute with your editing style comes from, you appear to focus on one part of what makes wikipedia great at the expense of another. That appears to be the crux of the issue for me. Worm^TT · ( talk) 15:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

David (Worm),

We have a history of directness, which I shall continue. I stated a fact about my contributions to articles, particularly articles that appear in traditional encyclopedias. I made no comment about your contributions to other areas of this project. I'm sorry that you feel insulted, and I am sorry that you may feel even more insulted now.

At RfAs, I'd often read complaints about young administrators (without contributions to serious articles) "meddling" in disputes among established content editors. This weekend's experience has changed my understanding of this concern.

Consider the difference between your assessment at and Carrite's, first factually: Which was the fairest assessment? Which gave me insight that might lead me to change my behavior? Then consider your contributions rhetorically, by their influence on me and other readers. Did you see that Carrite opened with positive statements before he made some concrete suggestions for change. What were you trying to accomplish? Who was helping the encyclopedia more? I don't have confidence in your ability to lead an RfC, at least not for me (when these problems involve politics and editing traditional encyclopedia content). It's not a lack of intelligence or even of writing ability, because you are obviously highly intelligent and you are a fine writer. It is a matter of maturity and experience, also.

People reason poorly outside of familiar bases of knowledge. Look at ArbCom's proposals when they were considering the Monty Hall problem case. They nearly passed a decision that, if applied, would have made it nearly impossible to write mathematics articles. They were all intelligent and highly educated but they had difficulty reasoning in unfamiliar areas.

For these reasons, as well as my previously stated concerns about your role this weekend, you are unsuitable for drafting even a pre-RfC, at least not by yourself. However, if you assist Carrite, and he agrees to lead a mediation, then I would participate. CRGreathouse and EdJohnston could also lead an on-line mediation, if either agrees.

Sincerely,

 Kiefer. Wolfowitz 16:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple of very long-in-the-tooth editors have offered to provide their advice on the drafting of the RfC, so I don't think there will be any deficit of experience. But in any case, Worm is far from a newcomer to dealing with disputes. I'm sure Carrite's input would also be helpful; he has given you good advice when you tried to involve him in your disputes in the past. However, unless I'm substantially misunderstanding Worm's intentions, the RfC will be about behavioural issues, not about content issues regarding the 20th century history of obscure political factions. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 17:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

KW, you seem to be suffering from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You are not allowed to dictate who may or may not start an WP:RFC/U with you as the subject. You also don't get to dictate what it says as its basis. You can participate or not participate as you see fit, but you have no say in who gets to do it. And please note that while I appreciated at the time your attempts to involve the Maths project in drafting one of the proposals for Monty Hall, this was not due to any "difficulty reasoning in unfamiliar areas". You need to dial it back a few notches. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 19:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

ER,

Dave understood my intentions, and acknowledged some justice or at least possible reasonableness to my suggestions, or perhaps he thought that my willing participation in editor-rehabilitation could only help. But don't let that stop you from typing ....

About the horrific drafts you all proposed about Monty Hall, there may have been other reasons why your reasoning was impaired, but it was certainly the case that reasoning about mathematics, and writing policy about mathematical writing, prompted many on your committee both to deepen their understanding of WP policy and to discuss drafts and issues with specialists. (Review the discussions if need be.)

 Kiefer. Wolfowitz 22:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer, thanks for remaining straight with me, as you know I've been with you in the past. I am generally thick skinned and since Wikipedia is a hobby for me, I don't take anything said here to heart (or at least I haven't so far). I'm sure you remember telling me on your talk page that I "waste my mind" - well, I do what I enjoy. I have a job which gives me the intellectual fulfilment I need, and my work at wikipedia feeds my altruism. I do feel passionate about this project though, and since the foundation has recently revealed statistics about lower editor turn out, I've spent much time working to improve that.

So, if an editor is causing difficulties to the community side of the project, I will focus on that. I will do whatever it takes to solve that problem, and whilst you are a tremendous benefit to the project, I wonder if you are a net positive. I'd certainly prefer to work on the issues which are causing the acerbic atmosphere, and keep you as a positive member of the community.

As such, I've bent over backwards to accomodate your requests - you ask that we avoid RfC/U, I give you an alternative - a low profile workshop. You ask for an independent adminstrator to "sanction" it, I agree as a gesture of good will. I've agreed to do a lot of research into a topic that does not interest me, and to ask for advice from editors in the field. I've agreed to take specific conversations into account. Every single one of these were a gesture of goodwill from me, and I was under no requirement to do anyone them, as Elen has so kindly pointed out.

And yet, you keep asking for more. You insist that my maturity is in question (ironic, since the essay I was going to ask your opinion on was on that very topic). Experience, I've worked with much more difficult editors than you and helped them become productive members of the community. I know how much effort I put into ensuring my comments are clear and not to be mis-interpretted, yet your response to every comment I made at this weekend's ANI appeared to assume bad faith of me. I have diffs to back up my comments, and provided diffs wherever I could, but since my main point was that ANI was the wrong venue - there was little I could do there. When I suggested it, I thought there was little likelihood of there ever being an RfC, because they are such a lot of work to put together. Your behaviour during the thread was enough to persuade me that an RfC is required, even if I have to do it myself, and here we are.

The plain fact is that your confidence in me "leading" an RfC is irrelevent. If you do not wish to participate, then that is your perogative, no one will force you to. However, I think it would be much more productive if you did. Understand that I am not "threatening" you as it is not a punishment, it's not even necessarily a negative experience - if you accept that I am trying to help. Worm^TT · ( talk) 20:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot respond to everything, but let me say that I understand that I was in a bad mood at ANI, which I experienced more like swatting a revolving sequence of horseflies than as a discussion.

I did think about the ANI discussion. Today, I did revise my comments on PGW's talk page and on the SPA talk page, and I would wish that he and Demiurge would do the same on the talk page. Now, look at what I wrote and see whether I have acknowledged that some past actions could have been improved, and fixed problems as well as I could. Aren't such actions more productive than jawboning? If you make a list of problems that can be fixed, then I'll try to fix them.

Show me one place where one of the attacks on my good faith and allegations about political bias have been redacted, per civility, please. Or where you have urged anybody to remove such personal attacks, please, and build my confidence.  Kiefer. Wolfowitz 22:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I do appreciate that you're making an effort. I'll have a look at the SPA page when I get a chance, and if I see any issues that need to be dealt with, then I will do so. I'll also have a word with Demiurge and ask him if he would voluntarily scale back his interaction with you, at least temporarily - per my agreement on fetchcomms page. I hope that this will go some way to "building your confidence" Worm^TT · ( talk) 11:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)