User talk:Worm That Turned: Difference between revisions

User	Talk	Articles	To Do	Toolbox	Subpages	DYK	Awards

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37

This page has archives. Sections older than 17 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Welcome to my talk page. Leave me a message!

I'm moving into a period of low activity. Do not expect a rapid response from me.

This user is stalked by friendly talk page staplers.

This user replies where s/he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.

Hi Dave. There was a merge of the BTWF article a short (recently some time, maybe 2 weeks?) while ago into the Lady Gaga article and a lot of content was lost. Do you see any obvious issues with restoring a remade and improved article to mainspace when it looks like this? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 18:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like that whole "Florida Family Association" bit at the end, it feels awfully like a coatrack, and certainly not neutral. I would have just put "The donation was criticised by Florida Family Association", if that. Otherwise, the vast majority of the sources aren't reliable, be they PR based, or self published, I'd discount them... Otherwise, it's not that much of an improvement... and I don't think you've added much which would change the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Born This Way Foundation Worm^TT(talk) 10:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compare it (the FFA bit) in the recent history with what i wrote and see what you think was better/more neutral. I wasn't in an arguing mood and so i left it til i got more eyes on it.

Thanks for the advice. The referencing method used makes it difficult for me to see the sites used for the sources and makes it take an incredibly long time to even find the reference url itself. I decided to give up on trying and go to bed. Thanks again ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've partly reverted it but kept the sources. Can you fix the cite issue that has appeared and comment on the wording? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's still got "the scientific consensus..." which has nothing to do with BTWF. It's 2 steps removed. Like I say, drop the whole bit, at least :P Worm^TT(talk) 14:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was left in because of a disagreement over WP:WEIGHT somewhere else and i thought it appropriate. I'll take it out. Thanks for looking over it ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we discuss it before i do though to clear up my understanding?

Under WP:WEIGHT i've been under the impression that if we mention something on Wikipedia we use the mainstream view, which would be why the claims made by the FFA here are in speech marks:

• The Florida Family Association later accused Office Depot of delivering an "irresponsible message to many teens who would have eventually chosen to be straight" and influencing teenagers to reject heterosexuality for a lifestyle few would have chosen otherwise.

And so because of this i assumed i was best to mention that the scientific and main stream consensus says it is not a choice. (Which got reworded to the current wording).

I see your point of it being coatrackish and so is my understanding there incorrect since i've already put the section in speech marks and so not in the words of Wikipedia? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I'd leave it at "FFA criticised the payment" if mentioning it at all. Don't go into the reason behind the criticism. If it really is a one-man band, why bother mentioning it? Worm^TT(talk) 15:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought some of their exact wording merited mention since it was so laughably incorrect and a few news sources picked it up just because of the strange uneducated claims they made. I also felt that made more of a comment on what they are doing than the previous coatrack wording i changed and the readers can interpret it themselves without us spelling it out.

I'll take out the scientific consensus bit. People in this day and age would have to be pretty thick to read that thinking FFA is a defender of morality anyhow. Thanks Dave ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for this comment made at a glance. I haven't read the article; however, I believe the best idea once Jenova does think it is ready is to take it to WP:DRV. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for that Ryan, though i think this article needs about 2-4 weeks more work before it's ready unless i work really hard. Thanks again ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the FFA bit is left in at all, at this point the most I think is The Florida Family Association, an one-man Christian fundamentalist organization, criticized Office Depot as influencing teenagers to reject heterosexuality. To give his fringe views any more free publicity seems almost irresponsible. Insomesia (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions staplers? Dave? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me it would be like writing an article on an opera house and then mentioning a one-man band that sometimes plays outside. In most cases, the one man band is a distraction and doesn't deserve to be mentioned; however, it the opera house is particularly known for that one man band, or the one-man band has been significantly covered it should be mentioned. In this case, I don't know enough to decide keep or remove, but it will need to be a determination of how important the viewpoint of David Caton is to the foundation. Has it had a significant impact? Is it mentioned in a large number of sources describing the foundation? If not, don't include it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned in a lot of sources and got a decent amount of media attention but mostly because the reasons given by the FFA in their/his attack on BTWF were so outragously and factually just waffle it was a joke. Thanks and don't forget to feed your pug Ryan ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice rewording Insomesia. Dave, opinion? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 22:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still on the "don't mention it at all" side of the fence, but is there a need to describe him? We wikilink for a reason. Worm^TT(talk) 19:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism attracted as much press attention as the partnership with Office Depot, that's why i first thought it necessary. Wouldn't it be unusual to take that sentence out of the BTWF article to put it in the article about the guy who runs the FFA when it's about criticism of Office Depot and BTWF? That seems more coatrackish because we're going from the guy - to his organization - to what it says about others, rather than the BTWF - and what others say about it. That's 3 steps removed...Thanks, i'm more confused now than before...ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant removing "an one-man Christian fundamentalist organization", as if you click on FFA, you find that out very quickly. Assuming the criticism received as much coverage as the partnership, then yes, the rest of it makes sense in the BTWF article. Worm^TT(talk) 09:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YDone - i think i've been misunderstanding your requests but i've done it now. Neutral now yes? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made a small tweak, and I'm much happier. You just have to prove the AfD wrong now ;) might need a little more expansion. Worm^TT(talk) 09:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I'm going to leave it a few weeks for some more work on it first ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I object to removing that context. I think it's fair to say most readers wouldn't bother clicking a link to do the research and find out that FFA is in fact just one man, and a Christian fundamentalist, information that is rightfully blurred in a biography. I think it's better to remove any information than present a POV view this this one criticism comes from anything but one extremist who knows how to send out press releases. If we aren't going to duly inform our readers where this wacky criticism is actually coming from then it should be left out altogether. Insomesia (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do see that point of view, but the wording really does take us away from NPOV. How about David Caton, sole employee of Florida Family Association, criticized Office Depot as influencing teenagers to reject heterosexuality. - makes it clear precisely how important they are, without removing neutrality. Worm^TT(talk) 09:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the motivation comes from an extremist religious viewpoint and we are whitewashing that. Lady Gaga gets loads of "special" attention from fundamentalists trying to gain attention for their causes. I think we need to be clear this is religiously motivated by a fundamentalist Christian, one so outspoken that the New York Times was compelled to find out who exactly is behind this "Association." To me this ties into Christian fundamentalists funding reparative therapy and other de-gaying ministries. Insomesia (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it like that Insomesia, it's clear from the statement they gave that they believe homosexuality is a disorder that can be cured, even though medical science says otherwise. I don't think many readers would believe that either since this isn't conservapedia. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other problem is that the sources aren't saying this. I don't disagree with your analysis, but to link through in this manner is synthesis, and certainly not a neutral way of presenting the information. You are putting spin on it, making readers think in a certain way before reading the fact, and that's not what WP should be doing. We're not trying to soapbox here, we're presenting neutral information for both sides of the debate. Worm^TT(talk) 10:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're being too POV by not adding any context. Similarly if we were discussing Apple, we might easily add it's one of the largest and most influential companies in the world. Someone might click on one of dozens of links in the article and get that information for themselves but it's more likely that they won't. FFA, or more accurately David Caton, is making ridiculous statements but we aren't really expressing that, fine, because no sources have really gone into it as far as I've seen. But the New York Times has researched this issue because of his press releases against the TV show American Muslims. So we have one of the most reputable news sources specifically noting "the man who had manufactured the entire controversy [ ... ] founder and sole employee of a fundamentalist group [ ... ] a person unaffiliated with any established organization on the Christian right [ ... ] [who] often used the tactic of pressuring advertisers on shows he depicted as advocating for homosexuality." Others in the story noted him as a part of "a well-organized extreme right,” and "one fringe individual." To me this makes one-man Christian fundamentalist group an apt, neutral and sourced descriptor to accompany any content associated with the misleadingly-named Florida Family Association. Likewise we could attribute the statement to David Caton, founder of the one-man Christian fundamentalist group Florida Family Association. Otherwise we open the door to other fringe characters who build a website and court controversy much like The Catholic League and other religious based groups do. If it's actual group then great, we contextualize what kind of group it is; a consumer group? a victim-rights group? a LGBT rights campaigning group? Etc. In this case it's a one-man Christian fundamentalist group, if needed we can attribute the context to the New York Times. Insomesia (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your logic Insomesia. I'm just unsure about this ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, why not copy this entire conversation to the talk page of the article (in your userspace), worry about it when you put it live. I'm afraid I can't really be helping out much more here - too much on. Worm^TT(talk) 10:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Worm!

One of my adoptees is fast approaching the final test. When I was copying your course over, I messed up something with the final test. I think it's solved now, but would you mind having a quick check? Also, how do you add extra questions to the test for the practical part? Thanks  Adam Mugliston  Talk  12:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam. Looks good. To get the extra questions, you just need to create a page at User:Adam Mugliston/Adopt/Preload/USERNAME whatever the USERNAME is. then you'll need to undo Ryan's edit. Worm^TT(talk) 20:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. If I do revert Ryan's edit, what would happen if I wouldn't make the page for /USERNAME ? Would it still work with the main preload? Because I think when Ryan tried that it didn't...  Adam Mugliston  Talk  20:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. No, I think you need to make one. I'd have to think about it... but I don't have a solid answer. Worm^TT(talk) 20:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no worries. How do you think I've done with RexRowan? Do you think there's anything else I should challenge him with on the final test?  Adam Mugliston  Talk  20:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a couple of things I would have done differently, some answers I'd have asked for more clarification on. I'm not keen on marking systems in general, which is why I only used them for the final test. But otherwise, no, looks good. Nothing specific I'd add for the final test.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Worm That Turned (talk • contribs)

... First time I've forgotten to sign AND didn't notice I'd forgotten to sign in a long long time. Worm^TT(talk) 08:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Have you got some sort of mark scheme for the final test? I forget to sign loads, then I realise and I get annoyed with myself . Also, I'm a bit worried about another of my adoptees, JoyceK1988. She wanted adoption, because she wanted to learn how to properly write, so she could make sure all information about her company, some Dairy firm in Malaysia, was correct. I immediately got a bit worried about NPOV, but I told her to read it and took her on. She's been working on an article about her company and has been asking for guidance, which I hope I have been giving and recently she submitted the article to AfC, without telling me, but ok. It got declined, due to the reviewing user being worried about NPOV as I said. I'm not sure how to approach that problem now, as I have already explained NPOV twice before. Have you got any past experience with a similar problem or some advice?  Adam Mugliston  Talk  09:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have quite a lot of experience in it, but unfortunately I'm a bit pressed for time, and such things can take quite a while. It's one of the reasons I rarely take on content creators as adoptees, because content creation isn't an area you can teach through my methods. You may want to ask Ryan Vesey for some advice, he works in articles for creation a lot, and would be a really useful person to help you out here. Worm^TT(talk) 09:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, as a talk page stapler, I'll assume he'll see this conversation soon enough, but I might drop him a TB.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  09:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one more thing: How do you mark the join a project question? I can't see how a user could not get 10/10, unless they don't do the question. I've expanded the question, so that the user has to perform a requested task.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  09:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, marking system. 10 each for the practical, 5 each for the theory. And yes, the whole point is that you always get 10/10 on the last question. You're not meant to fail the final test, it's designed to be passed. By the time the editor gets to it, all that remains is to boost their confidence, show how good they are and how well they can cope and how much they've learned. It's a pain in the arse to make someone retake it, so make it easy. :P Worm^TT(talk) 09:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That explains it. I guess you have a point, it's not to show what they don't know. So far, to mark the tests, I've been using the answers I gave you and the comments you then made :-)  Adam Mugliston  Talk  09:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• On the topic of JoyceK. Her first step should be to remove Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dutch Lady Milk Industries Berhad#Products. It should be replaced with a description of the types of products. The awards section should be pared down to only those awards that are referenced in external sources. While primary sources can be used to reference factual information, we need to consider the significance of the awards. One thing I have learned in working with some COI editors is that awards can be purchased. Things like certifications held are not awards. I don't feel that it is necessary to reference the certifications at all; however, if reliable sources mention the company's high quality or mention that it is very environmentally friendly, it might be necessary to create a paragraph or section on those topics. You could also direct her to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help and see if they can give her advice on how to make the article more neutral. Ryan Vesey 14:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ryan. I also thought the products section was too long and have told Joyce about that before. I also noticed that awards thing. I'm worried about her sticking to NPOV in the future.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  15:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct that the requirement that your signature links to either your user page or talk page refers to an english wiki user page or talk page? If so, can you look at User talk:Ryan Vesey#I read your thread at Jimbo's talk concerning WikiNews, since the editor in question doesn't feel the need to modify his signature? Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think this is a pretty good instance of IAR. If you want to contact that user and he's only really active at WikiNews, then it sounds like a sensible link through. Worm^TT(talk) 19:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not censored. However, words and images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner."

I hear you on censoring in general, but how does this policy apply in that regard? It seems to suggest that if the offensive content is not encyclopedic, then it is not protected by the policy, and it should be avoided. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gabe. Sorry it's taken me so long to reply to this, but I promised you links on the matter. As it turns out, I don't have any. Well, almost none, certainly none of any use. I was sure I'd seen a whole long discussion, where there was consensus that profanity in and of itself was not uncivil. This dicussion implies it, yet this recent arbitration case implies not.

WP:PROFANE is a content guideline, as it states at the top of the page - so it's based around what you should say in articles. It directs users to WP:CIVILITY, for meta discussions. Now, civility does include "Gross profanity" as an act of incivility, but the problem there is working out what constitutes an act of gross profanity. It's different for every editor. Indeed, that's one of the reasons the civility enforcement case was so contentious. If you haven't read through it, I do suggest you do.

You may ask, since we have do have children on the encyclopedia - marketing ourselves as an educational resource, and we're complaining about the lack of women, why don't we just stop all swearing all together. The problem is that many editors live in social groups where swearing is not only unproblematic, but also the norm. Asking these people to moderate their language, because other people are offended is a difficult request to make, since offense is not necessarily intended. Wikipedia prides itself on not being censored, again causing moderation of language to be a big problem.

Unfortunately, one of the crux issues is what would happen if we DID moderate language. Wikipedians are mostly men between 18-40. They write wikipedia articles as a hobby. If we start moderating language, we start to make things less fun for them, and they will leave. Will they be replaced by other editors? Perhaps, but since they make up the community at the moment, it'll be difficult to persuade them they are doing wrong.

Finally, administrators. Administrators are supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard. Now, I'd rather administrators didn't swear, especially when performing administrator actions, including dispute resolution on ANI and so on. But I don't believe it's part of policy. Worm^TT(talk) 19:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across an example of the question I had about fair-use pictures in articles where the text doesn't refer to the subject of the picture. See File:Banknote with Loul Deng.jpg, as used in the Luol Deng article. The text makes no mention of the bank notes at all. What would your advice be - remove the image, add the information to the text, or something else? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a really good image to be honest, showing how much he's ifnluenced the world beyond his sporting acheivements. Certainly worth adding more text, rather than removing the image. Also, don't forget, there is a little information on the image in the caption. Worm^TT(talk) 07:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I agree. I'll add it to my to-do list. Thanks - Cucumber Mike (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read your comment above and noticed you offered to supply links for last year's admin trial discussion. Yes, I am interested and still hope to comment, and knowing what was said before would certainly make for a more thoughtful response. Unfortunately RL will remove me from WP soon for an unknown length of time, but I have put something about the project on my talk page so I don't forget. Don't know how you want to handle it, whatever and whenever you come up with will be appreciated. Neotarf (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. The ones off the top of my head were Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives/Pre-RfA Proposal and Wikipedia:Tool apprenticeship. The latter went before the community and had lots of discussions regarding it. Worm^TT(talk) 07:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have made a note of it. Neotarf (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else getting logged out multiple times an hour occasionally on Wikipedia? It's happening to me more often and sometimes between logging in and making an edit i'm then told i'm not logged in, which is frankly ridiculous. I can't be the only one, fess up staplers ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not I. Though, have you logged out recently? if you press log out on one computer, it logs you out on every computer/phone/tablet you've been logged in on. I found that once, really annoying. Worm^TT(talk) 09:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, i only use one device at a time and i have never ever used the log-out function. It happened when i posted that message above too. I had logged in about 9:15 this morning and got logged out while trying to save an edit less than 30 minutes later. Same happened yesterday or saturday (i forget which), when i had to reply to someone as an IP because every time i tried to save it i was logged out. I'm only using bog standard windows and firefox and the last time it was my phone using firefox. It's very irritating ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long time no speak! :D hope all is well. Anyways, just quickly, I've made my username invisible on my talk page - am I allowed to do that? Or will I get into trouble? :S Thanks, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why it wouldn't be, as your name is there, but I would suggest making the letters a bit smaller, as they don't fit on my screens, which is conventionally wide, so any older, smaller screens will not show it properly.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  11:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that is very awkward. I have had that lettering like that for weeks! :/ Shall change it now. Thank you! -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might have a large screen, like an iMac or just a very wide one, but compared to all other less wide types, they're quite rare, so I thought I might tell you as you maybe haven't noticed.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  11:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I doubt you'll get told off, but there's always a possibility. I'd suggest you follow my lead and leave your talk page with the name at the top and just remove for your userpage. (PS, it's massively oversized on mine... )Worm^TT(talk) 11:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"you follow my lead and leave your talk page with the name at the top " ...like everybody elses! I will kiss, and remove all the pretty little colours. Lovely how I realise this now... :P Thank you, both. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can make it colourful, just as long as it says who you are. I've made my userpage show WormTT, close to my sig, but I've kept my talkpage as Worm That Turned. Worm^TT(talk) 11:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, as per usual, I misread what you had said before. However, I'll keep it with no colours, 'cause it looks a little childish ...oh the irony... and I don't currently have a userpage, I'll be recreating one soon. Thanks for that, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that we're going to start going nowhere fast. There are already 3 different discussions going on about removing adminship/sanctioning admins. Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept, Wikipedia:Request for Admin Sanctions, and now Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship. I fear that having similar discussions going on in all three spots will keep consensus from appearing at any of them. Ryan Vesey 21:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so far, everything is really still in discussion mode. So no consensus is actually being determined as yet afaik. - jc37 22:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Risker warned about the same thing, and I started a discussion thread on the RfC page for debate about the two well-formed proposals that are live now. Hopefully everyone will use that and we can re-centralize the discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious why you're focused on "re-centralising". WTT asked me to add the request for de-sysop proposal to the RFC. Though I do note that everyone seems to have ignored the Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept/Suggestions page... - jc37 06:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I respect Risker's opinion on the matter, and I think it's exactly right. Splitting up the discussion leads to all kinds of tangents that never address root points, it gets people off focus quickly. And while changes to individual proposals ought to happen on their talk pages, that's not true of comparisons or debates about the two. That's my only interest in recentralizing the discussion.

As goes the subpage, I was unaware of it, as apparently everyone else is :), you should probably point it out. Shadowjams (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, subpages really aren't working that well, everything is going on at the proposals subpage. Unless the suggestions subpage was a subpage of the proposals subpage, meaning it stayed transcluded... hmm, I'll have a think about what to do. Ryan, I think Jc37's got it right, the discussion I started was meant as just that, a discussion. The proposals were far too vague to actually be pushed through, they were just to gauge the community's strength of feeling. Now, lots of people are going to bring up pet ideas, which may get some interest. Again, discussion can carry on in the future - we're not looking for answers, we're looking for thoughts. Worm^TT(talk) 07:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the suggestions page just isn't needed. I've de-linked it. Worm^TT(talk) 10:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not willing to be sucked in to a debate with your protege Swifty so under the conditions of his mentorship I am approaching you, his mentor.

I made this edit to Unchained Melody, left an edit summary, and gave clear cogent reasons for my edit, on the talk page.

Swifty reverted leaving an irrelevant edit summary, and left a message on the talk. This article is about the song, not Rimes. She is less notable relative to this song than some of the artists down the page where I moved her to from the lead. She does not merit inclusion in the lead IMMHO.

I have reverted Swifty's edit, and left a note on the talk there that I was asking you for comment. Moriori (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to ask a question also about this, which i just noticed, and if it is allowed for use of copyrighted images in a userpage? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not thus please remove them. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opps. I don't know if they are allowed the way you have kept. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. It's just a transclusion of Special:ListFiles/Swifty - which we cannot edit. If he were displaying the files, it'd be a definite no-no, but I've no idea how this fits in. Might see if I can get some eyes on it. Good spot Jenova. Worm^TT(talk) 08:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked someone who knows more about copyright than me... User talk:Moonriddengirl#Odd non-free content question Worm^TT(talk) 09:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed it by accident but was unsure...Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how do i reuse the same citation over and over in an article? I need to use reference 11 here directly after the "Village Inn" section. I've seen it done but had to resort to copying+pasting and i really should learn properly. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name the reference. So, when you type <ref>Reference</ref> for the first time, change it to <ref name="REF_NAME">Reference</ref> (whatever you want to put for REF_NAME, just so long as it's unique). Then every time you want to reuse it, you just need to type <ref name="REF_NAME" /> (that last / is very important). It looks for that same reference elsewhere. Worm^TT(talk) 10:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you could do my example for me in this instance so i can see it better? I appreciate the work here. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tada! Worm^TT(talk) 11:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiiight...I made a mistake in saying it was reference 11 and it was actually reference 10, and you then placed the wrong citation because of this in the "Nightingale" section? I messed up there but thanks to your explanation i think i've got it? Thanks and sorry about that, my bad ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I saw References 12 and 13 were to the same page, which is why I used them. If you look at what I've done, there reference wasn't repeated. Still, hopefully it makes sense for the future - you need one reference named, and then all the others in the short form. Worm^TT(talk) 11:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are? Crap! i'll have to try and redo your edit. Thanks Dave, inbetween edit conflicts and interruptions i've made a mess of this. Thanks for the effort you put it, you've been a great help! ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12 + 13 are different Dave, i've changed the titles to reflect this though as they had strange automatically(?) generated titles before. Kay? ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me :) Worm^TT(talk) 11:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice revert on Daily Mail - muslim gays are a rarity. Perhaps page protection is an idea after the recent tide of vandalism? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Not that much vandalism really. Take it to WP:RFPP if you like, but I'm not sure it's worth it. Worm^TT(talk) 11:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose 2 vandalism edits a day isn't that bad. When we hit 3 a day i'll consider it...ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another stumper...reference 5 was a magazine i got on Birmingham Pride 2012 and i cited it as a magazine. I've now found an online copy but want to use both rather than just the one. This is because i don't want to see the online version appear as a dead link in the possible future. your opinion? ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's no problem with that. Just add a |URL=http://... to the cite book template. Worm^TT(talk) 13:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last one of the day (promise). Which colour looks better for the article in the tiny infoboxes here? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the pink. But it's really up to you. Worm^TT(talk) 14:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more. Still the pink? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the subject matter, yep ;) Worm^TT(talk) 14:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...Since you already have the LGBT Barnstar, i present you the LGBT Ribbon. Thanks a lot for your work today (and every other day). ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a higher integration of your adoption program at WP:WER. Many people have shown an interest in working with new users as a part of WER (and there is one user on the talk page that needs to be adopted) and I think you efforts need to be obvious and more easily found within the project. After all, the Project is just a group of ideas, but programs like yours are the real meat and potatoes that get the job done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're welcome to point anyone you like to User:Worm That Turned/Adopt, but I suspect that's not what you're after. I do need to sit down and sort out WP:ADOPT, a project which I know can be really good, just needs someone to take it by the hand and bring it back to life. I just don't seem to have the time to make that sort of commitment at the moment. Worm^TT(talk) 13:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on working on a proposal for a less intensive process. I can't have 10 adoptees, but I can have a few adoptees plus a couple users who I offer to help. I was thinking of something that was more of a "hey I'm here for you, let me know if you're having difficulties, I'll help show you the way". Then I found Wikipedia:Wiki Guides. I think that the project was about as intensive as I feel it should be on the interaction side; however, the google docs spreadsheet and things like that were too much. I'd like to revive that. What do you guys think? On another note, I was thinking about preparing an RfC on making the 'pedia slightly more social. Sadly, I found Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing. I feel like I'd go about it slightly differently. (My more ambitious plan would be to create a forum on some or every article, but I'd not tackle that in the same RfC). Ryan Vesey13:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having been an active participant of WikiGuides, let me try to remember what worked. As I recall, 1)it was important to track and be able to evaluate the effectiveness of our interactions with the new editors, 2) the new editors that were chosen had to permit e-mail communication since there was that additional level of "hello", 3) we were given 10, then 20, editors to interact with (and to track) (More if requested), 4)It was alot of work with, for me, only one suceessful retention out of about 60, as far as I know. My memory is poor, so let me check my archives for more info. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, now you mention it, I DO remember doing that. Basically, you'd be given a list of 10 editors at a time, send them all an email and a talk page message, then hope they'd respond. I decided it was a waste of my time and pulled out... Worm^TT(talk) 14:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's way too much. I'm looking at something a bit different. Do you think I should use the existing framework though or should I try to create something new within WER? Ryan Vesey 14:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In WER, certainly. You can model it on guides, but I think you'll want to disassociate your idea from it. Worm^TT(talk) 14:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was definetly way too much. But, I'm sure there are many nuggets of gold (info) that can still be mined there. I've got an old Miners hat around here somewhere. I just hope the canary doesn't die. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

here - phone numbers in infoboxes - good or bad? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said remove it, kill it with fire, get rid and all sorts of things like that, but it begs the question, why is it on the infobox? Worm^TT(talk) 11:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well...it's not there anymore. Thanks Dave ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone to WT:WikiProject Beer regarding the general case. Worm^TT(talk) 13:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any useful content on this page at all when it was deleted? Ryan Vesey 14:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The full page was "Anderson High School is a public high school in Anderson, Indiana. Their symbol is the Indians" Worm^TT(talk) 14:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that doesn't appear to qualify for A1 to me. In fact, it would probably have survived AFD today. I just disambiguated a link to it, I might create it. Ryan Vesey 14:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave, this user here has some good knowledge and images of the Birmingham Gay Village from long ago and a flickr page with some more here but i'm unsure about the copyright. Are you any good with Flickr? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well, if you click on any one of the images, eg this one and then scroll down on the right to see the license. If you click on it and see "CC-BY" or "CC-BY-SA", then you can use them. There's actually a bot on commons which helps you upload them... I've used it once or twice. Worm^TT(talk) 15:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, CC-BY-(anything other than SA) cannot be used, nor anything that says "all rights reserved". Worm^TT(talk) 15:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh brilliant =] I don't like going thorugh the Commons though. I may upload them a bit at a time as i do the others. Do you know about the really old image of "The Roebuck" here also? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's photobucket, and I don't think they're as good at the creative commons thing. Unless you have some reason to believe it was published over 70 years ago, you can't use it. (Try asking the poster to release it under CC-BY-SA) Worm^TT(talk) 15:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the UK copyright is awesome! Freedom of panorama extends to sculptures/statues so feel free to upload away! Worm, what do you mean by CC-BY-(anything other than SA) cannot be used? There are a number, like {{Cc-by-2.0-uk}} {{Cc-by-2.0}} etc. As a note for flickr, be careful of anything that looks like it might be flickrwashing. This is just a note for the future, these ones seem fine. Ryan Vesey 15:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he means the version; what he means is if the license has any of the CC modules attached to it other than BY and/or SA. So, a license that's CC-BY-NC (restricted to noncommercial use only) wouldn't be compatible with Wikipedia's license. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that makes sense. I should have realized that. Ryan Vesey 15:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Ah, good point. I was referring to to CC-BY-ND, CC-BY-NC... CC-BY-NC-SA... and all the others, not the version of the license. Basically, we can use the top two here. You are right about "flickrwashing", but it's fairly likely that the poster has taken them himself. Freedom of panorama always gets me, there was a big thing about 2d items on a panorama... it just starts giving me a headache. Worm^TT(talk) 15:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about when 2d items appear within something that would be free according to FOP? Those should generally qualify for de minimis. I.e. you can take a picture of a building with a painting on it, but not a picture of the painting. Don't take my word for it though, I haven't dived too deep into UK FOP Ryan Vesey 15:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even remember if it's US or UK FOP that was the problem. It was a case of a banner between two buildings, or a bill board or something. In any case, I don't go looking for these sorts of problems :D Worm^TT(talk) 15:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - for probably the first time in about 30,000 talk page messages. Oh well, none of us is perfect. What I am currently trying to do in a roundabout kind of way is to pull the CVU back into a project that has more focus on productive work rather than on building on its own schoolyard-style game of clans, clubs, and hierarchies. If you look at the user pages of most of them, you'll understand my concern. They claim NPP to be within their remit, but heaven help us if some of them start patrolling new pages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did it myself a few days ago, and kicked myself over it! I understand your concerns about CVU, I've got a few myself, but I do trust the two admins that hang about in there (Zippy and Yunshui), to not let it get out of hand. NPP does need some fresh blood, and although I know how many problems there have been in the past and how much work needs to go into each patrol, if that can be imparted, I think those enthusiastic editors could be really helpful to the project. Is there an NPP checklist anywhere by the way? As for claiming it in their remit, I was under the impression they had it as an "associated project" and that was just because it's got the word "patrol" on it. Worm^TT(talk) 08:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's probably me typically exaggerating a bit, but their banner does say 'within the scope'. I'm not sure what you mean about a 'check list'. Some time ago (probably 2 years) Scottywong and I completely redrafted the WP:NPP page to turn it into a kind of tutorial. And then I started making a training video for NPP until I was snubbed by the Foundation. Probably best to wait with a proper tutorial now until the Special:NewpagesFeed actually goes live with all its promised features. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I meant, though I am surprised copyright isn't highlighted as a big deal there. Will keep waiting I guess :) Worm^TT(talk) 09:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that Cyber is one of your protégés. He's also very active on the CVU project pages. You might find this thread interesting. At WP:NPP, the copyvio checklist is almost right at the top after attack and hoaxes with a yellow triangle. I've added a L2 header and bolded some of the text now to make it stand out more. A couple of weeks or so ago I mentioned that I've placed NPP warnings on some 260 NPPer's talk pages, but Ironholds minimised the effort, and went on to talk about all the pages he has patrolled. This might make you curious, and this, especially the comments by DGG. Oliver claims he tried to talk to me, but I have no recollection of ever seeing him (the one person I wanted to meet) at the conference. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's not exactly, I helped him out a bit when he was starting out (and told him off a bit), and when he asked to be adopted I told him I was too busy. I finally found a bit of space and offered him the course to run through, but he's certainly experienced enough to manage without my help and I can't say I was the one who "made him what he is today" or anything like that. I've seen many of those threads, and read through, but tried to keep out of the who NPP area, it really looks like the sort of place that just sucks your time away and I've got so much to do already! Worm^TT(talk) 11:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave, this is disruptive editing instead of vandalism right? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they intend for it to be helpful, so yep. Worm^TT(talk) 09:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YSorted. Thanks Dave ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The trick is to use the word vandalism as rarely as possible. You'll never get in trouble for not using the word ;) Worm^TT(talk) 09:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice tip there Dave, i'll make great use of that advice. I slept badly and i'm just a bit slow today (more so than usual). I'll be fine later. Have a nice day ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've stuck an infobox in Abdomen but i need the latin of the word for it, which i can't find here among all the others. This says it's either "abdōmen" or "abdōminis". Can you help here? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YDone - no worries ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the stalking. As you can see, my talk page gets a lot of traffic, and I actually try to steer things there instead of ANI, and depend on stalkers to help solve issues. And yes, you and I agree on ANI and many other things. Feel free to stalk any time, I trust your judgement as I would my own. I would give you a key, but the door is always unlocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got it on my watchlist, and will try to respond when I can. Generally though it takes me so long to look into a dispute that I don't get involved! It's exactly why I don't have ANI on my watchlist... Worm^TT(talk) 11:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page was moved to WP space almost exactly 12 months ago to the day. It's been viewed 2,457 times since then. I wonder if... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I doing this correctly?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the article page there is a big red box with information and a button in the middle saying "contest this speedy deletion". Press that. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 19:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i'm going to retract that as i very very stupidly didn't look properly. Apologies, OTRS isn't my area of expertise ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 19:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:-) No, my question was on handling a CSD tag I may have applied incorrectly.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ping! :) I thought it would be an application of WP:IAR in applying the CSD tag, but I may have been over-hasty with it. See it, the article page history, and both the author's and Transporterman's takl pages.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR is a strange one and i'm not sure i've ever gotten away with it. Most of the time the rules are a better guideline to follow and easier to apply without challenge.

That being said, do you understand what that article is about? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recently found out that File:Birha Ki Raat (1950) - Hindi film poster.jpg is PD in India but not in the US. My adoptee isn't too happy, and I'm wondering if you can think of any way it could be used with a FUR on Nargis or Dev Anand. Perhaps a derivative work could be created, showing only the two of them? That might make it appropriate as a subject of commentary of the two of them acting together. I'll work on creating Birha Ki Raat because I'm sure it can be used there. Ryan Vesey 19:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, that's a pain. Yeah, I've not actually come across situations where it's PD in one country but not in US. I don't agree with the derivative work idea, FUR would allow it to be used on Birha Ki Raat, but not necessarily on the actors pages, unless there's commentary on that film in particular. I'm going to have to defer to WP:MCQ I'm afraid! Worm^TT(talk) 12:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, admin! I need your help. There is a preference/option to add [edit] link to the lead section on English wiki. I want the same on Punjabi wiki (pa.wiki). Can you please help? Thanks. Tari Buttar (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to change the preference on the English wiki? If you do, it should be the same on the Punjabi. If you can't find it on the Punjabi, that could mean that function is not enabled on the Punjabi wiki. If you don't know, where the preference is on the English Wiki, say so and we will help you find it.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  07:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No dear, its okay for English wiki. I know it better but all I'm trying to say is that there is now Gadgets setting in preferences on Punjabi wiki. How can it be installed? Tari Buttar (talk)

Ah! I get what you mean now. I think you will have to create an enabling page, but I'll try to find out exactly what for you. If not, you might have to wait for Worm to come in or maybe Ryan.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  07:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this: WP:Gadget. It should be the same for the Punjabi.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  07:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	support
	Thank you for your generous support wherever it's needed, adopting mentees, proposing candidates, supporting them ("a knack for saying the right thing and getting stuff done"), helping fellow editors to get out of WP:Great Dismal Swamp, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to say, I never thought I'd end up with one of those! Thanks Gerda :) Worm^TT(talk) 11:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

• Guest activity increased in July. Questions are up from an average of 36 per week in June to 43 per week in July, and guest profile creation has also increased. This is likely a result of the automatic invite experiments we started near the end of month, which seeks to lessen the burden on hosts and other volunteers who manually invite editors. During the last week of July, questions doubled in the Teahouse! (But don't let that deter you from inviting editors to the Teahouse, please, there are still lots of new editors who haven't found Teahouse yet.)
• More Teahouse hosts than ever. We had 12 new hosts sign up to participate at the Teahouse! We now have 35 hosts volunteering at the Teahouse. Feel free to stop by and see them all here.
• Phase two update: Host sprint. In August, the Teahouse team plans to improve the host experience by developing a simpler new-host creation process, a better way of surfacing active hosts, and a host lounge renovation. Take a look at the plan and weigh in here.
• New Teahouse guest barnstar is awarded to first recipient: Charlie Inks. Using the Teahouse barnstar designed by Heatherawalls, hosts hajatvrc and Ryan Vesey created the new Teahouse Guest Barnstar. The first recipient is Charlie Inks, for her boldness in asking questions at the Teahouse. Check out the award in action here.
• Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania! The Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania this past month, where editor retention and interface design was heavily discussed. Sarah and Jonathan presented the Teahouse during the Wikimedia Fellowships panel. Slides can be viewed here. A lunch was also held at Wikimania for Teahouse hosts.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I am having an issue on the Talk:Scooby-Doo page here. I have a problem with posting a bonus/special feature on a DVD in section geared for things that aired on TV and now he wants to play this weak argument to get his way by saying that nothing should be posted in the "TV specials and animated telefilms cause he is claiming it aired on TV without a source and I have looked and have found no reliable source to back his claim. And I have pointed out to him several times that a DVD bonus feature is not the same as a TV special or an animated telefilm and to post an advertized (on the DVD as an) episode that was released on a DVD is not as a TV special or a animated telefilm is misleading. Can I get your input (everyone else is welcome to input as well). ^_^ Swifty*^talk 00:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#Age template. Ryan Vesey 03:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've come to the right place! :) I know Worm has strong views on this, and I've also discussed it recently with another editor who shares a little of my background in dealing with these sorts of issues. One thing to start off with; think about whether the existing advice essay is good, bad, perfect, or what. Then think about whether it's easier - if that essay is good or better than good! - to just send a single one-line neutral suggestion to read it, not a complicated template. I've seen welcomes to younger editors that are so full of "gosh, we're so glad to see you here, and excited!" that the recipient (or their parents) might really be wondering what on earth is going on. Equally, some with more than a dozen links to policies, in that welcome.

To put it another way, if the welcome message is going to include a significant amount of additional information, beyond what will be found in the existing essay, then it has to be tailored for age, or maybe even tailored for recipient, and in that case, what's the point in a template? Keep it to one line, and perfect the essay instead. Make it inviting, easy to read, thorough, and covering all the right points in all the right places.

Are there things that are vital to mention to a younger editor on their talk page? If so, identify what they are, and have the link to the essay alongside them. But keep it short, and neutral. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I am not sure this is the right time, but I just wanted to let you know that I do need some help.~ty (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tylas! Great to meet you. I am a touch busy at the moment, so I may not be the best choice for an adopter, there are an awful lot of other editors out there who would be able to spend a little more time with you. However, having said that, I'm a sucker who finds it very hard to say no to people who are asking for help, so if you would like to carry on with someone who might not answer immediately then let me know :) Worm^TT(talk) 07:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Worm won't mind me making this link a little more prominent, but all the adoption lessons are at User:Worm That Turned/Adopt under a collapsible box labeled "Lesson Book". I bookmarked this page long ago, intending to go over the copyright lesson if I ever got to the point of uploading images. Someone who is accustomed to independent study may be able to do this course on their own, or alternatively, use it to identify and review unfamiliar areas.Neotarf (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Neotarf, that's a good point. I really do need to go through and update a couple of the lessons and add a few more, but there's a lot of very useful stuff in there. Worm^TT(talk) 08:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Neotarf! :) ~ty (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are worth waiting for Dave. :) ~ty (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How very kind of you. Whether or not you'll still say that when you're sitting and waiting... ;) Worm^TT(talk) 15:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am good with waiting. I was worried about the time involvement myself. This should work out perfectly!~ty (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what color the default sig is? I'd like to modify that so it doesn't appear in black on my talk page. In addition, do you think that would affect users with their settings in green on black? Is there a solution for this? Ryan Vesey 18:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a blue link in regular text, with links to the user page and talk page. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, Worm! I noticed that you gave helpful feedback at this editor review to someone who was considering whether or not to apply for adminship. I've been thinking about doing the same thing (we're probably talking about years in the future though, not months), and I was hoping you could do something similar for me at my editor review. There's no rush or need, but I felt your comments gave some pretty good insight so I decided to drop you a line. Nomader (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I've got two emails to sort out first... but I'll get there! Worm^TT(talk) 13:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch! And take your time, these things usually take months to run through. Nomader (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, it was just what I was looking for. Nomader (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per this. Have you taken a look at Writ Keeper? He's got an excellent CSD & Prod log and shows a lot of clue. He's helpful and appears to be knowledgeable on the admin side of things. His drawbacks are that he's not been here an entire year yet and only 1000 of his 8000 edits have been to article space. I noticed that he didn't leave a note here after this revert. That's common, but not necessarily good because it appeared to be a good faith edit. (Note that he didn't revert as vandalism) Usage of AGF revert here. Didn't leave a note though. I've yet to find a revert tagged as vandalism that wasn't. In any case, what do you think? Nominate? Wait until a year? Wait until there are more article space edits? I haven't talked to Writ keeper about this, but did notify him of this comment. Ryan Vesey 18:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, Worm actually has emailed me about this not too long ago. He and I were in agreement that I'm probably not ready for an RfA yet, as was User:Drmies, who I met at Wikimania; my biggest flaw is probably that I have almost no real content work. (I'm hoping to change that this weekend, but dunno how that will work out; we'll see. I would hope that my CSD record and/or DR experience would help to counteract some of that, but still.) I'm not really averse to running anyway, even if I don't have a huge chance of success; I like to think I have a pretty thick skin, so I don't think I would take failure poorly. But the time certainly ain't optimal, as far as things go. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this, if you want to tag team on one of those (hopefully) GA's or the DYK/GA with me, you are more than welcome. Belchfire is assisting me with Doterel right now. Ryan Vesey 19:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I emailed Writ Keeper last month, just before Mr. Stradivarius. I do think he'll make an excellent admin, I'm just not 100% certain he'd pass an RfA at the moment. I'm hoping to nominate him in the not so distant future. :) Writ, if you are interested in thost topics, jump on it! Worm^TT(talk) 08:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Worm. Is this neutrally worded considering it's from Citroen directly? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Gotta hand it to you mate. Yeah, who'se gonna be next? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got two or three people who should be ready in the next couple of months... I'm just wondering if I can find someone who's ready now! Worm^TT(talk) 13:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave. interesting. However, if I had caught it in time, I would have blocked on the spot, probably for at least month. Time for some people to start learning. Enough is enough, and everything has been tried. And tried, and tried, and tried... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes yes! I would love if that attitude would instantly fill everyone on Wikipedia. Ryan Vesey 02:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember if I saw it at the time or not, it was reverted very quickly. However, I do remember reading Hersfold's comments, so I may have seen it. Given your outspoken views on Keepscases, I think you blocking him would be a bad idea, though that diff is not a pleasant one, a direct personal attack. I'm not a fan of blocking for Civility^TM, including personal attacks - we accept that blocks reduce civility (because we allow an amount of ranting on talk pages), so a block for civility is akin to sorting an edit war by reverting. Worm^TT(talk) 07:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WormsTT to the rescue! Save the seals! Arcandam (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]