User talk:Worm That Turned/Archive 12

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

RfC

Can you or somebody close and archive this now before it gets any more out of hand? It's no longer needed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not. For one thing, I'm involved there - I've participated in the RfC, it would be inappropriate for me to close it. For another, I don't think an indefinite block with no way back is appropriate at all. In my opinion, closing and archiving now would be premature. Waiting a few days (not hours) at least seems prudent. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that you had also commented there. Anyway, it's appears to have been closed already. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Calling like it is

WTT,

Please notice that you are in the highest circle of candidates that I oppose, and indeed you are the highest of those firmly opposed.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Replaced good faith removal. KW is welcome at this page, whether or not I keep out of his way elsewhere. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I noticed KW. I was surprised by it and noted it at the time. You are indeed a man of many parts. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In other words, S., it was not surprising that Worm behaved honorably today. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Green Museum Messages

Dave - you're a star; thanks for watching over my team. Greenmuseum (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Dave - can you please check in the eduation section. One of the students has moved her piece to the main page, but not properly. Thanks Greenmuseum (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for working with our class! Cdl32 (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, I look forward to our many discussions! Worm^TT · (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dave, just testing. Thanks for helping the class. Mostly I believe they will add sections to TGM but I defer to you and we will adjust project goals as necessary. Greenmuseum (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Discusions with Anna Simmons

Hello Mr. Worm That Turned!

My name is Anna Simmons, and I am very excited to work with you on the Green Museum Wikipedia project. For my wiki contribution, I would like to discuss what museums are doing with their outdoor spaces to be more green. Most museums have some sort of landscaping or outdoor space for their visitors. Many institutions are using this space as a place to teach about storm water runoff, water savings, re-use of materials, and the importance of native plants. I could discuss several specific case studies that are mentioned in the literature we have been reading for our class. I look forward to your hearing your thoughts. Amsimm (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Good morning Anna! That sounds like a very interesting piece of work, and I'm sure it could be made a good addition to the encyclopedia too. There's a few ways you could handle it, by writing to the general case, the general case for a country or about specific cases.

If you were to write about the general case - possibly an article on say, Outdoor spaces at museums, you should have the largest amount of information available to pull together for an article. It would be worth remembering that the article would have to be written from an international point of view, which may be difficult.
Perhaps this means writing about a more specific area - Outdoor spaces at USA museums - would be a better idea. It could give the article focus.
More specifically would be to add a little information to lots of museum articles, a section on their outdoor space, culminating in a List of outdoor spaces at museums, which could have a few paragraphs at the top, and links to all the museums you've investigated. This would probably be the most precise method, but lists are often forgotten at wikipedia - they don't have the same prestige

Whichever route you choose, it will be important to remember that everything on wikipedia needs to be verifiable. This means that any new information cannot be put directly on to wikipedia - everything has to come from outside sources. Unfortunately, that can mean that comments like "Many institutions are using this space..." would need some sort of citation to back it up. What constitutes "many" for example?

I'll let you have a little think about what you'd like to achieve from wikipedia - do let me know if you have any more questions, would like some clarification or indeed would like to know how to get started! Worm^TT · (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Your words of advice are very helpful! Now that you know a little more about our specific assignment (i.e. each student is to contribute to the already existing Green Museum Wiki pages), do you think I should still choose one of your 3 approaches listed above? I like the larger scope of - Outdoor Spaces at Museums - you mentioned, but I realize that opens the doors to researching international museums as well as museums in the United States. I am interested in outdoor and landscaped spaces for a variety of reasons... 1)They contribute to healthy water systems 2)Beautify the museum footprint 3)Provide a space for outdoor/environmental education and 4)Inspire community involvement. Now... I realize this list may appear to be my personal opinion, and I would have to provide verifiable resources to back them. In my article contribution, I would like to discuss a new "green" landscape certification system created by the U.S. Botanic Garden, Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center and the University of Texas at Austin, called - Landscapes for Life -. The idea behind Landscapes for Life is similar to the USBC's LEED Certification system, but designed for Landscapes instead of building structures. What do you think about all of this? As soon as I hear from you, I'm ready to get started :) 75.103.224.2 (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's really up to you - if one solution appeals to you more, then that would be the best to go for. Remember, that there is no deadline, if you want to write the larger scoped article, you can always add international bits at a later date. It may be that someone marks the article as needing expansion in the international areas - but it's unlikely to be lost for being too centered on one area.

Or you could possibily write an article on Landscapes for Life, that's also a great topic, assuming that the certification system has sufficient reliable sources discussing it. I'd probably suggest starting something in a sandbox (say User:Amsimm/Outdoor spaces at museums or User:Amsimm/Landscapes for Life?) and get a feel for writing a wikipedia article. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussions with JcMusEd

Green Museum Topic Choices

Hi Dave, I am a student in the George Washington University's Green Museum class. I am hoping to add to the Green Museum wiki page with information on the Toledo Zoo's use of solar and wind power. Do you see any potential problems with this topic?

Thanks,

JcMusEd (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)JCMusEd

Hi JcMusEd. I've moved your question down here, so all the discussions for Green Museum are together. Sounds like an interesting topic and I can't see any major pitfalls with adding the information to Wikipedia. The only question is "where" the information should go. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that the use of solar and wind power by a single zoo will be sufficiently notable to create a new wikipedia article - but I would suggest expanding the section on Toledo Zoo#Conserveration Efforts or creating a new section in that page. Let me know if you've got any further questions. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Further to the comments below - I think discussing Toledo Zoo's specific use on the the green museum page may cause a bit of difficulty, it would be better if you could write on a more general topic. Perhaps museum renewable energy sources in general? Worm^TT · (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussions with Aebeisch

Green Museum Topic Choice

Hi Dave, I am also a student in GWU's Green Museum course. We are actually just adding to the Green Museum page not making an entirely new wiki page. I just thought I would clarify your conversation with JcMusEd. I wanted to add to the education section of the Green Museum page with Disney's Animal Kingdom Conservation Education best practices. Do you foresee any issue with that? If you do, I could also just do best practices in general regarding education- Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aebeisch (talk • contribs) 21:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for clarifying that. The other courses I've worked on focussed on the students creating new articles, rather than updating existing ones. However, if the article is about green museums in general, you may find that adding specific information about Disney may be too specific. Unless you can show that it was particularly significant in the field of green museums. On the flip side, adding green museum information the Disney's Animal Kingdom page would make sense. It may be better to write about best practices in general. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussions with Dani2424

Hello Dave, I am also in GWU's Green Museum course. New to Wikipedia, I'm just testing out the talk page...making sure I know what to do before writing a long message about my contribution to the Green Museum page. I am planning to add a "green exhibits" section. Does that topic seem too broad? Thanks & have a great day! Dani2424 (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dani, and welcome to my talk page, make yourself at home :) Now that I have a better understanding of what you're trying to do, I think a green exhibits section sounds just about right for a green museum page. Don't forget you'd be writing about a general topic, and whilst you can mention specifics, you need to keep the section broad. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dave! My portion for the Green Museum article is ready to move from my sandbox. Problem is, I misunderstood the instructions on this page to add my Green Exhibits portion into the Green Museum article. I think the The Green Exhibits page has become a separate article(?)...not good! However, when I do a search on Green Exhibits, it still appears in my sandbox with a new message in red bold that reads "This sandbox has been placed in the article namespace. Move this page into your userspace." What does this mean? I just want to move it into Green Museum. Please help...thanks much. --Dani2424 (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dani. I've moved the article from Green Exhibits to the Green Museum page, leaving a redirect behind. I've also made a few tweaks to bring it closer to wikipedia policy - the only one which there was a bit of an issue over was the External links. They should only be included at the end of the article, where they lead readers to further encyclopedic information, but not within the article where it could be regarded as advertising. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussions with Ezafiris

Hello Dave, I'm another student in the Green Museum class. My plan for the Green Museum page is to expand on the History section of the page by giving a time line of the Green Museum movement- which museums were the leaders in greening their institutions, who else is considered green, and listing some specific institutions that are innovators in the field. I would love to hear your thoughts! Ezafiris (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ezafiris, apologies in the delay in replying, I'm quite slow sometimes - sorry! I just want to say that expanding the History section of the Green Museum movement would be an exceptionally good idea and would add terrific encyclopedic value. If you can find reliable sources which state who is leading the field and so on, that sounds like a great way to expand the article Worm^TT · (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Great, and no worries about a delay. I'll keep in mind the need for reliable sources in stating the leaders in the field of Green Museums Ezafiris (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag

I've been contacted by TreasuryTag regarding a possible return. I was a little surprised, as I've had very little interaction with him, but I guess it was prompted by my conditional support here. My conditions involve you, so before I invest any more time in review, does your offer still stand?--SPhilbrick T 15:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That might be difficult as I'm standing for ArbCom. If I am lucky enough to be elected, I am unlikely to have sufficient time to dedicate to the mentorship. If I'm not successful (and it is borderline), then I would be glad to help out there. I should point out that I have specifically told TT that he should not attempt to return before the New Year and I find it very telling that he's gone looking for someone else to help him come back sooner. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that Arbcom would be a significant time commitment. I'm curious at your comment that your success is borderline - I thought it was not possible to see interim results. Am I misunderstanding your point, or are you simply commenting on the voters guide comments?

Re TT, in his defense, he hasn't identified a time, so it may simply be that he is in the early stages of a process. I do understand that the hope was for complete disengagement for some time. As the ArbCom elections close in a few days, let's put this on hold until then.--SPhilbrick T 17:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I've got no inside knowledge, I was mostly commenting on Monty's voter guide. I would say I'm one of the more borderline candidates, possibly because I've got so much respect for the other candidates. Putting things on hold until after the election results seems sensible to me. Even if I do get in, I would be willing to help out with mentorship, but I wouldn't be able to lead it as I was hoping to. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Bacon Challenge 2012 Update

Hey! It's been a good few months since the Bacon Challenge 2012 kicked off in June, and I'm pleased to say that decent progress has been made. While we were a bit slow to start, bacon-related contributions have been picking up again, and scores have been rising in the Bacon WikiCup. Here's a quick rundown of the overall positions as they stand:

1^st: Silver seren
2^nd: Worm That Turned
3^rd: Rcsprinter123
4th: Doh5678
5th: Cirt

Currently, only a handful of participants have reported contributions: to those who haven't, remember, there is still plenty of time left to contribute and rise up in through the positions, as the Challenge and WikiCup run up until March. Just like last year, all participants will receive a shiny medal which they can place on their userpages, or use as a self-esteem booster if need be (just joking...sort of). If you need ideas for what to work on, a list is available here.

One last thing! Per request, we are bringing back territory representation into the WikiCup! Editors can now represent nations, states, or provinces, just to add a bit of fun and Olympic-flair to the event. Simply reply to this message with the territory you wish to represent, if you choose to do so.

Thanks for reading! Good luck! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever I had last year :) Worm^TT · (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Referencing a source

Hi Dave. Can i ask what the "accessdate" is when i reference in the more detailled way? Is that when it was added as a reference or when published? Thanks Jenova20 10:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's when you last looked at it (in case it's been changed since then). Worm^TT · (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

So if i just read it, it's today?

Thanks Jenova20 10:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It's to confirm the last time that source definitely matched what was said, and is very important for internet based sources as it helps us use things like Wayback machine to find it if the link goes dead. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Carrier IQ my reference (28) isn't working properly, have i missed something or done it wrong?

Thanks Jenova20 10:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

{{cite news}} is a template, you forgot to close the template syntax... (you forgot '}}' on the end). Otherwise, very good job. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm finding it a bit too technical to use, you know i'm crap with templates if i can't copy and paste Jenova20 10:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Let the software do it for you. Press edit, see "B I | Pix blah blah blah >Cite" Press "Cite". Use the drop down. OR read more at Wikipedia:refToolbar 2.0 Worm^TT · (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That seems much easier! =]

I'll try that next time instead of copying and pasting.

Thanks Dave Jenova20 11:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

BD / TPC

I'm disappointed by the asymmetry of your reactions to BD/TPC. You're defending TPC as though she was the victim here, and then putting the same patronising stuff that BD objected to from TPC onto BD's page . So how about you take "let's just back off" seriously? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That's simply because I do see the situation with BD/TPC as asymmetrical. TPC has a history of edits which are positive and civil shouldn't have posted the message which sparked this off and the tone was condescending. However, she has apologized for it, specifically cited why she did it (regarding a line in WP:CIVIL) and yet has been hit by a large number of people having a go at her. BD on the other hand has a history of positive but uncivil edits along with personal attacks, but with noticeable improvement in the past few weeks. I'm not saying TPC is a victim, but I do object to BD being painted as one.

You are however totally correct that constantly telling people to "back off and let things die down" isn't actually going to make anyone do so and I could do with setting a better example there. I'll be dropping things now. Worm^TT · (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering an RFA

I've had two in the past and haven't been as active as I'd like too...yet I'm feeling masochistic and considering running again. What do you think? Would you consider a nomination or slap some sense into me?--SKATER ^{Is Back} 16:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look as soon as I can and get back to you on that! :) Worm^TT · (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Skater. I'd say it's probably not the best time at the moment. You've got some very long gaps in your contribution history, I think users like to see at least 6 months to a year of solid contributions. Effectively, 500 edits go back to May last year, which is far too far. Much of the work you've done since you've been back has been automated vandal fighting, which is of course very helpful for the encyclopedia. However, the amount that you've done wouldn't be treated as prolific, I've known editors who do similar numbers in a week (or in some scary cases, in a day!) Whilst it is possible to become an admin through vandal fighting, it would be a lot better to show yourself to be a well rounded and trusted member of the community.

To do this, you want to work in a few areas where admin related tools would be helpful and do the work well. For example, working in New page patrol, only tagging for speedy deletion when you are certain that it should be deleted and tagging for cleanup or AfD in other situations. Maybe commenting regularly on WP:XfD discussions or working in WP:AfC. Also, some more content creation is always a positive step. Basically, at the moemnt, you've got a bit of a way to go, but I think you'll make a fine admin in the future. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, I knew that my gaps in editing would be a cause for oppose for some users. I would like to point out my content creation is more expansion of articles, you can see my DYK's on my page...they're the best i've got personally. I've also been known for NPP, as image patrolling as well. Regardless, I thank you for taking the time to review me. :) Thanks,--SKATER ^{Is Back} 15:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I did see you DYKs and I meant to congratulate you about them, but got rambling. You've done a great job on the stuff you've been doing, and if you carry on doing them consistently for 6 months or so, I'm sure I'd be happy to nominate you. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha, until then. Good luck in the arbcom voting!--SKATER ^{Is Back} 15:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Let me know if you come unstuck on anything and need a hand :) Worm^TT · (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Reference

CSD

Do you still take adoptees?

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AwesomeSponge

User:TreasuryTag unblock request

OK, I admit it, I LOL'd

YGM

Another RfA

Hello, Worm, I am the beginner in Wikipedia, but would like to become an admin sometime, so your kind assistance would be very useful to me. I hope to count on your nomination as I reach the level of edits required by Wiki rules (soon, hopefully) - have only 1500+ edits in English Wiki. --Orekhova (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Orekhova. Whilst there is no actual requirement for level of edits to run for adminship, it's worth keeping in mind that the average number of edits for a successful application is about 10k, and no one has passed in the last 3 years with under 3000 edits, so you've got a bit of a way to go yet. I can give you some suggestions on the sorts of areas you might want to work in, but for now, the most important thing is to work on is getting more experience. Have a read of this guide, which gives you some ideas about the whole process. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Worm That Turned,

well, I've been aware there's much to do, but anyway, thank you for your comment, I appreciate any advice now. I hope to address you again with the same request, sometimes later, when I match the requirements to a greater degree. --Orekhova (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed there is. It's difficult to know what will get you to "adminship" because it is different for each individual. Basically, you need to show yourself to be trustworthy to the community, some people do this by evaluating different articles which are likely to be deleted at WP:AfD, others by patrolling new pages at WP:NPP, maybe even doing anti-vandalism work at WP:RCP. A large portion of the community wants to see that you've created / expanded, so you should try to do some actual writing work. If you keep working in any of these areas, you're likely to run into some difficulty sooner or later, remember that discussion is key and show that you can resolve disputes. Keep doing this and you will find that someone will likely nominate you for adminship, you won't need to go looking for a nomination! As a rule of thumb though, aim for 6000 edits and 1 year experience before you go too much further. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I fully realize, that in the first place it looks like random trying my luck, but actually I was trying to get familiar with administrators who were indicated as willing to nominate for adminship, and to see, how many out of them are active; obviously, it is too early to request for adminship, and I guess, I pointed it out in each of my request for assistance. Anyway, please, consider this as seeking for friendship and advice :) --Orekhova (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"Question "at AN

V

Please comment on Talk:Pan Am (TV series)

Something interesting

Benjamin Good

Copyright question

Hi Worm

Love you to bits, dear :P

Seasons Greetings

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?

Request for RFA Nomination

Further to our natter,

Userpage

A barnstar for you!

That close

Impressive

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Retirement

re: adopton

I have thrown around a few messages - no response, though. Would YOU mind adopting me?

--Thehistorian10 (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be glad to. I'll leave a note on your talk page since this thread has been hijacked

Also about the adoption program...

Per this message, I was going to ask you what the protocol for adoption requests was. I had noticed the backlog a few weeks ago, and was surprised to find that it was actually harder to find an active editor looking to be adopted then an inactive one. Who's in charge of that? I know there's a project, but sometimes that doesn't mean anytihng... I was thinking about being bold and removing a few really old requests, but I saw you beat me to it. Anyway, thanks for cleaning out this, and have a Merry Christmas. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 00:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There is no protocol. Never has been, either. There's a pretty well structured project, but it's completely devoid of any trace of leadership or coordination, governance, protocol, etc. The project certainly needs someone to take control, as Worm and I have discussed before, but it's lacking ATM. The project used to be a "hidden gem" of sorts, and its decentralized nature was entirely manageable. Our supply of adopters easily exceeded the demand for them. I'm not sure why exactly it changed, (probably a combination of the program becoming more advertised to new users coupled with a decline in active adopters) but it did—the project gradually evolved into its current state, in which the backlog grows to an unmanageable point until one or two motivated users sift through it, removing the old requests and making offers to the more recent ones (I believe this is the third occasion in which the backlog's been "cleaned out" as such).

In any case, Worm, my resounding thanks for doing this as well. I knew I would eventually have to roll the sleeves up and do a backlog grind, but you've taken care of most of it (though why you didn't ask me for help, I have no idea). Swarm ^X 07:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

@Nolelover, just as Swarm says, there's no protocol, though it makes it easier to manage the backlog if the template is removed. No one is in charge of anything, but I might have a go at clearing down the project and seeing what happens.

@Swarm, I didn't ask for help because it was an easy enough job, just one I'd been putting off. I could do with some help though on the next few phases - I'll drop a message at WT:ADOPT to lay out my plan moving forward. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll keep an eye out. Swarm ^X 10:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, you already did. Swarm ^X 10:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

<blushes> Sorry about the 'jacking, just didn't want to create another header...anyway, thanks for the replies. I do agree that a project like that needs some prodding; its an easy one to join, but not so much to be active in. Ah well, I'll do my best to help out when I can, although that probably means I should create a 'real' adoption page, and not just follow the "lots of discussions" plan I had before. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 15:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Bias

Adoption

Next time.

Dave,

I'm sorry to hear you didn't make it to ArbCom. I'm surprised you didn't.
But to think you were somehwere in the process - reading your talk page - you were very close,
that's something that can keep you motivated until next time - which I'm sure will be successful.

Also, on another note, I'd just like to say thank you.
Although it shows where your loyalties stand... I'm kidding!!! Anyway in all seriousness, You were totally nice about it, and you had to think about what's best for WP, and I respect that. The article just wasn't at standard. Hopefully one day he'll be in the "notable" category - and next time I'll corroborate that notability in the article. As Yetti Hunter told me, "we've all had articles deleted" - don't know if that's exactly true, but I'm convinced that I'm not the only one.

So thank you, and goodluck for ArbCom next year!

Next test hopefully tonight (maybe) or tommorow :P I have'nt forgotten - yet. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 09:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not exactly the worst thing in the world, ArbCom is a lot of work and I'm not going to miss that. I was a hair's breadth away, but those who are on the committee are excellent editors (I think I voted for all but 1) and deserve their places. Maybe next year, maybe not.

I did a lot of research on Said - looked for sources and all sorts. He's just not at the level I'd call notable. You'd written a great article on the individual though, neutral as it can be. Feeling the pride in an article that is shown when it is deleted is something that each wikipedian should have at some time. Don't feel disheartened, you didn't do anything wrong. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Ahh question - since I'm basically the only editor on the article - and I have requested it deleted - can't you delete it...like now? I just want it gone...can't it be CSD'd under G7? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe so, but I'd rather not press the button since I voted - perhaps ask another admin, Kudpung may be able to help? It should be closed and deleted soon enough, just de-watchlist it and pretend it's gone ;) Worm^TT · (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL okay I'll de-watchlist it, and pretend it's gone ;) Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Same from me. You were an excellent candidate, and it's a shame that you weren't elected. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Belatedly... it's yet another thing to blame that 1% for, don't you think? :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Your "mentee"...

Mentoring

Activity

Happy Xmas

Merry Christmas!

Have a great Christmas

Best wishes

Happy Xmas

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Twilight Zone

Thanks for your help

FYI

User talk:Beeblebrox#Porchcorpter -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Is he still your mentee? Moar dramaz. You may be interested. Nothing to rush back for, though. Hope you're enjoying the holidays. Edit: Woah. "Moar dramaz" just turned into a full site ban proposal. If you can get around to it, your input would obviously be valuable.. Swarm ^X 06:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Now he has been blocked for 6 months. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel really bad about blocking one of your (ex?) mentees, but he doesn't seem to be able to hold in his head the instructions he was given, or to extrapolate from single instances to 'how we do things around here', and since he kept on repeating that his clean block log was evidence that his editing was OK, I am hoping that this might actually get through to him, as mere talking doesn't.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm back online tomorrow morning and its a shame this couldn't have waited until then. No idea exactly what has gone on but if things have got bad enough for a 6 month block then I must say I'm surprised. Thanks for the message Worm^TT · (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Several of us did ask people to wait until you came back before taking action, but... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I felt like I should drop you a line here just to reiterate that as far as I am concerned, you did everything anyone could have expected from a mentor and more. I come from a familly of teachers and one thing they all know is that sometimes you run into a student who just can't be taught certain things. I cetainly hope you don't feel like what happened here was your fault, if anything you helped him hold on this long. Of course I also hope, once you get the time to read up on all the nonsense that has been going on recently, that it isn't my fault either. The problem is simply that Porch doesn't get it and any and all attempt to help him get it have failed. He made it clear during the course of our conversations that even after being told he had competence problems so many times he doesn't even understand the meaning of the word "competence." That's not the kind of problem a mentor, even one as patient as yourself, can fix. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm back online now, after a good week away (amazing how much can go on in a week). I'll do a bit of reading up and see what's going on. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a reply to this last comment. Thank you Beeblebrox for your comments - I've seen how you've been worn down by PC over the years, and you were pretty exhausted when I took him on as a protege. I don't think he's a lost cause as yet, but I think that you've reached the point that it is unlikely that anything positive or constructive will come from your interactions with Porchcorpter. Hopefully walking away from him will work out. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A Hyperthetical

Dave, Apologies if I'm bothering you,

I have a question - a hypothetical one. You create an article. This article has

the subject has been documented recently by say ten first-class media outlet's (newspaper/broadcast) around the world. === Hundreds
the subject had died; and their funeral was broadcasted on a television network. === An attendance of 1,400 - outside viewership of 11,000
the subject managed two YouTube channels, 1 with 10,000~ subscribers (13Vids), the other with 30,000+ (30Vids). === 25,000 Subs (17vids); 62,000 Subs (38Vids)
- the subject had a third channel, with more than 2,000+ subscribers, 2 videos with combined views of nearly 2 million. === 6,000 Subs; 4 million
  - the subject was an internet personality, like Zyzz for example.
the article you created is mentioned in a few of those media outlets. === that and in a broadcast
overnight, the article - 24 hours old - has over 10,000 views - higher than many new articles have in a day. === X9 (90,000 views)

The very next day that article is AfD'd.

Reasons include:
- WP:NTEMP - Notability will just dissapear. === Funny, the subs seem to be going higher to me; Sources keep on coming.
- WP:MEMORIAL - Everyone dies. === not everyone is an Internet personality.
- WP:BLP1E - Doesn't properly represent the facts. === Going by sources, yes it does.
- WP:NN - Therefore no notability. === Notability on a gold plate.

Hyperthetically speaking. What is your first move. What do you do? challenge, or agree? Why would you challenge or agree? -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 11:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, hyp-o-thetically this is a difficult one. Internet personalities are such a new phenomenom that it is difficult to assess whether their notability is lasting or transient. I'd say it depends significantly on the documentation by the third party sources. Obituaries are likely to be a good source of information, effectively short biographies and if you have reliable news outlets that don't normally cover that area mentioning him, then chances are he's notable. (Eg, if say, the Times wrote an obituary)

Assuming the sources are good, I'd challenge it at AfD, writing a good argument, explaining why the subject is notable. BLP1E shouldn't matter, nor should NTEMP. But it really depends on the quality of the sources - and that can't be hypothetical. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The facts after the "===" is what is actually happening. I'll reveal to you the subject by providing you sources to examine. I'll be one second, please don't go! (finally someone's listening). -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 12:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Take your pick -> Here. PS. Multiple sources today havent been added, due to someone worrying about the AfD (other sourcesnot included here, mention celebrities Kid Kudi - even famous for being famous celeb. Kim Kardashian - tweets and messages regarding the subject). Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 12:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking into it now, but 2 quick comments. Firstly - No results prior to Christmas day - effectively it appears to be his Christmas death which has made news. Secondly, AfD is not a vote - and whilst it's possibly worth mentioning a count of editors who say the page should be kept, you shouldn't be adding each one as a "Keep" vote. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed them, and advised that any further thoughts on the matter should be shared at the AFD page. -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 12:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be such a hassell, but you have Mail. -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 13:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I had replied to your message. Geez, I'm like one of those unwanted Christmas presents, that you chave no choice but to accept. Look, New Year's is in 10hrs, My sister, "Miss Socializer" is going out, therefore I have to go with my parents to their friends house to celebrate NYE - no one my age. So, I'm going to bring my computer, and use up their internet on Wikipedia, I've decided. I'll be off by the morning, and officially commence my needed break. Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 00:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I did read it, but got involved elsewhere in real life! Sorry, will try and reply soon by email. Worm^TT · (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

re adoption

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup

Arbitration Clerk traineeship

Good News!

About Jasper Deng

A cup of tea for you!

Happy Holidays!

Let's Talk

My talk page

My Signature

My RfA votes

You have drawn a rather biased conclusion from the stats you presented in your evidence to the Arbitration Committee; what you appear to have missed is that my vote agrees with the result in the "overwhelming majority" of cases. "This user's vote matched the end result of the RfA 29 times, or 65.9% of the time." Malleus Fatuorum 20:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur with MF. While it is factual to state that the majority of his votes are opposes, the sentence might imply that this is a bad thing. I challenge the notion that the statement should include "vast". If you look at the last 200, rather than the last 50, and count only support, oppose and neutral (i.e., exclude unparseable), the percentage is 64%, which is a majority, but not really a vast majority. Furthermore, while I do not know what per cent of all attempts are unsuccessful, I'll be surprised if the failures are materially below 64%. As MF notes, and I'll update with the last 200, MF votes with the final decision 69.7% of the time. That doesn't strike me as someone who is out of step with the community.

Finally, while MF does sometimes, oppose candidates who are successful, the reverse does occur, so some of the times that MF does not match the community, it is due to a support vote by MF on an unsuccessful attempt.

All together, this does not portray an editor who is simply trying to hinder the addition of new admins.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that most Rfas which fail are closed prematurely, it is actually quite difficult to get a net oppose. I accept that Malleus' votes do regularly match the outcome but I attribute that to the large influence Malleus has. I will however review the data tomorrow and update my evidence based on both your comments. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I was running to an engagement when I posted, so I only had time to vaguely wonder whether we had stats on overall percentage of successful RfA attempts. We seem to have stats on just about everything, so I would have guessed they exist, although I don't recall seeing them. (if they do exist, I would want net of SNOW anyway). I'm slightly worred(partially kidding), that if MF sees that his votes are mainstream, he may decide he has to do something about that :) do appreciate that if MF wields some influence, then matching isn't necessarily MF following the crowd, but vice-versa. This potentially could be measured (looks at changes in percentages after his !vote), but that doesn't sound like a trivial exercise, and hardly worth the effort, as it relates to an item of evidence, but isn't central to the civility issue.

I appreciate your willingness to take a second look, I can't ask for more.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

To give you an idea - in 2010, there were 155 unsuccessful RfAs, of which just 18 ran full 7 days (the rest were withdrawn, notnow or snow), in the same period, there were 75 successful RfAs, all of which ran for a full 7 days. In that period, Malleus voted 40 times, 27 opposes, and 12 supports. He was right 22 times. In situations where he didn't match the community's decision, he voted 4 times for an editor who was unsuccessful and 13 times he voted against an editor who was successful.

My evidence regarding Malleus opposing as often as he does was just part of my evidence that Malleus appears to have issues with administrators in general on Wikipedia, and I feel that a topic ban from RfA (especially the talk page) would be a positive step. The topic ban which I'm advocating is relevant, as the whole exchange which kicked this off happened on WT:RFA. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, at least it's a novel approach to achieving Kudpung's evident goal of eliminating all opposition at every RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I would like to eliminate from Wikipedia is MF's novel way of treating people. If he wants to offend to make offence a skill, it's a bit late to redeem time when men think least he will. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's me again.

Happy New Year

Hi David!

Belated season's greetings.

Could there be a formatting issue with your thoughtful principles at the workshop? Your principles seem to be "findings of fact", at least in my eyes.

Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Morning Kiefer. Having re-read, yes, at least one is a FoF, so I've moved that. I think the other two are principles, though at one would fit in both sections. Happy new year to you too. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I had trouble grokking the fullness of your contribution, because of computing limitations and visual overload. (The page should be split up into chunks.)

Your headings would be fine for principles. Unfortunately, they contain rather concrete statements about Malleus, which are very poorly described by the headings. I understand your wish to abide by civility and avoid naming Malleus in the headings but I wish you would make your "evidence" headers better descriptors.

If you have time, that is!

Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks KW, but I'm quite happy with the titles I've used on the evidence page, I believe they summarise the section admirably. I'm also surprised that you decided to use such a large portion of your 500 words of evidence re-hashing old grudges. I've moved on, accepted that the RfC failed and have kept out of your way since. I suggest that you consider more productive uses of your time on wikipedia than writing long walls of text with me as a subject. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

David,

I had underestimated your denial about your responsibility in the fuck-ups with the RfCs.

You did pursue a partisan campaign against me for months, and you did manipulate evidence. You violated civility by manipulating quotes, and you never corrected or withdrew your accusations that were false. I had thought that your getting beat at ArbCom elections or have a public talking to from Casliber (RE BadgerDrink) would have broken through the denial.

Unfortunately, when I read your NPA violation alleging again inability to deal with stressors, I decided to perform an intervention, for all of our sakes.

Please review my Wikipedia colleagues and yours. Please review my contributions and yours. You are in little position to advise me, even in this sandbox.

09:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Appreciation

Don't forget about me!

You've got mail!

Quick Break

A beer for you!

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

NNU Class Project - Winter 2012

A beer for you!

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget about me!

To be or not to be

Online Ambassador, Spring 2012

ArbCom CoI

Taking the much needed advice

Disambiguation link notification

Evidence trimming

your adoptee wants advice

JLAN

Hi WormTT, I am sure you mean well, but please look at the entire history here. JLAN is one of the most difficult people I have ever encountered on Wiki, other than a couple of socks that got blocked. I have been a wikipedian almost six years now, with an absolutely clean record of no blocks or other disciplinary action ever having been placed on me (this in spite of the fact that I do piss off people on occasion). I don't know what to do about him, but I know that it is time for the larger community to scrutinize his work because he is making people miserable, including Dana, who has got to be one of the sweetest, nicest, most useful contributors on all of wiki. He may not realize how difficult he's being, but I think he does -- and enjoys it. I can take the stuff he unleashes on me, I've put up with it for a year or so now. But to attack someone like Dana is just unconscionable. Another example that's not on the ANI is that as soon as Dana did a major revision of donkey, JLAN also immediately went in and attacked it, trying to rewrite material, and when Dana stepped out (she doesn't like conflict) and I went in and tried to protect the article from JLAN's meddling, he tendentiously stuck to points (such as the ludicrous discussion of biotin in straw) that were ludicrous. He fails to see or hear anyone's attempts to meet him halfway, and frankly, I'm convinced that he does want to run myself and Dana off wiki. Which, if you look at our contribution history, would be a loss to the project. In contrast, JLAN has done some good things by creating some new animal breed articles, but in total, he's spent more time trying to tear others down than build anything up. ( It's laughable that he proposes a year ban on a topic. Oh please...) Montanabw^(talk) 00:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw. I do indeed mean well, and I'm trying to find a solution which doesn't involve actual sanctions (as you all appear to be clean on that front) - you all appear to be reasonable people. I do appreciate that JLAN has rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way, but I see disagreements, not attacks. I've seen a lot more difficult editors that JLAN, at least he actually reads books! You and he are unlikely to ever get along, so why not just avoid each other, stop replying to each other, don't revert each other - treat the other as if they weren't there. You concede that he's done some good work, so if we can get to a situation where we can reduce the issues then what's left is a net positive.

I agree the ban is laughable and the last thing I want to see is you and Dana run off wiki. I'd suggest trying to separate for a while, see if it improves the working atmosphere. If it doesn't, start up an RfC/U - get wider community input on his editing. I can see at least two situations where you've mass reverted edits because of JLAN, losing good edits from other editors in the process, that's not a good way to deal with things and will end up landing you with issues. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sanctions will be of little benefit at this point. No one has filed an RfC/U on JLAN yet because it will be a month out of our lives of daily wiki-drama. I was trying for something shorter and simpler; an admonishment for hounding Dana. I have been trying to avoid him, actually; I've pretty much given up on trying to deal with the donkey articles JLAN's working on, even though his work is about 50% ok and 50% problematic (burros are not a "breed", sigh...), and I've been doing a bit more work on Montana-related articles lately, just for something different that he has zero reason to touch, but WPEQ is where my heart is at and I am not going to let someone run me out of the mainstream horse stuff. I can watch that I don't revert other people when I revert JLAN (other than Large Black pig, though, I think everything else I did actually restored a clean version as intervening edits were edits of JLAN's edits, though I could be mistaken). But here's the bottom line: Dana is my friend, and this whole thing started because I know the stuff JLAN does to her work is painful to her and causes her difficulty. I felt she needed a gladiator out there before she gets run off wiki entirely; her editing has cut back a lot -- I recognize editors who are losing their joy of editing, I think it's happening to her. My ANI seems to have misfired, but that's the real point - have you EVER seen a RFA go through with ZERO "oppose" votes? Dana's did. She doesn't deserve to have her GA and FA articles hounded the way JLAN is hounding them (he's attacked or tendentiously inserted himself with unneeded "issues" at least three other GAs or FAs I forgot to include in the ANI--Appaloosa, where, like a fool, I had invited him, thinking he'd learn about FA and collaboration, Italian Heavy Draft, Dana's GA, pretty much solo - he was trying to change name, good example of tendentious tendencies and Trait du Nord, also Dana's solo GA - just annoyance tagging) Montanabw^(talk) 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just headed home, but I'll have a look at these links tomorrow. Hopefully we can get some sort of closure then, if there isn't beforehand. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Here's hoping. Montanabw^(talk) 17:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Worm, I hope something sensible can be arranged here. I've dropped a note onto Mathew's talk; I can understand why he got upset, but I can also understand why Montanabw's upset, and why Dana has "gone quiet" compared to before. I've been deliberately avoiding anywhere that JLAN's active for quite a long time now, which means I haven't done anything horse-related for ages. It's not that I personally have had any real problems with him, it's that I can see the distress he causes for other people, and I didn't want any of it myself. He's done some good work, but he's also shown a long-term tendency to disrupt articles with OR, UNDUE, POV and other stuff, and has been very "in yer face" confrontational since he was really quite a newbie. He started with the "confrontational" when he'd only been editing for about a fortnight, and it's got progressively worse, sadly. I've watched, but not joined in (too much shite going on in real life, as you know!) I'm sure he'd be happier starting with a clean slate and focussing on a different WikiProject entirely; it would give him a chance to edit with a fresh group of people, with whom he has no history. But he really is at the point where he's driving other editors away from WP:EQUINE; they're just tired of the constant confrontations and argumentativeness. It gets incredibly wearing after a year or so. It's depressing. (>**)> Hugz to you.

P.S. All Montana was doing was "babysitting" the article as Dana couldn't check JLAN's work. Unfortunately, though JLAN is capable of some good stuff, his work does need babysitting and checking, it can't automatically be assumed to be OK. Pesky (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Worm, your suggestions at the ANI were well-taken and I responded there. That said, per your comment on Mathew's page I'd suggest that my hasty mass revert was not "wholly inappropriate," it was merely ONE too-hasty mass revert done in a moment of impatience, that got reverted back, and life went on. I did not edit war nor continue to do anything to the article. I am very frustrated and saddened that Mathew continues to berate me about this and cannot see that I had a good faith intent as far as he was concerned. Indeed, I did not try to push my concerns much further at that article; instead, I took my worries to a more appropriate forum. So I encourage a little perspective here. I am not the bad guy on this one, I am a "good guy" who had a momentary overreaction. I'll grant you I had a "brain fart" on my part, as well as getting too impatient and seeing red over watching my friend being bullied by JLAN, but I'm a little miffed at the overreaction here and would like to see it ratchet down. So if you have suggestions as to how we can get Mathew and I to have a truce, I'd be all ears. Montanabw^(talk) 22:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I would still say it was wholly inappropriate. You should never revert without checking what you are reverting. At the time, there was no reason for JLAN to not edit the article and I didn't see that his edits were problematic. What's more, it's not the first time you appear to have mass reverted edits - it's quite simply a disruptive way to behave & insulting to all parties who you've reverted. I do appreciate the culmination of factors which led to these edits but I used the language I did for a reason and I stand by it. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I can accept that this is the way you feel, but I DID check and compare diffs. It was clear that JLAN had changed quite a bit of material, but lacking access to the sources used, I could not verify that he had made changes consistent with the sources and I did not want to see Mathew continue to review an article that may have been edited to insert OR or poorly referenced material, which is a hallmark of JLAN's style. It is not wrong to revert a set of mass edits that are incorrect, badly sourced, or made in poor faith. It is also the burden of the person seeking to add material to justify its inclusion. I will confess to having lost any faith in JLAN as a productive or collaborative editor. He is occasionally correct in pointing out something, but he does it in such an unkind and cruel manner that he has disrupted many other areas beyond WPEQ. JLAN is particularly disingenuous when he argues that *I* have run people off WP, when the reality is that Ealdgyth, Kim, Richard, Pesky, and Dana are all people I've "met" off-wiki and who I consider to be my friends. (Ealdgyth, who I have met IRL, is my conscience, I trust her to call me on my stuff, which she does, regularly. For that matter, so does Kim) What puzzles me is that I provided a good dozen diffs at the ANI to prove what he has done, none of which primarily involved me, at least initially, and I keep wondering why I am the one getting all this criticism here when it is clear as a bell JLAN's primary interest here is to tendentiously edit and then intimidate into silence anyone who calls him on his stuff. Really, look at the record. Look at the quality of the articles he has created (a lot of stubs, some of which are content forks, a few lists, some navboxes) with the quality of the articles Dana has created or improved to GA or FA status (dozens of GA and FAs, thousands and thousands of edits) -- JLAN has never taken an article to GA or FA, he only attacks those who do. And I will not make this a "JLAN v. MTBW" situation, the diffs I provided at the ANI clearly show that he bothers a lot of people. But, I guess unless others wish to defend themselves, I guess if they get run off WP by JLAN, it's their choice. I'm really burned out on helping anyone else these days. Montanabw^(talk) 16:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I do get what you're saying - really I do. I've been in a similar position myself, in that I lost the ability to assume good faith and then everything that person did seemed snide or out to harass. It only made things worse if that person were to comment about me. The fact was though, that I was the one with the problem, I was seeing things from a blinkered point of view. When I took my comments to other editors, they didn't often didn't see things as I did. I do agree that he needs to work on some areas, mostly around improving the way he communicates - but at the same time I don't see that he's as bad as you make out. The accusations from him must stop, but at the same time, the accusations about him must also stop.
With regards to the mass revert, yes they can be justified if you are looking through what you're reverting - however, you clearly caught another editor in the crossfire, so you cannot have taken sufficient diligence over it. Further, much of what JLAN added was sourced, for example this edit immediately preceding yours was just relevant facts and figures. No OR, nothing UNDUE. As you mentioned earlier, it's not the end of the world, we can move on here. I'm not saying the rest of your actions were wholly inappropriate, indeed coming to ANI for more eyes was a good move. JLAN has indicated on his talk page he's willing to follow my suggestions too, so let's see how "moving forward" feels. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Congratulations on your excellent performance in the election. In retrospect I would have preferred you over AGK, and rue my mistake. Good luck with RfA Reform. I trust that you shall run again next year. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

	Christmas pudding is hot stuff!
	Have a wonderful Christmas. As the song says: "I wish you a hopeful Christmas, I wish you a brave new year; All anguish, pain, and sadness Leave your heart and let your road be clear." Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

	Bet you wish you were here!
	Warmest greetings from the Land of Smiles, and let's keep smiling together throughout the coming new year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Discusions with Anna Simmons

Discussions with JcMusEd

Discussions with Aebeisch

Discussions with Dani2424

Discussions with Ezafiris

Reflist

Related Articles