User talk:Achowat/Archive 9

I wanna enroll
I just saw this: Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy. I want to enroll myself. I've checked the criteria and I pass all of them. More than 1000 edits, more than 500 vandalism reverted. Dipankan ( Have a chat? ) 12:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi! If you head to the enroll page and pop your name down on the list, we can have an instructor with you in a short while. Mr Little Irish  (talk) © 12:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Y'know what, Dipankan...I don't think you should be enrolling in the Academy. I just spent a few minutes going over your submissions and it's become clear to me that you understand how to Identify vandalism, restore the stable version, warn the user, and report persistent vandals. I would propose you become an instructor, there's nothing for us to teach you that you don't know. Achowat (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I consider myself to be experienced with rollback- can you kindly say which page is for applying to instructor? I'll be pretty much active with anything relating to vandalism and such other things. Dipankan  ( Have a chat? ) 15:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just throw yourself in the table at WP:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Status. And when a new Enrollee shows up, we'll send hir your way. It's great to have you aboard. Achowat (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!
Of course, it was only the truth. Achowat (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Report
Hi, I have reported an IP address. I gave them only caution but then I looked back and they have been given previous warnings for vandalism, only last month. Hope I've don't the right thing, you can look at my contributions to see what I did. --Chip123456 (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like they have been given a school block for one year, if I'm not mistaken? --Chip123456 (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If it were me, I wouldn't have left the Level 4 Warning; if I were an Admin, I would not block the User. IPs are a tricky thing to handle, especially in regards to warnings and reporting. Unlike Registered Users, there's no expectation that an IP is the same editor day-to-day (and especially not month-to-month). Because the user wasn't targeting the same page, or the same kind of page, it's unclear that we're talking about the same User. WP:HUMAN and WP:AGF would lead me to not make that report. The fact that is was a school and was later schoolblocked is tricky for me (I, generally, don't like painting with that broad of a brush). Achowat (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When you are an editor in any form on Wikipedia, you have to keep to the guidelines, whether it is a school, ip or registered user. I feel bad now, although I did keep to the 4 steps and they were warned for vandalism recently. --Chip123456 (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, definitely, the guidelines are importankt; and seeing that they were given a Final Warning and they continued to vandalize, it's probably good that they were blocked. But I just don't know if being warned a month ago from a Shared IP counts as "recent warnings". I would err on the side that it doesn't, but I'm conservative with my reports. Achowat (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I see where your coming from, but it was quite recent and they were blocked before. They could clearly see the warnings. Should I do anything different in future cases? Cheers, --Chip123456 (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 The warnings were from March 12, March 13, March 1, and April 17. Those don't feel recent enough, especially given that it is a shared IP. Your actions led to a block of an abusive IP, so you should feel proud about that. I, personally, would have taken a more a more conservative approach. But remember If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, then don't worry about the rules. You did good, and the Report was perfect (in its formatting, I meant). Achowat (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok! Thanks. Right, this may be pushing the boat out a little bit, but, I have been reading thoroughly through the rollback feature and I feel I understand it more. The RB feature helps RV non constructive edits, GF, vandalism so much easier, with minimal disruption. I was thinking I should re-request them, to help me RV unhelpful edits quicker so they don't cause any disruption on Wikipedia, and I think that they would help work well with my Twinkle, What do you think? --Chip123456 (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to review your contributions tonight after work (4-6 hours from now) I think you've got the hang of it, but I can comment more in full tonight. Achowat (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, that's fine + thanks!!!! --Chip123456 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Achowat, it was entirely correct for Chip123456 to give a final warning to the school IP; indeed, a further warning probably wasn't required. The IP address has several months-long and year-long blocks in its history, suggesting that whenever its blocks expire the kids just go right back to damaging the encyclopedia.  This is a regrettably typical pattern for some school IPs.  Most admins would have placed a (re)block of the IP on request.  WP:HUMAN is a lovely essay, but we block those IPs whose contributions are primarily vandalism just as we do named accounts.
 * If you don't know how Wikipedia's administrators handle this sort of vandalism, then you shouldn't be holding yourself out as an expert and offering inexperienced editors your own advice. In this instance, you even had the luxury of hindsight&mdash;you already knew how an admin would handle this case, since one already had. It's not fair to Chip123456 – or to anyone else whom you might recruit – to substitute your judgement for the judgement of more-experienced editors.
 * Chip, you should probably be aware that Achowat and the other CVU regulars have no special qualifications, skills, or accreditation. They created the CVU Academy pages and assigned themselves the title of 'Instructor', but they aren't necessarily more knowledgeable than any other Wikipedia editor you might happen to come across.  Like any Wikipedians, they may offer you advice and suggestions from time to time, but as with any advice given by strangers on the Internet, you should take it with caution.  The noticeboard at Help desk (shortcut WP:HD) tends to have a lot of very experienced volunteers kicking around and able to answer questions on virtually any Wikipedia-related topic; you may find it a useful resource.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Acho, hate to do it to you, but I agree with Ten's first and second paragraph. His third, is a bit more contentious.


 * 1) I think the students and especially the instructors know that we have absolutley no special qualifications, just a lot of commitment.

Dan653 (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you want to think of a title be my guest, but as for now, we are known as instructors.
 * 1) Chip, by saying take everyone's advice with caution he means his own too...
 * TenOfAllTrades is entirely correct. Just like every other editor on Wikipedia, I have no more authority than anyone else, and no less. And, as I've said, your actions worked, they succeeded. You used your best judgment and did a good job. There are more liberal and more conservative views on vandalism and disruptive editing. I, personally, advocate a more Conservative approach, but neither is right or wrong. We spend so much time worrying about losing new editors, and then we block a shared IP, potentially hundreds of editors, based on warnings that are a month old. And Chip, no, most of this message isn't for you. Achowat (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Last night, Achowat, just thought I'd tell you that another ip was vandalising, I identified it, restored, warned, reported I believe they were given a 60hour block. TenOfAllTrades does have a point, but I have every faith in your knowledge Achowat and all of the other instructors, I firmly believe you have a great system with the academy. So back to the question, do you think I should apply? --Chip123456 (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * TOAT (sorry if you don't like the abriviation) is right in what he's saying, however that third paragraph could be worded better, it sounds a little 'looking down the nose'. Acho gave his opinion on what he would personally do, and he does have a high amount of experience in this area of the project. I feel that Chip could get confused as to who to speak to now, but know that anybody he speaks to may have a different opinion than the two advising editors in this conversation. In my opinion, I agree with both, the right thing was done in terms of the school block, however, it is a shared IP that anybody within that range could have used. One can normally tell in terms of the content produced with the vandalism the rough age group of the offender, in what they change, what words they put in, if they just blank the article and put 'SAM IS GAY' (first name that came to my head, sorry if you're sam) or if it was a bit more inventative and they change specific words to change the context completely. TOAT, I'm almost sure on the CVUA pages it specifically states that we are not an authority in any way shape or form, but we are only here to help shape the 'anti-vandals' of tomorrow. Anyway, enough from me. Note: this is all my personal opinion and does not represent anybody else. Mr Little Irish  (talk) © 08:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Chip, I do think you're ready for Rollback, and I've nominated you at WP:PERM. (A little unorthodox, I know, but I'd like to 'put in a good word' for you). And what Mr little irish said is also true, there are two clear signs to the coin. As long as you're following the Four Pillars of Competence (Listen carefully, follow instructions, use your best judgment, ask for help if you need it), then you're doing the right thing. I firmly believe that's what you've done, by reading WP:VAND and the appropriate pages, by acting in keeping with those pages, your best judgment is generally great, and you're not afraid to ask "How can I improve". The Encyclopedia is better for having you on board. Achowat (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a disappointing showing from the CVU Instructors. Achowat, if you would like to change the way that Wikipedia handles persistent vandalism from IPs – or otherwise encourage particular reforms to the way Wikipedia responds to vandalism – you should question whether it's appropriate for you to use your school as a soapbox, and consider whether or not there might be more appropriate venues for such campaigning.  (Using the CVU to, in Mr little irish's words, "shape the 'anti-vandals' of tomorrow" is certainly playing the 'long game' for policy change.)  You're blurring the line between education and advocacy; if you're going to do that, then the CVU pages and your invitations and instructions to your 'students' need to be much more forthright and explicit about what you're actually planning to do with and to them.


 * Mr little irish's first response to criticism, meanwhile, is to resort to namecalling. As far as I know, this is my first interaction with him on Wikipedia; in it he goes out of his way to be unpleasant in a petty way, and to proudly call attention to his childish behavior as emphatically as possible.  This is conduct that I would have thought would immediately disqualify him from being an Instructor, as a brittle and bullying temperament is exactly the opposite of what the CVU Academy purports to teach.  Unfortunately, instead of taking steps to keep the CVU's house in order, Achowat chooses to entirely ignore the misconduct in this thread, and continues to carry on a cheery chat about boozing and football with Mr little irish (MLI) in the next discussion down the page.  Condoning MLI's behavior this way – whether because he's a CVU supporter and insider, or because abuse directed at experienced editors is somehow more acceptable than abuse of newbies – is a sad double standard and sets an ugly example for his 'Students' to follow.
 * MLI then goes on to impugn the intelligence of a student, suggesting that "Chip could get confused as to who to speak to now". No, I don't think so, because Chip is allowed to talk to any damn person he wants.  If Chip123456 – or any other editor – sees something that he is curious about or doesn't fully understand, he should always feel free to speak up.  Every Wikipedia editor is expected to make a good-faith effort to respond to patient, polite inquiries on their talk pages.  Any editor – including Chip, admin or not – can start and participate in discussions on the Administrators' noticeboard.  Any editor can ask or answer a question at the Help desk.  While there is already something of a disconnect between declaring one is "not an authority" and at the same time explicitly creating an Instructor-Student relationship, the nature of the problem is thrown into stark relief once an Instructor admits his belief that it would be confusing for the 'Student' to speak to other editors.


 * For the sake of completeness, I'll mention that I thought Dan653's response was measured and reasonable. (And in response to bullet #3, the decision not to exclude my own opinions when talking about the overall unreliability of advice was indeed conscious and deliberately conspicuous.)  On my "contentious" third paragraph, I'll simply ask – probably rhetorically – which parts are contentious because they're not true (or arguably so), and which parts are contentious simply because the CVU wishes they weren't true?   TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ten, you hit a lot of good points (again, I must say) and I think it's worth discussing them all in-depth.
 * Advocacy: I'm sorry, but I really don't see how my suggestion was advocating anything other than what is seen at WP:GAIV. "Vandals should always receive enough warnings before being reported. What constitutes "enough" is left to your best judgment." I err on the side of caution (I, perhaps, give too much rope), but nothing coming close to a change in policy.
 * MLI's comments: while I agree that they were worded poorly, he started his comments with "TenOfAllTrades is right". I agree with you that Users should find instruction, mentoring, and education in any venue and I'm sure MLI will see these comments (I'm positive he Watches this page) and refrain from such comments in the future. I really can't see any "namecalling", maybe you mean in his mis-interpretation of your User Acronym (TOAD instead of TOAT), but I know I've always found him civil and respectful, and that includes the comments on this thread. If there are other comments he's made elsewhere that should make me rethink my assessment of him, let me know.
 * Dan's comments: I think the contention he's talking about is your belief that the CVUA is an attempt to collect hats and imply authority. I contend that's not true, at least for me. I know that my intention here is not to imply any authority or prestige, because, well, such things don't exist on Wikipedia. There are tools and user access levels, but at the end of the day all of us have the same ability to improve the Encyclopedia in the same way. I think if you asked any of the 4 enrollees, they'd say that this program is a useful tool to learn counter vandalism strategies and techniques. You often talk of more experienced users, and I'll be the first to say that there are far, far more experienced Users than I that are available for help. When it comes to non-admin counter vandalism, there is one advanced tool to use, Rollback. Every single CVUA Instructor has that flag, and you've never brought up any problems with the way it's used. Qui tacet consenti, y'know?
 * But there's a deeper point here, namely that there must be some benefit to asking someone if they need help. I found Chip at WP:PERM, where he was denied Rollback for lack of experience in actually reverting Vandalism. I then dropped a Template on his talk, an invitation to maybe talk about ways to improve his patrolling. He responded, and now I feel like there's a relationship built between the two of us. Let's say, he gets a user note on his talk from an admin "Hey, just wanted to let you know that you didn't use Rollback appropriately here". I know that when I was just learning Rollback, that felt like a scolding, even though it wasn't. Just the nature of someone "From the Internet" coming to tell me I've done something wrong can be frightening. I would have loved to have an editor I knew and trusted drop by with a "Hey, that passing admin was right, even though that was a terrible violation of WP:NPOV, it didn't rise to vandalism. Next time, why not try uw-npov1 and a manual revert". I hope you can see that that's all I'm trying to provide to new editors. Achowat (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the TOAD was meant to be TOAT. I have apologies in regards to that on TenOFAllTrades talk page directly. I have also responded to thngs he has said I am confused about or do not agree with relating to my actions/behaviour on TenOfAllTrade's talk page also, so as not to fill your talk page with someone elses discussion. In regards to offwikichatter I shall refrain from mentioning anything on this talk page, however I will note that this, as far as I'm aware, is permitted on user talk pages. Mr Little Irish  (talk) © 16:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, per WP:OWNTALK, we should probably keep the chatter down to a minimum. There are other ways for us to socially network, and we shouldn't be wasting WMF server space for it. Achowat (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good plan. *cough* You got Facebook? Mr Little Irish  (talk) © 16:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't care what you chat about on your talk pages. My concern was that Achowat was so willing to completely overlook it when a buddy decided to call someone else a "TOAD".  I've replied a little further on my user talk page, but I think this still shows poor judgement on MLI's part.
 * As for 'offering help', there's no need for the CVU to provide a framework. A simple greeting and offer of assistance – as exists in the welcome template, among others – along with directions to the Help desk would be just as effective.  But that route wouldn't let you guys wear your Instructor hats. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I honestly think that confusing a T for a D was a good faith mistake. I can see why you might think otherwise and it's a shame that it happened, as either a petty attack or as a misunderstanding that has gotten you upset. I'm glad MLI has tried to make amends.
 * As for whether CVU has a 'need' to provide framework, you're right, it doesn't. But there's also no harm in it. There are users now who are more engaged in a community and have more information on how to serve the Encyclopedia process than there would be without a CVUA. How could that possibly be a bad thing? Achowat (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to feel like a broken record, here. I keep telling you how it could be a bad thing&mdash;at least for Wikipedia, if not for you personally.  You and the other CVUers are holding yourselves out as experts, and using your position of authority to advocate for your own vision of the project, instead of simply educating and assisting less-experienced editors (which was your stated mission).  Teaching them how you think Wikipedia should work instead of how Wikipedia actually works is a bait and switch, substituting advocacy for education.  Mr little irish's attitude, that exposing newer editors to non-CVU-approved advice from third parties is somehow dangerously confusing, runs counter to Wikipedia's spirit of open discourse.  Directing newer editors to your private low-traffic noticeboards instead of forums populated by large numbers of more experienced editors directly inconveniences them and may do harm.  These aren't new points I'm raising here; was asking "how could that possibly be a bad thing" just a pointless rhetorical fluorish, or are you deliberately choosing to ignore the most difficult-to-answer objections? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: i've been following at a distance because it keeps popping up in my watchlist, but i'll leave a little note: a discussion about this started here and it would probably be a better idea to keep it there, as here not only does it clutter up a section in which Chip was asking something but also it is currently inaccessible to other editors interested in the CVUA to whom these issues may be relevant. benzband  ( talk ) 19:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Only insomuch as you are ignoring the arguments I've raised in opposition to your propositions. We have never claimed to be experts, just users trusted by the community to identify and revert Vandalism (and yes, that's exactly what the Rollback flag is). No one, not even once, has attempted to claim a "position of authority". I'm not advocating for my "own vision of the project", as can be shown from the quote (directly from WP:GAIV) which you have failed to address. MLI's comments to chip were inappropriate and a failure of WP:AAGF (and probably of just plain ol' WP:AGF, too). He's been spoken to and will likely not have that issue again. But as to "directing them to low-traffic areas" as opposed to the Help Desk as you suggest; the point you're missing, I fear, is that these are people who are otherwise not directed. We're reaching out to people who would no one else has bothered to. The Enrollees, the new users (who, at least the ones I've instructed are people who were just denied Rollback, and potentially feeling a little under-appreciated) all seem to feel better off for the experience.
 * I know I've just been edit-conflicted by Benzo, and he's right. But if you want to continue discussing my actions, specifically, this talk is the right place. However, I've already responded to your 'concerns' N times. If you choose to simply repeat them, I apologize, but I'll be unable to respond a N+1th time. Achowat (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

When did i say inappropriate comments to Chip? I haven't spoken to Chip... Mr Little Irish (talk) © 21:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * TenOfAllTrades by saying your third paragraph is contentious all I meant that it was likely to cause strife and quarrels. Not that there was or wasn't any truth in what you said in that paragraph. Dan653 (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi
re "and hijacked another two. Seriously, drop it." I find the word "hijacking" in relation to threads on that talkpage offensive. I have something to say, I have something to contribute to the discussion. Penyulap  ☏  23:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I very much apologize if I've offended you, that was far, far from my point. I agree that you have a point to make, I simply disagree with the way you are going about making it. You are finding new and interesting ways to bring up your pet ideas, despite failing to garner any support behind that idea. Continuing to attempt to make a point again and again seems to run afoul of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Achowat (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but YOUDIDHEARTHAT. There is an edit notice, which is halfway there, which I pointed out as an idea, and what am I 'doing' now except agreeing with another editors extremely valid observation that the "New barnstars are ugly and uncreative". So what is it I am being accused of ? I'm proposing ideas, some are speedily adopted, some probably die simply because there is not a wide enough forum, and one, one isn't me hijacking shit, it is someone elses thread entirely. It may have been a tomb there before, and people have to whisper in a library, but just because artists all dress like a bunch of PIMPS and wave their hands about and speak in emotional tones in the library, well, that's just conversation and discussion. How many images or how many words are needed for an idea ? the exact same number of notes as you need to write a symphony, as many as it takes. Ok, someone mentioned there were a lot of images, and I agreed and took them down, and more besides. I'm not trying to go climbing up your nose, I'm trying to help save wikipedia and help editors to do as they please, to write, and draw and be creative, if there are documents written in indonesian, dan kamu bisa bicara bahasa, boleh, but if you can't, they have to be in english. If instructions for visual artists are written (and hidden) in text, I feel it's created a trap where people are putting it in the wrong place, when it's their honest intent not to do so. Anyhow, there is clearly another artist who thinks the same way, that the visual documentation for barnstars 2.0 is misleading. (although they say it opresses). Well please feel free to tell me to shut up and go away, or just realize that discussion is discussion and that's what the talkpage is for. We aren't opponents you and I, we are on the same side I should hope, to help and improve. So come on ! :) Penyulap  ☏  10:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I do accept the apology, and hope you'll forgive my vibrancy, someone accused me of turning threads into a 'Jim Carrey' movie, which I would say is a pretty good alternative to big conflicts, which I'm not into. If people want an argument, they have to go war with someone else, blah ! Penyulap  ☏  10:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't dress like a pimp or wave my hands about or talk like I have constipation or whine or anything like that. I figure out of all the people to have a discussion with, I mean, think of the edit wars you've had, and well, I'm probably not all that bad ? Penyulap  ☏  10:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In regards to whether Barnstars 2.0 are 'ugly' you posted "Today if someone makes a barnstar, they may very well put it on the barnstar page, where it's subject to the BRD process, that's bully, regret, despair, and somehow that's seen as a good idea." That seems like a non-sequiter based on the reception of your previous failed proposals. I don't think you're "Jim Carrey-ing" the forums. You have an enthusiasm and a commitment to WPWPA, and we need more people like you. I understand that I'm at the far end of the spectrum from you in regards to the awards ("Use the awards we have now" vs "More awards are better because they engage more editors"). The WikiProject needs both of those arguments explained by spirited editors; I'm glad you're there to do that. We can disagree, as long as it's civil and we both realize that we want the same thing (The collection and Free dispersal of All of the World's Information). It really is a pleasure to be engaged in "disputes" with you. Achowat (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To a random WPWPA-goer (i.e. me), these "disputes" seem rather time-wasting and pointless. Whole sections of the project's talkpage are dedicated to lengthy discussions between two editors (and a lot of graphic depictions, too) who show no sign of agreement anyhow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benzband (talk • contribs)

Friday!
Good morning! Not as drunk? Recovered from a miserable defeat on your team's part? Mr Little Irish (talk) © 13:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm doing a little better, yeah. Besides, I'm going to New Jersey for one of my Soccer team's away matches this weekend, so I can put hockey behind me for a bit. (And just to let you know, per WT:CVUA, we're going to consider anyone who's been granted the Rollback flag to be a "Graduate", since the Community has decided they can be trusted with the Tool. I've asked Benzband to work on a Graduate template, I'll keep you posted on that.) Achowat (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw. I'm just waiting to graduate one of my enrollee's now. My second needs a bit more work at the moment though. Soccer... Bleh... I prefer to play it than watch it. Mr Little Irish  (talk) © 13:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I enjoy playing it, too, it's just my lack of skill, talent, and athleticism that keeps me from being the American Pele. Achowat (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I much prefer not doing anything and going for a ride on my motorbike. Much more entertaining. And the fact I smoke, and have asthma makes it a little harder to 'stay in the game' because after 20 minutes, I gotta sit down and catch my breath. I'm so unfit. But other physical activities are fine.... Mr Little Irish  (talk) © 13:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Flyers play 2night! Choking smoking don't you think the joker laughs at you? -Beatles Dan653 (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've definitely got a rooting interest in either NJ, PHI, or NYR winning the Cup, since I really don't like to see teams have parades in cities where there hasn't been ice since the mastodons. Achowat (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bleh, Ice-Hockey, Players wear too much protection. Go to Ireland and play Hurling. Now THAT's a game :P Mr Little Irish  (talk) © 14:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

RB rights
Hi, I will request when you are available so you can comment! So tell me when you are ready and I will request! Thanks, --Chip123456 (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you what, I'll request and direct to your TP. --Chip123456 (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've got WP:PERM watchlisted, so when you post, I'll see it. Achowat (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok! Computer dying so will be back on later! --Chip123456 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They have been granted! Do I stay with the academy? --Chip123456 (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've responded on your talk. Feel free to use us as a resource, but as it stands, you can consider yourself a CVU Graduate! Achowat (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yaay! Thanks for all your help and I will keep in contact and I will contact you if I need help still! Also the academy is a great success I know it's only just been established, but it's helped a big deal! If it ever comes that they decide to see if the academy is worth it, contact me so I can back it up! Cheers, --Chip123456 (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Already made a mistake, I meant to click undo and pressed RB instead, I'm like bambi on ice at the moment but learning from mistakes, I did apologise on the history though. --Chip123456 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! That's exactly how you should handle that situation. We all fat-finger the "Rollback" from time to time, it's really not a big deal. Just make sure you go back and atone for your foul ups. You're doing us all proud. Achowat (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:You services are again needed

 * Bis.

Barnstar
Hello, Achowat, and thank you very much for the award which is an honour. I'm glad that you've enjoyed reading about Shanks who was a tremendous character and a truly great manager. There is still a lot of work to be done but I'm hoping the article will reach feature standard ahead of Shanks's centenary. Thanks again. --Brian (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Graduates
Maybe we should give this to them: lollollol ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan653 (talk • contribs)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

MfD close
About 3/4 of Balloonmans last 50 edits are on the topic of paid editing and Cla's userpage. While I disagree that paid editing is the topic of the MfD, he is clearly not uninvolved even if he didn't comment in that particular discussion. That is a good reason to reopen. --Onorem♠Dil 14:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your comments, it is my opinion that participating at an RFC with roughly the same discussion points as an MFD does not breach the line drawn by WP:INVOLVED. If I were an admin like Balloonman, discussing the RfC as he is, I wouldn't have made that edit, but his close directed MFD voters to the RfC, which is where the larger issue is being discussed. Essentially, XfD exists to ask "What is our consensus?" where an RfC is where we can ask "What should our consensus be?". The close (even if the action was done against the rules) was of net benefit to the Project, and well that's a good thing. Achowat (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then that RFC should be closed and a new one started for WP:NOT. No matter the outcome of the RFC on changing the guideline, policy won't have changed and WP:NOT will still say that advertising is not allowed. --Onorem♠Dil 15:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Balloonman has re-un-closed it himself, so this discussion just became academic. Achowat (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And now Balloonman has been reverted. Oh well. --Onorem♠Dil 15:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone involved may deserve a big helping of WP:TROUT. This is simply a pointy addition to Userspace and I feel we all fell into Cla's trap. Achowat (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Red links
Hi, red links are good for the encyclopaedia, aren't they???? --Chip123456 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The short answer is "Sometimes". Anything that may potentially be notable, but doesn't have a page, should be redlinked. An example from the kind of work I do, players for teams in any of the Fully Professional Association Football Leagues should be linked, because per WP:NFOOTY, anyone who plays a game in a Fully Professional League is de facto notable. If a page has been deleted through CSD, PROD, or AFD, it shouldn't be linked (since the community has decided that the topic is not notable). BLP-PROD is one of those "use your best judgment" situations, since a potentially notable Living Person may have had hir page deleted simply because no one bothered to find a Reference. A notable example is disambiguation pages. Because dabs point to "Did you mean...", there should never be a redlink on a dab. Achowat (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a look at my contributions. I reverted an editors GF edit of cutting out a red link. They then placed it back and I again reverted it. Is this the right thing to do or should I just leave it? I think, like you said before to me that they are useful! --Chip123456 (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter now, it's been explained to me by someone else, thanks!--Chip123456 (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would put "See Also"s on the list of places where redlinks are inappropriate. Redlinks in text are good, but in ant purely navigationaly context, they only obfruscate, not illuminate. Achowat (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:REDLINK. benzband  ( talk ) 17:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating my user page!!!--Chip123456 (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Great American Wiknic, Boston edition
Per your Vice Presidential duties, it would be good if you could add a preliminary listing for Boston at Wiknic.--Pharos (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Odd, I thought I had. Well, now I'm sure I have. Achowat (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Not the WP:TPS/award? Tsk Tsk. Someone needs to spend a little more time on WP:ORA. Achowat (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, see, now that's uncalled for, but thank you. Get back to encyclopedi-ing already! Achowat (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Candyo32/Jessica Jarrell
Hello Achowat. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Candyo32/Jessica Jarrell, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''G4 excludes "content moved to user space for explicit improvement". Let the MfD take care of it.''' Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it excludes "and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." I feel that no substantive improvement over the course of 2 years an attempt "to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy". I recognize and respect that we have differing opinions on the meaning of "explicit improvement", though the MFD is almost assured to result in a Delete, so this discussion is, at best, academic. Achowat (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Where is...
The graduation Barnstar? Mr Little Irish (talk) © 14:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CVU/A/G is what you're looking for. Not a "barnstar" per se, but a Template nonetheless. Achowat (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankies Mr Little Irish  (talk) © 14:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Formatting is gone... my message isn't appearing in it. Mr Little Irish  (talk) © 14:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's not in the Template space, so tl isn't working. (I hope that works, template-ception). You should use the full. If that still doesn't work, I'd drop Benzband a line. Achowat (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Achowat i've changed the tl to tlu which can link to all namespaces. Cheers, benzband  ( talk ) 15:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Easiest way to use this at the moment is by going to the page and copying the subst template from the space. Is there a way that I can just put and obviously the message within using '|'and not have to bother about anything else?  Mr Little Irish  (talk) © 15:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure that would be   benzband  ( talk ) 18:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)