User talk:Worm That Turned/Archive 9

RFA reform
So, I would be interested in assisting the RFA reform 2011 probject. It would probably take me a couple of days or a week to read through and digest all of the information. Would the project be interested in having me or is it slightly limited to the people who started it. Ryan Vesey Review me!  16:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We'd be happy to have you, Ryan, please do join. :) Swarm  u 17:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We'd certainly welcome some fresh blood!  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 20:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Care to take a look?
Could you check User talk:Ryan Vesey/Adopt/TheBestGuyHi and see if I am handling issues in a good way?
 * Yoikes! Yes, you're handling everything exactly as I would - but I'm not sure how much progress you're going to make there, it really seems like he's unwilling to engage in the process. Don't knock yourself out - If you think you're really not making progress tell him and explain that he needs to either engage more or you will have to withdraw.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

interaction ban
Hi David and Demiurge1000,

Would you voluntarily agree to an interaction ban with me for one year?

(This is Fetchcomm's suggested formulation)

Thanks! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No Kiefer, certainly not. Besides the recent ANI, I do not think our interactions are unproductive. Fetchcomms is looking to dial down the drama at AN and I can agree to that - you'll see my lack of posting there - however his comment did not suggest an interaction ban, especially not for a year. This appears to be another desperate attempt to circumvent an RfC and I will not be adhering to it.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 20:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just read fetchcomms talk page, and have stricken my comment regarding his motivations. I am afraid I still cannot agree to an interaction ban.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 20:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Worm,
 * I remind you that I suggested a ban between DU1000 and myself earlier, and repeatedly during this ANI.


 * I gave a favorable evaluation of our past interactions in my comments when an interaction ban was suggested by Fetchcomms at AN. That said, I don't look forward to collaborating with you or any of this crowd on anything, and the more time I spend with you all, the less time I have to edit productively on important topics, often with productive editors who appreciate my contributions.


 * In my view, a productive RfC or pair of RfCs could deal with both Demiurge1000 and myself, and give us both food for thought.


 * The fact that you and your crowd, which outnumbered me, treated me badly at the ANI, makes it difficult to view your proposed RfC/U as being anything other than a reprise of a hostile attack.
 * At the ANI, you came late, did not join the discussion, but rather threw a list of new complaints against me, when I was already facing attacks from other editors; you disorganized the discussion: You had not thought sufficiently about what you wanted to do at the ANI. Such leadership is not paradigmatic: I am glad that you have listened to my concerns about relying on more experienced mediators.
 * Let me know in 2 months what you or your champion should like to accomplish with this, on Wiki as you suggest and preferably informally, and I shall respond. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Kiefer. You did indeed suggest an interaction ban between yourself an Demiurge, and I think that if that was the sole issue, it would have been discussed further. I've said myself that your interactions together don't improve things but I thought an interaction ban would not solve the underlying issues. Until these are dealt with, interaction bans are not going to help. That you feel our interactions were favourable implies that sole purpose for an interaction ban with me is to avoid accountability.
 * As far as I'm concerned, if the RfC reveals that the reasons behind the underlying issues is Demiurge, then that will be investigated properly. This is an attempt to solve the problems, not persecute you. I will raise the RfC when I have put it together - I am afraid I will be paying no attention to your dictated timescales. Also, as you have made it quite clear that you would not be going into an informal action open minded, my only remaining course of action is a formal RfC. One of the benefits of an RfC is that it should bring in outside neutral views.
 * I do apologise for making the ANI more of a difficult time for you, but look at the discussion when I commented.. TFD came up with a thread, citing minor issues. Atama and OpenFuture confirmed that they did not see a problem. You explained your actions and complained of TFDs work on sourcing. At this point, Demiurge brought up all sorts of issues, I agreed that there was a cause for concern and tried to stop the ANI thread. So I had thought about what I wanted from the ANI, I wanted it to end. Throughout my comments, I consistently made that point. I'm sure you'd like me to be a disputant here, but I'm pretty sure we've never actually had a dispute.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. We've not had a dispute. I did violate the 3RR, once in all my editing, because I miscounted---and that was on only time I needed to count.
 * In this case, it was because of the identification by a minor of his disability. If you look at where I have had the most conflicts, it has been at RfAs (and then related issues), in which there has been an issue of a minor or a person who otherwise needed protection, in which case I was often attacked for paternalism. Nothing you or anybody else will say will change that I will act to protect somebody who needs help.
 * At RfAs, there also has been the problem of scholarship. I am an academic, and I don't care what kiddees say, it is not acceptable to misuse references. It damages Wikipedia's reputation and cheats or threatens to harm the scholarly reputation of a researcher who did work.
 * Given that these are fundamental principles, I am prone to display scorn about those who deny problems. Of course I could always be nicer, but avoiding scorn is not my strength.
 * The other problems are related to serious content issues and in one case an editor who seems to be misusing noticeboards, according to others' complaints, and I have been tough on each. (And the catalyst of drama has not been helpful or even shown any understanding of what these people have done to Wikipedia.)
 * I don't have these problems elsewhere. On mathematics, the only conflict was with a fellow who left after being threated repeatedly with RFCs and bans.
 * This is why I regard this as a waste of time, and why I resent your obnoxious description of my behavioral problems and your silence when I have been attacked.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hej again, Dave!
 * That was a very fair statement, which I appreciate on many levels. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree
I know that comment with the 95 Theses is a bit ranty, but when so many comments are unconstructive and uncivil proclamations that only say "its an awful shitlist", I finally got a bit tired of it. You actually took the time to personally work with Surturz, and Enric just posted a thoughtful reply about ways that criticism might be shared on one's own page constructively, but the anti-speech crowd in general just gets me a little irritated. If we say shitlists are thoughtless, and provide a thoughtless rejection of them, we don't advance Wikipedia. I appreciate the far-too-few editors and admins who have actually worked in the discussion to help think things through or reach 'across the aisle', but I wish there were more of that sort in the debate. I'm like to say I'm sorry for posting the 'charters', but a part of me feels that this is a similar situation where we are unnecessarily stifling speech. I don't want to cause contention, I just have a hard time accepting what I perceive as simple stubborness. -- Avanu (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see why you're frustrated - I may not agree with your point of view but I certainly understand it. Enric has come up with an interesting suggestion, which I actually quite like. I know there's a perception of the Us and Them mentality within the thread, which makes it all the more difficult to come up with a solution. However, a nerve has clearly been touched and with a little work (ok, a lot of work), I think that there is a possibility of an more transparent admin accountability option. I know Tyrol5 has recently started work on community de-sysopping, and although perenial I think there might be something in it. I'd certainly like to be involved in any work towards coming up with a decent proposal.
 * Once this is over, and the dust is settled, perhaps you, Surturz and I could have a chat about what he would hoped to achieve from the AdminWatch page long term and if there is another way to achieve the same goal, which the community would find acceptable?  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Having a chat with Surturz would be fine, but honestly, I found his complaints on AdminWatch to be a bit much given how it was on the fence the consensus was. We do have a clear(ish) policy about what user pages are for, and Timeshift9 sort of went beyond that scope.  I honestly don't know why some admins care so much about user pages, I kind of think let people have a bit of liberty there, and wouldn't have messed with Timeshift9's page.  I suppose some folks are more bored than others.


 * Having said all that, my real issue is not whether Surturz has a legitimate complaint or not, but more about whether he should be able to say it. I think his complaints are a bit lame and I don't think he has a clear idea how to address/fix the issues, but he's said that he never expected anyone else to even read this.  So we have all this fuss over something that a guy was essentially saying to himself, and bunches of rules-jerks coming down on him for essentially venting about a decision.  This kind of thing just doesn't sit well with me.  It would be like having a fight with your wife, and then poking her every 30 seconds asking if she's over it yet.  She'd probably smack you after a couple of minutes of this, maybe less.


 * Admins don't need to be spending their time policing Wikipedia to this extent when there is better and more productive stuff to do, and people need to legitimately be able to vent or process an event without an admin coming down on them while the dust is settling and stirring things up more. Its not how Wikipedia ought to work, and I don't think people are thinking this thing through.  -- Avanu (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly haven't investigated the actual AdminWatch links, I've been working from a high level view. In my view it doesn't matter what the dispute behind the links is, so I've kept that out of the equation. So, in effect, my real issue is the same as yours. I agree there should be a way that Surturz should be able to say what he feels - and admin accountability allows him to. He should be able to take that dispute as far as he feels is necessary (though from the sounds of it, WP:STICK will end up coming into play!) However, storing it in his userspace forever with no clear goal is unhelpful. But that's the argument for the talk page. If Surturz has a long term goal regarding the issues, I'm sure we can help him realise it, or explain why it is unrealistic.
 * As for people with too much time on their hands, it's very difficult to enforce civility on wikipedia, and where they can many admins try to nip things in the bud. I'd say this is one of those areas.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know. To me, there is something uncivil about being a bit too nippy. -- Avanu (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * True. Which is why it was right that the CSD was overturned - but (as with all civility issues) it's unfortunately very subjective.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually thought about making my own "AdminWatch" type page, just as a response, but I couldn't come up with anything I want to complain about. :) I know a couple that need some lessons in manners, but its not something I've felt the need to address on a continuing basis.  I will stand up and vigorously defend an editor if they are being harangued by an admin, but I don't see that is the case here. Anyway, gotta go do stuff in real life, have a great day, Worm. -- Avanu (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I've never looked into it, but I researched the etymology of your username. What was interesting to me was that the message many may be perceiving from the MfD discussion is that, on Wikipedia, "the worm mustn't turn". -- Avanu (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Did I move too fast?
Check my contribs. I initiated an ANI discussion. The issue is hopefully resolved, but there is a chance that it could have gone awry. Do you think I took correct actions or should I have done something else. Ryan Vesey Review me!  01:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Morning Ryan! I'm in for another release, :D I'll have a look now.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 01:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good Evening! I'm enjoying/not enjoying my time off from work.  I'm a wee bit sick.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  01:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh no! That's not good, hope you feel better soon. As for the AN/I, I'd probably have suggested there wasn't any pressing need for it - I don't see that you discussed the issue directly with the "antagonist", which should have had the same effect. You're allowed to, you know! AN/I is one of the most toxic areas on wikipedia and a perfectly reasonable discussion can go bad very quickly (see the one I was recently involved in) Having said that, the AN/I you raise was clear, factual and not derogatory, just about perfect.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 01:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as soon as I pressed save I thought of No angry mastodons. I should have brought it to his talk page first.  Basically, I was a little put off by him and one edit put me over the edge.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  01:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The amount of essays you have to your fingertips astounds me. I can't have read half the ones you have... (though I've read that one, I'd forgotten it!) Anyway, no harm, no foul, it's all a learning curve. You'll not be the first person to raise an unneccessary ANI (I think 95% are!), and at least you raised it well  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 01:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There may have been some harm, the other editor hasn't made an edit since their post at ANI. My fingers are still crossed and I'll probably leave a note on his talk page.  A lot of the essays came from my block actually.  I spent a lot of my time off learning to be a better editor.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  01:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, perhaps I should block myself then... Give the chap a little time, I'm sure he'll be fine - though a few well placed words at his talk page shouldn't do any harm.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 01:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Query
Just wondering, did you get my other message? Wikilove seemed too generic for the assistance you have given me. Ryan Vesey Review me!  02:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Other message? The only on I've had tonight is regarding one of my adoptees.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 02:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see that I did something wrong. I should have done it correctly now. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  02:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell, thank you. I do appreciate the sentiment. But believe it or not, you've done a lot for me too, from pushing me over the edge to a great RfA to constantly being there to help out with my adoptees or with questions on my userpage. I hope you realise how much help you've been :)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 02:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I like to be appreciated. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  03:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Link
Can you see the text of the article in this link? Ryan Vesey Review me!  03:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope - "No preview available".  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 03:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And after a little searching, I came back to Google books and I can see it. What are you after?  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 03:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that it is in public domain here in the US. I'm able to see it and included it as a reference on the page HMS Doterel (1880). User:Shem1805, another editor who is working on the page with me, can't see any of it.  I'm trying to find some sort of a work around.  Can you post me the link where you were able to see it?  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  03:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm an idiot. I was looking at the 1877 version, not the 1883 version. I can't see any simple work around, except that the Shem could request the report from the National Archives... You've referenced it correctly, and assuming you've seen it, WP:AGF should be good enough :)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 03:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

More questions
Which one of your adoptees was it who liked to make userboxes? Is he still editing? Ryan Vesey Review me!  03:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Adwiii, last contribution was end of last month, but it is summer holidays, many editors are taking a break.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 03:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  03:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Tarc at MfD talk
This guy Tarc seems to be trying to amp up the discussion into a personal battle between me and him, and judging by a recent comment from Jclemens on Tarc's user talk page, he seems to have no problem making things personal. I'm not sure what exactly to do, but I don't want to make the MfD about personalities and personal battles. I think it already has enough contention without it devolving into that. Do you have any suggestions? -- Avanu (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I nearly commented a few minutes ago, but got distracted by other things! I'll have a read and wade in, pull you two apart :)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 03:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think its perfectly fine for each of us to have different points of view on this, but I don't want to have a Dreyfus Affair moment as a result. -- Avanu (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

My Userpage/talk page design
Now that we have my tabs created. Could you help throw out some ideas for how to design/what to put/on my user page. In addition, my talk page is poorly designed and really looks ugly. One thing on my userpage that should probably get changed is my userboxes. I certainly have fewer than I once did. Maybe I should put them on a separate page, and transclude them. If I want to force them to the right side of the page would I do that on the transcluded page, or would I add some parameter to the template itself? I will probably move my list of links to a sandbox page. Ryan Vesey Review me!  04:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no need for your talk page to have any formatting, indeed if you were to change the font to something unreadable I'd whack you round the head :) However, if you want, we can put some formatting in. Remember that most prettiful formatting looks different in different browsers, look at my page on IE for example! All the nice curves and shading just disappear.
 * As for what to put on pages, that's really got to be up to you. Your userpage is the face you put on to the community, so psychologically you want to put positive things there (like a supermarket, which always has veg at the front so you get the impression of healthiness and freshness). Obviously, don't lie, but a section like mine of "things you are proud of" is a not a bad thing to have. What you're proud of may change over time and has to be up to you.
 * Also, anything you want the community to know about you should be included at this point. Userboxes help to integrate you into the community, but too many can be distracting. Keeping them in a scrollable box is no bad thing.
 * Another option is to go completely minimalist, similar to say, User:Angelo Michael. You could even combine two, like User:ErrantX. I'm half tempted to do this myself, using some of my images - but I'm too lazy ;)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 04:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For my talk page I am referring to the grotesque header I currently have. Could you see if you can add a parameter to Scroll box where you could change the alignment.  I would like to force a right align.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  04:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you want the entire box to be aligned to the right, or the contents? One should be done on your page, the other on the template ;)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 04:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I created User:Ryan Vesey/Userboxes. Currently I have the transcluded template wrapped with   .  The problem is that using   is causing a large amount of white space on my page.  I would like the text underneath to wrap.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  04:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was about to save a change to fix it, but what I edit conflicted with looked much nicer!  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 05:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I created a userpage based on yours with a slight adjustment. I have two one problem s .  I have resolved my problem with the alignment issues.  Currently, I cannot tell the border and coloring I stole from you to end.  Is it possible to do that?  In addition, I will continue monkeying around with the colors.  Do you think the current scheme makes it too hard to read wikilinks?  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  05:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Um. Where?  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 05:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And reply. Yep, I used the formatting for WikiProject Wikify's newsletter actually.  I removed the border and I placed images above the style changes so they would appear on the left.  HTML isn't that hard really as long as you have someone to copy off of and a show preview button.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  05:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oi, that's my job you're talking about!  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 05:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any better ideas for a more pleasant talk page message? Ryan Vesey  Review me!  05:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing, you should be using Template:User talk top. It's identical to yours but a nice colour. If not, have a look under the see alsos for other options. Finally, we can look at creating a new one in a sub page and you can transclude it.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 05:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So I was messing around and accidentally did this. How did I make it so just that one template was colored.  It looked really good and I will probably want to use it in the future.  Because that looked good, I modified User:Ryan Vesey/Tabs; however, this makes it much shorter.  How do I stop that from happening?  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  05:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly certain, but I think it's got a table within a table, and the outside styling is applied first. Anyway, I've taken out the inner table and added the width to the top table... If that makes sense?  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 05:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It makes some sense, in the future I'll just remember to tell things to enlarge their width. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  05:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I created a modified version of User talk top in my userspace. User:Ryan Vesey/User talk top template allows you to specify the color of the template with the first parameter. Should the parameter be added to the normal User talk top or should I add a link to my template in the see also section or anything like that?  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  05:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you wander over to the talk page and leave a note there. If you don't get any reaction, be bold and add it :)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 05:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Before I wander over there I am trying to add a second parameter. I would like to have a parameter that modifies the borders. I am currently trying to do it using an unnamed parameter; although, that could be bad because some editors may want to modify the border without modifying the color. Can you help fix the parameter? If it is unnamed I would like the input to be |round If it is named I would like the parameter to be formatted |round=yes Can you make this happen? Ryan Vesey  Review me!  06:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I can help, but rounded corners are non-standard on Wikipedia, probably because they don't work on all browsers, including the most used one. Anyway, what you want is to call the parameter round (much easier if people don't want to use it), and I've fixed the template to work in that situation. You weren't far off, you just needed to use the compariative if and a : not a |  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 06:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I was closest here. It is funny because right now I can set the parameter to round=no and it still rounds the corners.  Thats perfectly fine though, and is what I need.  I better sign off now, and I'll leave a message on the talk page of the template in the morning.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  06:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Essay
In the light  of the positive response to  your nomination essay, I'm thinking  of moving  this to  WP space. I realise that  this would allow it  to  be hacked to  pieces, but it  would make it  more official. I would like your personal advice/suggestions. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's a great idea. Changes should be made by consensus, (maybe boldly at first) so I doubt it will be hacked to pieces, anyone who has issue with the essay is likely to have said something by now! It's currently the only userspace essay around administrator which is regularly quoted so making it a WP space essay just makes it official. If you think about it, only old hands spot the difference between essays and policy, take for instance WP:Close paraphrasing an essay I've seen more than one suggestion to block over! Just get it done, unless you really want to WP:OWN it! :)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Opinion
In my opinion, this person has not remained civil. Do you agree? They called my comment "stupid" here They told me to "keep off their talk page."  If I am wrong, sorry.  Puffin  Let's talk! 17:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Your input is no longer needed, the issue has been resolved. I used maturity to resolve the dispute.  Puffin  Let's talk! 17:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You modified a page which consisted of Kudpung's advice for people who wanted to be administrators. The information you added was contentious and you were in no place to do so.  Please remember to assume the assumption of good faith.  Failure to do so causes problems as you have just seen.  In addition, Kudpung did not call your comment stupid.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  17:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, I was jut trying to help, in no way trying to cause a dispute, which makes you contradict Nev's comment on Kudpungs talk page which said that they were not trying to accuse me of having malicious intentions. Secondly, I do not believe that Kudpung assumed good faith and therefore it was impossible for me to assume to assume good faith. Kudpung did call my comment stupid. May I quote from the edit summary "Replying to stupid comment." Thank you.  Puffin  Let's talk! 17:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First, the fact that you should not have made the edit does not mean that I think you had malicious intentions. Ok, I guess I missed the edit summary; however, I agree with Kudpung.  A comment of "WP:AGF", especially in the light of the essay I cited in my previous comment, does nothing to help the encyclopedia and can only escalate matters.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  17:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a reply to this comment, but I do not want a lengthy discussion over a silly mistake. Thank you, the discussion has now ended.  Puffin  Let's talk! 17:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Puffin, I'm sorry I missed this. From the looks of things, you started off in the wrong and over-reacted, but didn't let the whole sitation escalate and when you saw consensus was against you, you backed down. I'd say you handled it rather well over all. If you want to discuss why I think you started off wrong, what you missed there, then let me know, but I'll leave it too because as you say it was just "a silly mistake". WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Request an RFA nomination
I noticed some editors who were wary of going to another editor they didn't know and asking for a nomination. Maybe there should be a specific section or page for editors who believed they were ready and were looking for an interested person to write a nomination for them. Ryan Vesey Review me!  15:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't work. I know it's a nice idea but if you look at things like WP:ER - they don't get looked at as much as you'd hope. Also, it's likely to be filled up with editors who want the power of adminship, but are unwilling to put in the effort looking into the responsibilitiy - similar to a large proportion of the editors in Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls. (There's 1500 editors in there!)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Question on bot usage
What is the purpose of a bot that is not automated? Is there any different from a user controlling a bot which uses AWB and a user using AWB themselves? On a similar note, why don't all bots run constantly? Ryan Vesey Review me!  04:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting lot of questions, and I'm probably not the best person to answer them for you - I expect you'll get a better response chatting to someone more familiar with bot policies, I know User:ErrantX has been looking into bot's recently, but anyone who hangs around the bot owner's noticeboard should be able to help.
 * What I do know is from an incident recently regarding User:Porchcorpterbot. As I understand it, a bot that is not automated is not a bot. There is no difference between a user controlling a bot using AWB and a user using AWB. However, you can (if approved) set up a bot with no editorial oversight to run completely automated using AWB. It must be approved though.
 * As for why don't all bots run constantly, well, many run from a person's computer and so they will only run when turned on. Also, some work by downloading database dumps, doing analysis and then running based on that - it's not a constant situation.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Bad vision
Dear Dave,

I re-read my talk page finally with some attention (and rest and reading glasses). I am very sorry that I did not respond appropriately and immediately.

Please email me ASAP and tell me what's up.

In solidarity, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 04:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Establishing notability
Hi Worm! :)

I have a question, could you please have a look at this article draft I'm working on, and tell me if I'm on the right track in establishing this persons notability...it's knowhere near completed, but I plan on completing it soon, with more sources. Thanks :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 13:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly the sort of topic I'd consider "encyclopedic" but you're doing a great job. Carry on like that, especially with decent sources, and even I wouldn't be able to disagree with his notability! Good luck :)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Made my day. Thank You very much Worm! :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 13:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation Needed
Hi, do you know a link for where i can find a list of all articles with citation needed tags? Thanks  J e n o v a  20 14:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Articles lacking sources andCategory:Articles lacking reliable references are both areas that need more citations. Category:Articles with unsourced statements is the specific category you are looking for.  If you enjoy adding citations to articles, consider joining WikiProject Unreferenced articles.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  14:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I even managed to answer without moving my lips fingers :) Ryan's exactly right - hope that answers everything!  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank both of you very much.
 * Worm i just looked into Wikipedia's help pages on COIN (Conflict of interest) and suggest you add it to your adoption school since it seems an important one to miss out.
 * What do you think?
 * Thanks again  J e n o v a  20 11:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it's an important point, one I find myself constantly telling people about on the IRC help desk, but I must say that my adoptees thusfar haven't have COI issues. I'll probably add it as an additional lesson if/when I take on an adoptee with that specific issue. In my experience, the majority of CoI combines with WP:SPA, so they don't generally want to be adopted!  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, i had personal run-ins with a certain someone who i felt was biased and accused of such so i could have done with knowing about COIN, not that would have made any real difference, it just would have helped to know about it i feel.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 12:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

RfA
Do you  think it  might  be a better idea to either merge/add your RfA reform 2011/Minimum requirement into  RfA reform 2011/Candidates,  hor to move it  to  RfA reform 2011/Candidates/Minimum requirement ? I'm getting the impression  that  some people and newcomers to  the project might not be aware of the extensive research  and discussion we have made already  on  this, and won't look at  it  in  connection  with  your proposal. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it then be added to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Minimum requirement? The project page seems to be for data only.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  00:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I did think about moving it, but as Ryan says, I think this is more a proposal on it's own, I link heavily to the data within my proposal, but they're piped, so I might change it to make it more obvious.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 07:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Pre-RFA proposal
I have drafted my idea for a Pre-RFA here. Care to take a look and help me expand it before I show the rest of the task force? Ryan Vesey Review me!  01:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you gotten a chance to look at this? Ryan Vesey  Review me!  14:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've had a look, but I want to dedicate a decent amount of time to helping you sort it out / coming up with some decent comments and suggestions. As all I've had is small snippets of time, I've just sort of... left it for now. I've got two free evenings this coming week, and I should be able to have a good look then :)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform 2011/Unsuccessful candidates' edits‎
Thanks for updating this table with  the missing  data. I admit  I'm  not  very  good at  this sort of thing. One of the things we also cannot  show are the X-tools edit  count on  the day of transclusion if the RfA was SNOWED before the stats for the day  had been gathered, and it  happened before I  creted the table. I now try  to  update this table regularly on  a new-RfA basis and recover the count for the day  if  had not  been posted to  the RfA tp. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you aren't able to get the results using X!'s edit counter, try using wikichecker. Put in the person's username and tell it to analyze all edits, then scroll your cursor over the graph to the date of their RFA.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  13:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problems, as it helped my proposal :D - Ryan's idea is pretty good too, Wikichecker does have past information, when it works!  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

More template help
I have tried just about everything to make wikify have parameters to explain what is wrong. You can see from the history at User:Ryan Vesey/Template sandbox that I have run out of ideas. I would like for there to be parameters such as |html |lead |sections |infobox. When the parameters are in place, the template would read something like "An editor has specified issues to be with the html markup" or "An editor has specified issues to be with the lead and infobox". Any ideas? Ryan Vesey Review me!  06:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a few ways you can do this. Something like the Multiple issues template would be the obvious way. It's not easy though, - there's lots of lines of code, and you'd probably want to create the sub-template too, so that it can be displayed properly. The other options is to have un-named parameters, which just render directly, however that leads itself to problems as there's no validation and someone could come along with "An editor has specified issues to be with GAAAAAYYYYYY!!!! LOLZ!!!1!!!!1!1!" ... and all sorts of other WP:BEANS problems.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 07:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirect
Hello Worm! I was just asking, would you be able to tell me, or in fact please do something about this red-link (Zyzz)...this page has been deleted several times, ages ago, but now it needs to be used as a redirect to this article (Aziz Shavershian) as "Zyzz" is his most notable name, and there is references on his article to corroborate that he was most notably known as Zyzz. The issue is, is that the red-link has been protect by an Administrator (?) and can't be made. Thankyou! -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 14:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your wish is my command! Well done for doing such a good job with a very difficult topic.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thankyou! -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 14:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Page protection -- Urgent
Worm! Aziz Shavershian needs a page protection from Ips! Take a look at the history section...I'm still reverting...they won't stop! -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 03:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 184.44.149.60, which seems to have been the main problem, has now been blocked by Elockid, who has also semi-protected the page. Given that it's around 4:30am where Worm lives right now, WP:AIV might have been a better place to go (or even WP:RFPP or WP:BLPN). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, usually I would have manners, by saying "please" and "thank you" in my comments above, but the Ip's just kept on bringing in the vandalism...and I didn't have time to use manners, or even go to WP:RFPP or WP:BLPN. Sorry for the trouble and thank you :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 03:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. An important piece of advice is to stay calm in a situation like this. It's great to do the first revert of an obviously-BLP-infringing vandalism so fast, but once it's gone on for a while, then whether the time between the eighth and ninth reverts is thirty seconds or ten minutes, doesn't really matter very much. (Unless it's an election candidate the day of an election, or something.) Remember that, if you're sure the IP is completely in the wrong, then there's no way they can "win" just by clicking their mouse faster and faster - they are inevitably going to lose. Arranging for that to happen is something that can take five or ten minutes, so there's really no problem with going away and making a drink or a snack then coming back to do it (and often someone else will have dealt with it in the meantime, which is all the better.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you check the rationale for an image I uploaded.
I uploaded File:Allen Morris playing tennis at Wimbledon.jpeg a while ago and an editor has challenged the fair use rationale. Could you look at it and tell me what you think? Ryan Vesey Review me!  01:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On a side note, the image I showed you way back in the adoption program File:Nair Collage.PNG is up for deletion now. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  01:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

note
I just wanted to let you know that Djungarian hamster is now a GA. Thank you for your suggestions. I am now working on Phodopus.  Puffin  Let's talk! 16:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

TWINKLE Preferences
Hey WTT, long time, no see...how are things? You removed your post before I could respond. If you can remove the access to the vandalism button, please do. That would make everyone happy. Much appreciated. :) -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 08:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just seen your edit summary, so scratch the above. :) -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 08:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Neutralhomer, all's well thanks. I spotted your situation, thought it was easy to fix, and then realised it wasn't! I'm having a look now, but I'm not sure if there's "per feature" turn off. I'll let you know if I can do it or not...  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to hear all is well. :) Let me know, either way, what you find out.  Thanks! :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 08:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I just cleared TWINKLE from my .js file. It's not worth the trouble.  I do, though, appreciate your help on this. :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 09:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you :) just a pity it didn't work!  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks for your help though. :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 09:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

opinion
Dear Dave,

please allow me to voice an opinion, which perhaps was not asked for, regarding the conflict with KW.

I think you have to decide whether you pursue this matter as an administrator or as an offended individual. If the former, please remember (cf WP:NOTPERFECT) that administrators should lead by example, and strive to resolve conflicts in a fast and peaceful manner, rather than resuscitate old conflicts. I am confident that in this case the best solution is to drop the matter completely and consider the conflict long resolved. This would give an example of good judgement for all the involved parties.

If the latter, perhaps you should emphasise (and reemphasise) this. Then at least you will not erode the status of admin-ship, which is mainly based on the faith most editors have (I hope) in the good judgement of admin-s.

Best regards, Sasha (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Sodin/Sasha. Thanks a lot for coming to me to discuss this. I'm sure you've noticed that I've not been an administrator very long, and as such I'm certainly not reviewing his edits as "an admin" - that is, I have no intention to use administrator tools in this regard.
 * Furthermore, I'm not an offended individual. Nothing Kiefer has said to me has offended me in any way. That said, I have seen a pattern of edits which I believe show a level of disruption to the project, which if unchecked will cause larger issues in the future. I've tried to deal with this in a few different methods, but have found that whilst KW is willing to work on issues in the past, he does not appear as responsive now. As such, I believe the only remaining recourse is an RfC.
 * I'm curious to know why you believe we have an ongoing conflict though. To the best of my knowledge, my history with Kiefer is a discussion when one of my mentees PRODed a redirect, which was amicable. A discussion at my RfA, where he supported me. I admonished him when he went over 3RR, and although he did not take it very well, we drew a line under it. Finally, at ANI, where KW was upset with my comments, and the current RfC that I'm in the process of drawing up. I'm not involved in any topics that he edits, I also believe I'm objective regarding him personally as we've not had any disputes.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 16:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Dave,


 * thanks for the reply.


 * I have not noticed that you are a a relatively new admin -- also, I do not think this is very important. I do think that if you declare the issue as resolved and not needing any further attention, this will contribute more to the goal of civility and cooperation than any RfC. Honestly, I think this is true in most cases, but especially in this one, when all the involved parties already made an effort to make further cooperation more pleasant (and my critique reflects the fact that I am not sure you are doing the same effort, whereas you as admin should be the first one to give an example).


 * Anyhow, it is clear from what you wrote that you understand my point (although you do not necessarily agree with the implications), so I do not have much more to say.


 * Best regards, Sasha (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Sasha. The reason I suggested that being a relatively new admin was important, is that I am very aware of the rules around adminship, and have not yet become complacent regarding them. Were I to be in a long dispute with Kiefer, I'd agree that dropping this RfC would reduce the incivility. However, as I've pointed out, I see ongoing issues with Kiefer, all of which are unrelated to me, and as far as I'm concerned an RfC is the only way to solve them.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Dave!
 * You did suggest using your administrator tools to delete the draft RfC/U on me, from your workspace. Since Sasha has hinted at WP:Involved, let me state my concern that you first email a copy of the page before doing any deleting and second that you ask another administrator to do the deletion (presumably after obtaining my consent and the consent of future contributors to that page).
 * I am tired of harassment by DU100 and your behavior is becoming harassment. I told you I was tired of responding to criticisms at ANI and asked for 2 months of break. I volunteered to have private discussions, but you said no. So you drafted an RfC in workspace, and asked for my feedback only a few weeks later. Then I replied, stating that it was not serious, and then you complained that I was treating it like an RfC, and announced that you want to delete the draft RfC. Now you want to do a real RfC.
 * This kind of repetitive ANI/RfCdraft/RfC filing is exactly what I asked you to avoid. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kiefer, you are absolutely right. In that way, I would be using my admin tools - however, I specifically pointed out that whilst I would be technically doing it, it would be only on your approval - something that is not required as under WP:CSD it could be deleted. I have only ever been open with you in everything I've done.
 * Sasha may have hinted at WP:Involved, though you'll see I rebutted that comment. I do not consider myself involved. However, because there is a perception that I might be involved, I would not take any administrative action regarding you.
 * I do ask that you withdraw suggestions that I am harassing you. Unfounded accusations of harassment are personal attacks. I also suggest that you leave my talk page, as I have yours. I will come to you when I am ready, and that is all you need to know.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Dave! You asked me to "withdraw suggestions that I am harassing you". I made no such suggestion; rather I stated that your behavior was becoming harassment.
 * Your request is hypocritical. You have failed to correct/withdraw your erroneous charges, here and at ANI and at your "draft" RfC, even when you have admitted your errors, after I had pointed them out to you. Get to work here and at your RfC, and then make apologies at ANI and AN (where your erroneous charges have been archived).  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd like the Workshop deleted, let me know, I'll stick up a WP:CSD. I offer this out of good faith - I have attempted to resolve this dispute and since it failed, there is no reason to leave it there. It appears to me that you refuse to accept community norms - suggesting that reasonable requests are impossible as Santa Claus. I do not have any further need to engage with you - there will be a full RfC, and until it's ready you will not need to hear anything more from me.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and on a final note and as promised, I've investigated your work at SDUSA, and have found your improvements to the article (up to the 10th of July) to be exemplary, making it much more neutral. Well done.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! I appreciate the words about SDUSA, where opinions seem bimodal---"love it" or "hate it".
 * About Santa Claus, a clarification: I wrote that making a list of behavioral changes in another person was similar to (and now I'll state is less efficacious, because no parents are around to intervene, than) making a list of Christmas wishes. Then I cautioned that Augustinian theology of Original Sin, which I recommend as a theory nearly as potent as evolution, suggested natural limitations on human perfection and improvement (noting Origen's complementary heresy) . Psychology has a large literature on behavioral change, of which you must be utterly ignorant if you think that an RfC could be efficacious where years of interacting with other editors have failed.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What surprised me is the fact that you appear to agree that the characteristics I mention in my list are not currently characteristics of your person, whilst they are required by the community - the very spirit of the the 4th Pillar. My hope is that the RfC will be a wake up call for you and if not, I will be suggesting some specific editorial guidelines for you to follow.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Dave, on the contrary, your list of behavioral characteristics was obnoxious: I did not agree that it was a fair characterization. On the contrary, it increased my concern that you don't know what you are doing.
 * What I was suggesting and what I ask you to consider is another question: Why do you think that an RfC would change the behavior of an editor with such severe behavioral problems?
 * For the record, content editors do look down upon "editors" and "administrators" that accept plagiarism (e.g. close paraphrasing) or candidates who have failed to write one decent article (or who show no understanding that an article have severe problems). I do look down on such "editors" and "administrators" who show up on my article pages in apparent harassment, criticizing me for POV pushing through duplicitous copyright violation tagging, and then fail to contribute to the articles or to acknowledge when my tagging has resulted in dramatic rewrites of the articles.
 * I do look down on administrators and editors who enable such abusive behavior.
 * I prefer to work on articles in mathematics, because WikiProject Mathematics has knowledge and scholarly standards, and my time and contributions receive due appreciation/criticism. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer, I do not see the point of discussing this further at this venue - nor on a one-to-one basis at another venue. As such, I will not be replying further. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods
Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:
 * Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
 * Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
 * Watching out for the class as a whole
 * Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with&mdash;especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area&mdash;you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

A pod suggestion for you: Topics in Sociology: Food
Hi Worm! I'm in the process of trying to find Online Ambassadors to support each of the classes for this coming term, and there's a new one that seems up your alley: Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Courses/Topics in Sociology: Food. I'm not sure whether this class will formally be part of the program or not (I think the professor just found out about this at a recent sociology conference), but it's likely. If you're interested, I'll follow up once I know more about the class.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great one for me Sage. Count me in.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops
. I saw a red link and thought, "OMG, MUST FIX!" :P Swarm  u 19:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problems. It's an easy enough mistake to make. Can you even see the group notice on it's own - I'm not sure if that's admin only...  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 19:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. Users with the 'account creator' flag can view/edit them as well (strangely enough), so I could see it, but IDK if anyone else can. Swarm  u 21:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Look at the mess I got myself involved in
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 126, User talk:Jimbo Wales, User talk:Jimbo Wales, User talk:Jimbo Wales, User talk:Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, Talk:Salmon High School, and Salmon High School. I was even reverted by Jimbo himself. All of this is in addition to a minor spat with Malleus. Ryan Vesey Review me!  07:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * LMAO Well done, you can really count yourself as part of the wikipedia community now ;) I did notice your name on Jimbo's page quite a lot! Just make sure you remember the stuff we went through, re: disputes, don't get stressed and so on.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 07:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's 2:51 am here, so I think I am still making good arguments and supporting them well; however, I could be editing myself into nonsense land. If I am, please promptly block me for 5 hours so I don't do too much damage :)  Assuming I fall asleep soon, could you keep a watchful eye on Salmon High School?  I don't want an article about some school in Idaho to become the first casualty in a new wave of High School hatred here on Wikipedia.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  07:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, have you ever done anything with Wikinews? I got my first news article published today .  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  07:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added it to my watchlist, will have a bit more of a look into the situation. To be honest, I've never been comfortable with the "All high schools are notable" concept, and would have argued against it if I'd noticed it when it happened. Having said that, I know Kudpung is hot in that area, might be worth dropping him a line if you want to discuss high schools. You seem to be coping very well due to the time, but I'd definitely suggest you give it a rest for the night. Get some rest, Wikipedia will still be here in the morning.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 07:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I probably will, if I can. When this evening started out, it was just supposed to include some minor Wikifying and some improvements to UPenn.  I wish the High School notability topic would have appeared a month or two from now.  I finally convinced a friend to edit Wikipedia and was going to help them start out by creating an article for the local high school.  Especially since some of my first edits covered the Windom, Minnesota page with unnecessary information.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  08:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just recovering  from  a 9 hour RL Wikipedia meeting yesterday, far from home, saw  your messages on my  tp this morning and didn't  realise that  there was  a big  thread here. On schools, the thing  that  surprises me most  is that  JW  seems to  have forgotten that  a few  years ago  he made a statement that  to  all intents and purposes has been taken  to  mean that  he regards high schools  as inherently  notable. This has  been accepted in  thousands of cases for high  schools and has established a precedent (without formal RfC consensus) to  the extent  that  all  schools are even exempt from  WP:CSD. The only  people who  are requesting  deletion  of schools at  CSD, PROD, or AfD are the hundreds of totally inexperienced NPPers who appear to  refuse to  read the recommendations for WP:NPP, WP:CSD, and WP:DELETION before going  about their task.   Although they have even less knowledge of page creation than the average editor, they  believe themselves  be patrolling  in  good faith and doing Wikipedia a service, but  it  has in  fact turned NPP into  a useless  fiasco. This has led  us to  seek and discuss alternative methods for controlling  the quality  of new articles. The problem is so  important that  these matters are being  examined at  WMF level, hence yesterdays meeting.  --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)