User talk:Worm That Turned

User	Talk	Articles	To Do	Toolbox	Subpages	DYK	Awards

Welcome to my talk page. Leave me a message!

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

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

Question on vandalism

Hi, question time Dave or the watchers of this page. Is purposely misrepresenting a reference vandalism? Example:

• Addition in article"Exodus still maintains that homosexual behavior is sinful."
• Reference - "While the group holds that any sexual activity outside a heterosexual marriage is sinful"

This isn't the same thing at all, especially since "behaviour" is far too vague for what it could mean (especially from the people who use the words "practicing homosexual") Thanks Jenova20 12:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it vandalism, though it's getting awfully close to it. The word is so charged, you're more likely to lose a debate because people will deflect the discussion onto "mislabelled vandalism". It's certainly a very vague comment, suggesting that any sexual conduct outside of marriage is sinful. Worm^TT(talk) 12:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I got from it 2 meanings:

• Behaviour as in just being gay, even if you live an abstinent life
• Behaviour as in being "a practicing homo", which is usually sex and the like

So as the source only mentions "sexual activity" (which again can be vague as some don't consider oral/anal/foreplay etc to be sex) so the statement added was too vague and is not what the reference says.

Opinion? Thanks Jenova20 12:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? I don't see this as a "straight/gay" thing. I see it as a "sex before marriage" thing, with an "oh, gay marriage doesn't count" tacked on for good measure. If it's being used for "straight/gay", I think that's misrepresented. Worm^TT(talk) 12:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It was being used for a straight/gay thing for the Exodus International article (one of those "God and prayer can cure the gay" organizations). Reference 10 if you want to make an in-depth analysis. Thanks Jenova20 13:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is both a "straight/gay" thing and a "sex before marriage" thing. If it wasn't a "straight/gay" thing, I doubt the source would have mentioned "outside a heterosexual marriage". It is clearly misrepresentation to use this to attribute only one half of its meaning. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree Ryan, but I see the "straight/gay" issue as the minor issue, not the major one - so it's attributing 1/3 of the meaning and ignoring 2/3 ;) That's not even going into the fact that there's a difference between "sexual activity" and "behaviour"... Worm^TT(talk) 13:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

In the context of the organization, I believe it is more concerned with homosexuality than it is with sexual activity outside of marriage. In addition, viewing the actual source, it becomes easy to read that it is focused on activity outside of marriage. Except it comes right after a comment about influencing Minnesota voters. There will be a constitutional amendment on the ballot in Minnesota that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. When viewing that source in its entirety rather than just the one specific sentence, I believe that it is much for focused on homosexuality. Link to source for easy access Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with you. It does appear (in my personal opinion) that some pressure has been put on Exodus, and a large u-turn has been made. They want to hold to their ideals though, and I think it's very likely that there is an undertone of focus on homosexuality - but it's still a misrepresentation of what they said. Worm^TT(talk) 13:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well i saw the addition by Lionelt and he's a learned editor so i saw it clearly as misrepresentation over any "newer" doing it and used rollback. He's an accomplished editor, i assume he wouldn't misrepresent a source this badly accidentally. I just wanted feedback afterwards from someone more knowledgeable on this. Thanks Jenova20 13:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've left a comment on his talk page. On vandalism, there's no need to label it such - you can make your point without using the loaded word. Worm^TT(talk) 13:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Okedokie. Thanks for clearing this up for me Jenova20 13:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Misrepresentation of text to that extent can lead to a block" I think not. The context was clearly related to homosexuality. My addition "homosexual behavior"--arguably not comprehensive-is within the understanding of "sexual activity outside a heterosexual marriage." It is unnecessary to list all of the sinful behaviors when the context is homosexuality. I stand by the edit, for the most part, although adding language such as "for example" would've been clearer. I am surprised you pulled out the block card for an issue which is content-related and not disruptive. An issue that is best resolved not on user talk pages, not with a block, but at the article talk page. Blocks are to prevent disruptive behavior and are not punitive. A block based on these grounds would be easy to overturn at ANI.– Lionel ^(talk) 22:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt, this is not a one-time event. You've been misrepresenting text for a long time now. It is far past time for a topic ban. This has nothing to do with a content dispute and everything to do with a documented pattern of disruptive POV pushing across multiple topics related to your pet interests. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I know very little about Lionelt's history, but this is not an instance of misrepresentation, though I can understand how you might think that if you are not familiar with the context. That line in the news article referenced is clearly meant to indicate that the organization still views gay sexual activity as sinful. It states it in a way that puts it on a par with straight sex outside of marriage, but that is irrelevant for the context of the Wikipedia article in question. I am rephrasing the statement to clarify the meaning of "homosexual behavior," which means gay sexual activity in some contexts (such as the Catholic discourse I am most familiar with) but is apparently misleading here. Hugetim ^(talk) 21:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC) p.s. On the "homosexual behavior" phrase, compare the lead at Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism.

Re: Exodus

Misrepresentation of text to that extent can lead to a block

This has been going on since day one and shows no sign of stopping. In fact, he does it on purpose, again and again and again. How much longer do we have to put up with it? Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, I'm one who believes in the idea that "serious allegations require serious evidence". If Lionelt is doing this on purpose "again and again and again", then I'll need some diffs to confirm that. I'll have a look through now, but when I've run into him, I've found Lionelt to be a reasonable editor who responds to compromise. Depending on what diffs you can provide (or I find), a block, a topic ban discussion or an RfC/U might be appropriate. If you (or I) cannot find evidence of this accusation, I do expect you to retract it. Worm^TT(talk) 07:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Contemporaneous with the misrepresentation listed by Jenova20 above, he did the same thing over at Cristiada (film), and to make it even worse, he submitted a DYK based on the misrepresentation which appeared on the main page. I addressed it at Wikipedia_talk:Did you know#Using DYK to push a POV and at Talk:Cristiada (film)#Misuse of source, completely unaware that Jenova20 was addressing the same problem on a different page. Are there are other examples? I believe the answer is yes, but I'll have to find the diffs. Viriditas (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look at them, but the more you can turn up the more weight this will have. I know it's an onerous task. Worm^TT(talk) 07:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm off and on for the next few hours, so I'll leave whatever I find below. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't currently have time for listing diffs but he was quite active in the discussions on the Talk:Straight pride talk page and also had a questionable presence on the Talk:Homosexuality. Those are the 2 that spring to mind other than Exodus International where he tried rewriting the thing before to exclude conversion therapy (even though Exodus admit to using it). Thanks Jenova20 08:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Incidents

• Misrepresents a source by Steve Nelson[1] and attributes an opinion to Nelson not found in the source[2] and adds it to Straight pride. Lionelt is reverted by NatGertler who notes in the edit summary, "no, the source does not say that."[3]
• Cites "Newsnet14" as a source in Straight pride.[4] "Newsnet14" is a self-published website that appears to be run by white nationalists.
• Appeal to hypocrisy amounting to trolling. Personally attacked Jenova20 on Talk:Straight pride three times ("are you deranged?...Stop making up lies...Give me a diff or get ready to get your ass dragged to ANI) while citing WP:TPNO.[5]
• Added Category:Anti-Christianity to Dan Savage.[6] Probably just to troll the LGBT project and disrupt the Savage article.
• Claims to be a "Democrat" on his user page, but pushes a conservative, fundamentalist POV. Claims to be an African-American, yet cites a news website run by white nationalists.
• Involves himself heavily with Wikiproject Catholocism yet claims to be Jewish - "I'm not going to defend being antisemitic because I am a Jew" (Taken from Archive 2 of Talk:Straight Pride)

He tries to win arguments by claiming to be offended. Any mention of antisemiticism and he becomes Jewish. Mention slavery or civil rights and he's black. (as currently seen on my talk page) He's a troll Jenova20 08:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• "I find the wisdom of Holy Mother Church invaluable. I am certain that Satan is present in the world and under the right conditions can possess people. I'll go a step further than Andrew and say that through exorcism these people can be saved as demonstrated by Jesus. Am I an extremist? Uninformed? Completely ignorant? Do I have "think brains"? – Lionel (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)"

That's from Talk:Homosexuality and isn't an appropriate attitude to me for someone majoring in religion and LGBT articles. Not to mention that he pushes an obvious anti-gay and pro-religion bias in his edits to Straight Pride, Exodus International etc Jenova20 08:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

He sounds just like Andrewrp (talk · contribs).[7] Probably no connection, but somebody should check. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do carry on

Well, it looks like there's a lot more to go through than I thought. I'm doing a bit of analysis on Lionel's edits over the past few months, and will come back with some thoughts as soon as I can. However, I'm not very active during the weekends, so it might be Monday. Feel free to drop any more incidents on my talk page. Should Lionel turn up, he's welcome to rebutt anything here, or wait until I'm finished looking through things. Worm^TT(talk) 15:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

He's still doing it right now. He's over at Jared Lee Loughner misusing another source, trying to make the subject an atheist when no source actually says that. There are numerous diffs and the talk page is full of editors telling him to stop. He can't go a single day without misusing a source because he is only here to push a POV. Viriditas (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Where is the misrepresentation? See http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-7229463.htm

An ardent atheist, he began to characterize people as sheep whose free will was being sapped by the government and the monotony of modern life.

After the material was removed, Lionelt started an RfC rather than reinstating the material. In addition, the edit in question occurred 5 days ago. No comment about the fact that there was a discussion going on at the time of his first inclusion. I am just pointing out that you are grossly misrepresenting his actions. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, you haven't followed the discussion or watched the page history to see him edit warring over this BLP and NPOV violation. The subject of atheism is one of Lionel's pet topics and be frequently disrupts articles over it. In this example, he is using sources that report the subject was described as an atheist and using it to state it as a fact. That the CBS source you cite above fails to note the difference is one of the problems with using CBS. We've had discussions about mainstream sources misrepresenting a topic, and CBS was particularly egregious when it came to climate change. The solution is to always rely on the best sources we have and to use them judiciously and within the scope of policy. Clearly, Lionel is not doing that. When we talk about the religion of subjects in controversial articles, we rely on self-identification. Failing that, we represent the best sources we have in a fair and reasonable manner per BLP and NPOV. Consensus on the talk page shows that Lionel is not doing that, and his past history on the topic of atheism speaks volumes about what he is doing here. Viriditas (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My main point is that it is unfair to state "he's still doing it right now" when he isn't. If CNN misatributes a source, then that is CNN not him. The edit warring and earlier edits made against consensus are cause for concern, but it is unfair to treat that as something that has occurred after Worm's most recent warning. In any case, he is certainly not misattributing sources in the RFC he started. The daily mail says "On MySpace, Loughner complained that when he joined the military, he was given a 'mini-Bible' despite telling a recruiter that he was an atheist." Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is hardly a RS and that particular claim has been challenged and found to be baseless. There are several books on this subject and they say little to nothing about his religion. The sources are just as varied. The bottom line is, this is not just some innocent editor who stumbled on to the article. This is Lionelt, an editor who has been waging a POV campaign against the left, liberals, and what he perceives as "atheists" and homosexuals. This latest incident is only one of dozens, and I will collect the diffs together which will show a clear pattern of disruption and non-NPOV editing. There is little to no evidence that the subject was an atheist. There is, however, at leased one acquaintance who referred to him in that way (which doesn't make him an atheist) and I believe there is another person (it might be the same) who said he wasn't very religious. The point is, there is no evidence he was an "ardent atheist", that's just the usual sensationalistic journalism that makes shit up in the hopes that nobody will read beyond paragraph two. Lionel has a documented history of misusing sources to promote his POV, and in this instance, he's promoting the right wing conservative meme that Loughner was a liberal atheist, when we really don't have that information. The best we can say is that he was mentally ill. Goldwag (2012) covers this on pp. 272-275, showing how Pamela Gellar and Rush Limbaugh tried to paint Loughner as a left-wing, liberal Democrat. This is the culture war Lionel is fighting. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments on other incidents:

• Cristiada film article - Viriditas found so support for his NPOV complaint here and it seems inappropriate to me. The information Lionelt added was appropriate for the article and supported by the source (and many other sources - the connection of the movie with the contraception mandate controversy seems absurd to me, but it has been made repeatedly and reported on in prominent sources). The proper course would have been to propose edits to the wording, not revert and accuse.
• Straight Pride incidents: the first edit was misleadingly sourced and the second source is not reliable. I agree with these criticisms.
• "attacked three times" is an overstatement since all of the offending phrases are in the same sentence. The language is overly aggressive, but the context is one in which Jenova20 has just made a false statement about Lioneltz's edits, which she admits shortly afterwards.
• On Dan Savage, consider this: WaPo blog: Dan Savage offends with comments on Christianity. I don't personally think the category fits, but there are other people currently in the category (perhaps also inappropriately).
• The remaining "incidents" are complaints about the way Lioneltz represents himself, which is understandably suspicious and annoying but not the sort of thing that gets someone blocked on Wikipedia, in my understanding.

Hugetim ^(talk) 22:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Your reading of the Cristiada film article NPOV "complaint" is completely in error (and it sounds like you never actually looked at it) as Lionel's original DYK (and content) was disputed by multiple editors and he eventually voluntarily removed the unsourced content[8] but continued to deny it was ever a problem. I explained this over at Talk:Cristiada (film)#Misuse of source. Sorry, but your "understanding" is incomplete. The diff I've offered directly disputes your assessment. It's one thing to hold a different opinion, but it is quite another to ignore the evidence. Viriditas (talk) 06:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The only other person who commented on the talk page agreed with Lionelt, so I'm not sure how that vindicates you. I also agree with Tom Harrison that the text Lionelt originally added was supported by the source (and many other sources). That Lionelt edited his contribution in response to your concerns is hardly evidence against him as an editor - it looks to me like he bent over backwards to achieve consensus. Hugetim ^(talk) 20:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Again with the fallacious response? At least three editors expressed concerns with Lionelt's misuse of a source in Cristiada, including one from the DYK talk page discussion and two from the DYK nom discussion. You would have known this if you had honestly read the discussion instead of blindly defending a fellow traveller. Lionel did not "bend over backwards"; he removed content that couldn't be supported—content he added to push a POV. That you continue to deny this is ridiculous, as I've described how this content is impossible to support in at least two discussions. The noticeboard "complaint" was simply a pointer to those threads. And, while I disagree with Tom Harrison, he did improve the article and help resolve this issue. Lionel still maintains that his use of the source was fine, however, his removal of the disputed content is a positive outcome, so he deserves some credit as you say. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I've had a good look at Lionel's contributions, and I do agree there is a problem. Hugetim, I understand you may feel this is a witchhunt, but I've found another 3-4 sources which I believe have been misused, plus a general battleground atmosphere. I would personally recommend an RfC/U on Lionel, I believe this is too large an issue for one administrator to take action on unilaterally and I think that the areas that he causes issue are too broad for a topic ban. I would certainly be willing to certify the RfC/U, if that's of any interest. Remember, they are non-binding, and Lionel does not even need to participate, though it is an important stepping block to further action, should that be necessary. Viriditas, if you do not feel any interest in taking it further, I will happily explain my findings to Lionel, and suggest that he watch his step in future. Worm^TT(talk) 08:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think i have one here:

• [9]

There's no section or wording corresponding to that in the article it points to. Thanks Jenova20 10:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You need to keep the chronology intact to follow the links. The diff you point to above is Lionel's addition to War on Women on 08:49, 15 May 2012. However, he added that link because several minutes earlier, at 08:46 he added the following "controversy" section to Presidency of Barack Obama.[10] As expected, Lionel was reverted by Wikidemon at 09:10 with the edit summary, "undue weight, source does not support contention".[11] Good work, Jenova. Exactly how many of these are there? And let's keep a bit of perspective. If any of us did this, or had a pattern of doing this, we would immediately be indefinitely blocked. However, Lionel has gotten away with it for three years. My concern here is not so much with Lionel, who admittedly is good at tugging heartstrings and making himself likeable. What I am concerned about is why the community, particularly the regulars, allow Lionel to do this over and over again. I'm starting to question whether I should continue participating in this project. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Quite simply we (as a community) are bad at spotting patterns, let alone dealing with them. I don't agree that "any of us" would be blocked immediately, because of the way good faith works and wikis operate. However there is certainly a problem and so we have a few ways to deal with it. A gung-ho administrator can block the perpetrator outright. If you're looking for that, you've come to the wrong place, I'm not gung-ho. I will block if I see that as the only option, but there are other options here. So, what can be done -

• Start up an RfC/U on Lionel - this is the correct venue for issues with an editor. The theory is that he should be able to explain himself or at least be told that there's a problem by multiple wikipedians. If he carries on the behaviour, when it's clear that the behaviour is problematic, it will ultimately increase the chances of a ban from wikipedia. As I said, I'm happy to certify, and add what I've found.
• I can talk to him, show him what I've found and warn him that such behaviour will lead to a block. This would hold less weight as it only comes from one editor/admin, but if you are not willing or not interested in going through the laborious process of RfC, then that's a reasonable alternative.
• You can try and find a gung-ho admin at ANI. Who knows, you may do.

Other options such as arbcom aren't really available to us until at least one or two of the ones above have been tried. Worm^TT(talk) 12:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

There is general agreement that the RfC/U process doesn't work. If I filed an RfC/U on Lionel, I can predict exactly what will happen because I have developed my pattern recognition skills based on past experience. The discussion would be shifted from a focus on Lionel's contributions to a dispute over LGBT, Christian, Catholic, and Conservative content topics, and this shift in focus would distract away from the RfC, leading to a "no consensus" result. This is the "tu quoque" distraction pattern. Each time someone brings up a problem with Lionel's edits, the response is an appeal to hypocrisy. When this ad hominem is ignored and the position is maintained, we're then told that Lionel has never been blocked, he's a wonderful user, he's black, Jewish, a Democrat, a living saint, etc. Then, when that appeal is ignored, we're told that Lionel will change his ways, that he will seek mentorship, that he will stay away from this or that topic, etc. This is how the scenario will play out. Meanwhile, nothing gets done, but a lot of time is wasted. Wikipedia is a game I've grown tired of playing. The trolls haven't just won, they are running the site. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I wish I could disagree with you, but I am disillusioned with the RfC/U process myself. I'll leave a detailed note at Lionel's page, and hopefully it will be useable if he carries on. As for the "trolls taking over wikipedia", It's an unfortunate byproduct of letting anyone edit, passionate individuals are always going to be able to control articles where other people don't care. If there are passionate individuals on both sides of the argument, then we get a mess, and arbcom turns up. That's not all that wikipedia is though, there are better areas :) Worm^TT(talk) 09:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The irony, of course, is that it is Lionel's passion that makes him likeable. The problem, as I've been saying for years now, is that we spend too much time teaching users how to engage in maintenance processes, and little to no time teaching users how to research, create, and write articles. Even our essay on Wikipedia:Process derides it, calling article-making "a loose process" (it isn't) and devoting only 16 words to a description of this process. The fact that Wikipedia has become a bureaucracy more interested in maintaining its bureaucracy, rather than a knowledge base devoted to improving accuracy and coverage while endeavoring to become a premier information provider, tells me that something is wrong. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, as would many of the people who actually create content. Those who try to work on content in controversial areas often struggle against a tide of editors with particular views. Do you happen to have any thoughts on how to improve that situation? Any I come up with fundamentally go against the way that the encyclopedia works, like assigning an expert status to certain editors or forcing reviews of edits in controversial areas. Worm^TT(talk) 09:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

More reviews would definitely help. Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Certain wikiprojects have articles they all work on and change on a weekly/monthly basis. These projects will often edit in a view viewed by another project as biased and so the circle goes round and round from there. Expert status would be pointless on an anonymous wikipedia where even long time editors with 20,000 edits plus carry a bias.

Start a random article wikiproject where the target changes weekly/fortnightly/monthly Dave and it can make a real difference. More eyes on an article will cut down the bias being added. Just an idea Jenova20 10:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Bacon ice cream

I have eaten Bacon ice cream! Just today I did. Not your kind, it was actually ice cream with bacon offered by Burger King in their Bacon Sundae. Do you think it is worth mentioning in Bacon ice cream? Ryan Vesey Review me! 08:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh my.. ⇒TAP 21:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I had noticed it and was thinking of putting it in. Why don't you go ahead and do so! Don't forget to find a source Worm^TT(talk) 07:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Include it in notable uses maybe? Otherwise it would need to be some sort of a variations section, since in the Burger King example, the ice cream is just vanilla, with bacon in it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 11:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I can't believe you still haven't reached burnout yet. I hope your adoption course is doing well. —cyberpower ChatOffline 11:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol, thanks Cyberpower. I haven't actually done much on the adoption course for a while, I need to get back into it and reboot WP:ADOPT :| Worm^TT(talk) 11:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, talking about, adoption, ping :-) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been monitoring the way you teach in maybe starting my own adoption course. I would respond sooner but replag is at 15 min and it takes that long for me to see it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 11:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

943 seconds does seem a bit excessive. How will I find the time to complete my final test? --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing still works. You can do it now, as soon as worm sees this of course.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, wander over to your adoption page Gilderien. And Cyberpower, I'm not enjoying the replag either :( Worm^TT(talk) 12:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've started the test, but have left a few questions.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You've got a week. Take your time :) Worm^TT(talk) 12:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

They're keeping us in the dark. I'm thinking that a bureaucrat performed a rename Kumioko style.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Kind of off the subject, but does anyone actually know what can cause a 1500 second replag?!  Adam Mugliston  Talk  13:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A massive database change. So, for example, a large rename, as cyberpower suggested. Worm^TT(talk) 13:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That must've been gigabytes! How long does it usually take to go back to normal or at least stop increasing?  Adam Mugliston  Talk  13:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Depends very much on what's causing the lag Worm^TT(talk) 13:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note on the lag, I have Popups installed. Among the many other benefits, I can hover over the "hist" link of an article in my watchlist, and it still shows me the changes, despite the server lag. I still have to refresh my watchlist for it to change, and that takes a minute or so. If there was a community wide 1 minute moratorium on editing, would that fix the lag? Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really the replag is at 30 minutes now and the toolserver for this Wikipedia has a replag of 4 hours, 33 minutes, and 20 seconds. Wikipedia would need to be put into a read only mode for at least 10 minutes before the replag disappears and even then, the problem that is causing the replag is still there so before any of that happens, the problem needs to be tackled first.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, some devs are probably sweating bullets right now. Think it's related to this? I know some foundation people are without power right now. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No. If the server didn't have power, the watchlists wouldn't load. I don't even think Wikipedia would load. Right now the server that's lagging is updating as our watchlist makes apparent. It has to be a technical or software problem related directly to the server. Perhaps the servers are getting too hot. :P I live in the east and I can tell you it's grueling over here as well. We have failing air-conditioning and overloaded power lines left and right around our area. Fortunately I still have power and have enough reserves to keep ours running if necessary.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible the lag is created or excasserbated by the extra 1 second added over the weekend? It did mess around with a few high profile sites after all. Thanks Jenova20 15:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely as there isn't a system that requires a precise time. There is a clock on the server and as far as I am concerned, the server would be running a second ahead now. Other services were completely taken down as a result of this. Wikipedia is still up and running but, who knows.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Adoption

I have been around for a several months and have acquired familiarity with some of the Wiki processes. However, I would like to expand the scope of my contributions and foray into more unfamiliar territory. Is adoption suitable for this and how would you advise that I proceed? Ankh.Morpork 13:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Worm adopted me after I several months of experience and I believe the program was perfect for expanding my scope and knowledge of policy. If Worm doesn't have the availability, there are several people who run his program, including myself. I could run the program for you, or you could ask any of the other users running it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought that. The program is ideal, but I unfortunately don't have the scope to take on more editors. I spend a lot of time checking back over my past adoptees and since I have nearly 30, I'm quite exhausted with just that. I would recommend Ryan, and if you or he want any help or discussions, you know where to find me. I'll be overhaulling the Adoption course at some point, and moving it under WP:ADOPT, then trying to reboot the ADOPT project. There's a lot to do, unfortunately. Always so much to do. Worm^TT(talk) 14:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I am currently studying Worm's adoption methods in hopes that I may expand Worm's program and allow more adoptees as well. I don't have first hand experience at being a mentee of Worm but just watching also helps.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I forgot I never officially adopted you cyberpower! If it helps, I've always thought of you as an adoptee... that might not be a good thing. Worm^TT(talk) 15:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In what ways have you thought of me as an adoptee and why shouldn't that be a good thing?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If someone asked if you were my adoptee, I'd have said yes. I always meant to put you through the course at some point, but never got round to it (you asked when I was really busy, and now you don't really need it). Whether it's a good thing, is up to you! Worm^TT(talk) 15:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

My current mentor is inactive at the moment so you can put me through the course if you want. I believe it will more beneficial than you think. Especially since I intend to imitate your adoption program.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you say?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 13:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Going off of your contributions, I am assuming you accidentally missed the comment above. Therefore I am bumping it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 12:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed I did. I've got to catch up on my talk page! Been dealing with crises. I'll certainly set up a course for you :) Just give me a little time ;) Worm^TT(talk) 12:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Just ping me when you're ready.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Problems with some AfC approvals

Hello there. There is an editor who needs a bit of attention. Well-meaning User:Oakley77 has been approving articles at AfC that are not quite up to snuff. I'd talk to him myself, but his talk page is blocked for me. He's been editing some China articles, and there may be something on his page that the great firewall of China doesn't like. Plus, I'm a bit wary of conflict after the thing that happened.

Anyway, he approved about 20 all together, many with issues such as needing cleanup, GNG, and copyvios.

• Small pumped-storage hydropower
• Sustainable Competitiveness Index (During a copyvio spot check, I found that this one had only 2 refs, one of which contains text and images that were added to the article as pure copyvio.)
• Count Ignazio Alessandro Cozio di Salabue
• George Henry Hoyt
• Dissident Ulster Loyalist Campaign 1998 - present
• The Wu Experiment
• Rising Sun Lodge 29
• Kyan Khojandi
• Model Driven Interoperability
• Academic Lyceum under Westminster International University in Tashkent
• Chamberlain Hrdlicka
• List of Israeli Football Transfers Summer 2012
• Arctic Anthropology
• Russian Direct Investment Fund
• American Standard International School of Dhaka
• Madrid Metropolitan Plan
• Kenya Make a Difference
• Musquodoboit Rural High School
• Journal of Business Finance & Accounting
• Flat convergence
• Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis

Could you please drop him a line and gently ask him to be careful? He's not very communicative, and has been having trouble at WP:GAN. Sorry to dump this one in your lap. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Revdelete

Could you revdelete the prior revision of Talk:Qatar? I removed some personal identifying information. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor left his name and some contact details. It's something that happens regularly on wp, and whilst it's sensible to removed them to stop spam, it's not really worth a RevDel. Worm^TT(talk) 14:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Picture

Hi, you pointed out a gadget to try a few days ago and i have...that being said i am enjoying it, but i'm confused as to why the image i see when i look at my signature is what it is... Can you explain that and how to change it without deleting the infobox on my userpage? Thanks Jenova20 16:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There's 2 pictures i see, the one corresponding to my user page is the one i'm asking about and not the one linked to my user talk page. Thanks Jenova20 16:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe it searches for the first jpg on the page (at a guess). You could reorganise your page or transclude that userbox, that'd fix it. Worm^TT(talk) 13:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I may leave it after all then. It's not too bad i suppose...bit embarassing to explain.

I like how your questions have adapted over time for your adoption test btw. Maybe you could think a really tricky trick question up for an even 10 though? Thanks Jenova20 15:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Adopt me?

Hi. I've been considering this for a while, but only now finally got round to asking: would you consider adopting me?

I've been hanging around here for about a year, mainly involved at the RefDesk, but I'd like to do more constructive editing as well. I've got a few pages on my watchlist that I dabble in from time to time, but I can't seem to make the next step and break out into really substantial improvements to articles. Something on my radar is to look at getting involved as a Teahouse Host, but I feel that needs to wait until I have a little more well-rounded experience under my belt.
I'd be delighted if you think you could work with me, although I note that you're quite busy now. If you want to say 'not now; but come back in a few months', that would be fine; I'm in no hurry. I would hope that I wouldn't require too much micro-management, but I know that you put a lot of effort into your adoptees, so I understand if you want me to wait a bit.
If it's 'not now; not ever', that's fine too, but I wonder if you could recommend someone else? I didn't pick you at random to ask this - I like your style and your attitude to people - but if you know of someone using your material who has a similar disposition then I'd be interested in hearing about them.
Thanks for your time. I look forward to hearing from you! I'll watch here for a reply - no need to go to my talk page, although you're welcome any time :-) - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Swifty unblock

You unblocked User:Swifty with some pretty specific conditions not long ago, and he's already gotten himself blocked again (this time for edit warring). I'm not sure the unblock was appropriate and in any case Swifty absolutely does not seem to be sticking to his promise to be good. Strongly suggest re-blocking. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Starblind Swifty comes across as passionate about what he's doing and he has done some good work. I don't think giving him the benefit of the doubt and a second chance was too much at all and i doubt his mentor saw it that way.

I trust you also noticed that Worm did block Swifty 2 hours before you wrote that message? Thanks Jenova20 14:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Check Swifty's block log. Swifty had been previously indef-blocked and unblocked by Kww in March, then AGAIN indef-blocked by Boing just a few days later for threats. Even ArbCom declined to unblock that time, but Worm unblocked anyway. Worm didn't give Swifty a second chance, more like (at least) a third. And he's now squandered that too. Sometimes there's a fine line between being permissive and enabling abuse, and I'd say that line has been thoroughly crossed here. [And yes, of course I'm aware of the latest block, that's what I'm discussing, but 24 hours is ridiculous for such a wide and recent history of abuse]. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Starblind. I did have some fairly strict conditions on Swifty, and as far as I am concerned he has not violated any of them. As for the timeline, indefinite does not mean infinite - and I worked with Swifty to understand the issues that lead to his block. Kww was aware of this, as was Arbcom. Indeed, a representative from Arbcom specifically stated on my page that they were unlikely to unblock based on his statement and his eventual unblock would be down to me. I wasn't overrulling Arbcom, by any means.

24 hours seemed reasonable for the offence. I originally protected the page in question for that period, but then realised that the edit war was based on Swifty, so instead blocked him for the period. Even could be considered as more than was required - there was no likelihood of the edit war carrying on.

Whilst unblocked, he has helped get at least one article to GA, along with countless other good edits. I'm satisfied that he's a positive influence here. Worm^TT(talk) 15:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Worm. I am a believer of second chances of a certain action. That means he can be blocked for one thing and prove himself through a second chance. Every block he had was for something different. If Swifty consistently edit wars, then I would have a different mindset and would consider blocking indefinitely. I hope I'm not confusing you here.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's hardly a vandal or trouble maker, he's a good editor...he just gets a bit hot-headed sometimes (don't we all). At the end of the day he will run out of chances eventually as everyone would, but it would be a shame to lose another editor like him over something like this. I'm interested in Worm's thoughts on this too though. Thanks Jenova20 15:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts? Having thoroughly looked into the incident, it looks like a misunderstand on a large scale, where Swifty behaved poorly compared to the other editors. I don't see personal attacks, I don't see labelling of vandalism, but I do see an edit war, 3 v 1. The subject of the edit war was not cut and dried, as it was over WP:SPAM, where SPAM was obviously not the intention and the links are not clear SPAM links. So, in these circumstances, I felt a short block was warranted. I don't subscribe to "every different offence deserves X chances", but I made a call based on the information I had to hand. I still believe that call was reasonable. Worm^TT(talk) 15:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting theory... you get a second chance for every possible type of offence? It's a good thing the courts don't think the way you do: "Okay, you've been convicted of murder, but it's your first one of those so we'll have to let you go. You can still do a kidnapping or an armed robbery if you feel like it, but remember, just one of each." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That is hardly an analogy to use. Armed robbery or murder is unforgivable as they aren't reversible. Actions on Wikipedia are. You can undo vandalism, you can stop an edit war and revert it but you can never undo the death of a human being. If it's also apparent that the user is takiing advantage my belief then I also will have a different mindset. Also let me add that you go to jail for a crime and you get blocked for violating policy. They let you out if you can demonstrate you won't do it again and you get unblocked by doing the same.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, things on Wikipedia aren't always reversible. Yes, you can revert an edit but if an editor annoys the community to the point that other editors leave, that's permanent damage. Enabling disruption isn't a victimless crime. See WP:RANDY. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What people decide to do with themselves is their own business. From what I've seen, people don't leave from the acts of one person. If that were the case, I would've plastered a {{retired}} notice up on my userpage long ago because of a certain user who I am not going to disclose. They made hurtful comments. Other users such User:DePiep, I believe, consistently insulted me after closing an ANI thread that didn't go in his favor. Like I pointed out. If they blatantly get themselves blocked and don't show that they are trying to learn, then I won't give them that second chance.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Swifty isn't murdering people or causing a massive deal of headaches for people though Andrew, he's edit warred a few times inappropriately and occasionally overreacted. I think Worm's right on this one and spot on Jenova20 16:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Worm. Swifty is a fine editor, he just had and still has issues with getting upset and leaving the project. He was also dealing with a very personal matter yesterday, which probably made him a bit more upset than he would usually be. Statυs (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Compromised account

Worm, I discovered User:Sohamlive and User:Sohamjava that both appeared to be the same person. I contacted each account on it, and Sohamlive stated that he created both accounts but Sohamjava had been compromised. Unless you see any indication that Sohamlive may be imitating Sohamjava (which I would doubt, because his editing appears constructive) could you block Sohamjava as a compromised account? Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. He stated that Sohamlive was created BECAUSE Sohamjava was comprimised, yet Sohamlive's first edit was in Feb 2010 and Sohamjava in June 2010. He's not abusing the two accounts, I'd say this is a live and let live situation. Just tell him not to use the Sohamjava account. Worm^TT(talk) 13:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, that was a bit of an omission on my part. I'll leave the note (If I can get past all of these server errors). Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Next United Kingdom general election#Opinion polling

Hi Worm, can you see what i did there? It's 25% unreadable. I changed to using the colours to compress the wording but the yellow is a problem...Can you help with this?

I also have User:SplashScreen playing dirty here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Born This Way Foundation and i don't mean you to vote at all (trying to avoid a canvassing argument) but he twists my every argument, sticks every policy violation he can think of in there and edits previously replied to comments to made a constructive discussion heated and impossible. Sorry to lump this all on you but if you can take a look i would appreciate it. Thanks Jenova20 19:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

He's now accusing me of canvassing here where i tried to involve Swifty in improving the article, hence why i didn't provide a link to the vote, but i did to the article.

I was under the impression canvassing is purposely soliciting people with similar opinions to influence the vote/argument in your favour. I mailled someone to improve the article and avoid deletion, not knowing if he would argue to keep it or delete it.

Is that a breach of canvassing rules? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a problem to me. You were specifically bringing someone with knowledge of the topic to the article to help work on it. It might be worth being a little more careful with your wording in future. As for the yellow, there's no easy way to fix it - perhaps try a few different colours, see if any are more easy to view. Worm^TT(talk) 13:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Okedokie, i was just trying to cheer him up that's all. If i was to canvass i wouldn't do it so obviously and would have specifically asked him to go to the vote page.

And i've tried yellow, gold and orange but is there a way to make that more easily readable without writing them all in black again and following them with "red (Labour), blue (Conservative), yellow" etc? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI

Hi Worm. You mentioned at User talk:Worm That Turned/Archive 16#A barnstar for you! 3 on 13 June 2012 that you would close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI if you had time. Would you take a look at the 3 July 2012 close of the RfC by Victor Yus (talk · contribs). The account was created on 1 February 2012, the same month the RfC was initiated. While the close looks reasonable, I don't think a contributor to Wikipedia for only five months has the experience and standing in the community to close an RfC like that. Would you take a look Victor Yus' close and endorse it if you agree with it and amend it if you do not? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

As the closer involved, I'd just like to endorse this request for review, and would be grateful for any comments (though closing RfCs is probably not the sort of thing I'm going to be doing often). Victor Yus (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Will do my best to look at it over the weekend. Not sure it was a good idea to close as a non-admin, remember there's no deadline - it would have been done. Worm^TT(talk) 13:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Oversight

Sorry I'm late to comment, but I'd not been aware of the community discussion about CU/OS appointments until recently. I noticed that you're a candidate for oversight access. I think you'd do a really great job. I've seen you around all over the place and have never had any reason to doubt that you're one of this site's better admins (also why I supported you for ArbCom back in 2011). Master&Expert (Talk) 02:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind comments. I do appreciate them. I just hope I'll be able to live up to the thoughts of everyone! Worm^TT(talk) 13:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Getting out of my depth with a newbie

Hi, I've been helping a newbie whose initial contributions were a little problematic and brought to my attention by Dougweller. We are making good progress but I've just dug myself into a hole: there is no way that I can succinctly explain how to use the article history tab, in particular not at the moment because I've got some real life stuff going on. Is there any chance of you butting in at User_talk:Rayabhari#New_Edits_:_Malwan and doing the necessary? I know that you do a lot of adoption work and are highly regarded for it, so you may even have something prepared for this eventuality.

BTW, I had some Doom Bar last week, as a guest beer in Manchester. Bloody fantastic, until I had to find my way home. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Have dropped a note on his talk page, hopefully that will explain things. I'll be around for a bit if he's got any questions too. Feel free to give me a shout if there's any other situations like that. Oh, and as for Doom Bar, it's a very reliable beer, nice to know you're almost always going to get a decent pint. Have been spending my time experimenting with different Northern beers recently though, have got myself quite attached to Pride of Pendle. I do keep meaning to pop along to the Manchester meetup sooner or later. I was all set for going last month, when I realised it was Olympic Torch day! Worm^TT(talk) 13:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I made File:Sebastian Lake talk page.png for Sebastian Lake once and it has some information for those who don't really understand all of the buttons. I could reformat one later with Sebastian Lake's name blanked so it could be used for any user. It doesn't actually explain how to work the view history tab, but it tells you how to work it. I do know that it is confusing, it took me at least a month to figure out how to make a link to a diff. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wonder... I think it wouldn't be too hard to do some clever CSS stuff so it generates the name automatically...Worm^TT(talk) 13:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

In an image? You'd have to have it saved in some funky file format, wouldn't you? If you can do that, go ahead. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You could position the text over the image. Worm^TT(talk) 13:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(multiple ecs) Thanks very much for that. I do little of this type of work but it really does seem to me that this contributor has much to offer, is willing to learn and was at risk of disappearing due to prior events. Regarding the Manchester meet, I too opted out because of the seemingly interminable relay I've not tried Pride of Pendle but as a kid I did stay for a weekend in the cottage of Alice Nutter - and was thoroughly scared by the stories that the akela told us! - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Androzaniamy-Alt

I didn't realize you were online, otherwise I would have gone right to you. Want to close the ANI discussion I started? Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't. I glanced at my watchlist and saw the note on cyberpower's page. I don't really have time to deal with the ANI at the mo, I'll drop a note there though. Worm^TT(talk) 20:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I'm doing a quick sockpuppet search, but I'm not turning up any editors with similar behaviors. Not that it would matter a ton. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Just got back and I noticed several pings and two e-Mails from Ryan here. I was about to send Androzaniamy a very angry message until I saw it wasn't Androzaniamy at all. I'm glad it's settled. It appears someone is trying to get her in trouble. Does she have any relatives maybe that just wants to play a joke on her?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope that my first email would have dissuaded you from sending a very angry message, even if it had been Androzaniamy. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw your e-Mail but something like that just couldn't be ignored. I would've said something like "Your comment on my talk page is unwarranted and highly inappropriate. If you ever make such a statement again I will report you to ANI." I would've probably then added her to my enemies list. She and I don't get along very well anyways and I agreed to stay off of her page per the request of Worm. I made an exception and notified her of this.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Understood. On another note, I've thought for a while that you should get rid of your enemies list and your annoying editors list. Similar lists may have been allowed in the past, I'm not entirely sure; however, that's a matter best kept to yourself.  Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Test

Pretty much finished. I know I have a few days left, but I won't have internet access from tomorrow to next week, so I got it finished.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Turns out I'm pretty rubbish and never got round to marking it. I will do as soon as I can Worm^TT(talk) 21:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Gary Multani

Hey, dear. I want your help. Please warn (or whatever) to User:Gary Multani. Check his edits on Babbu Maan, he spoiled the article badly by repeating same statements many times and more. I can't handle such new comers, so requesting you to give him a sense or tutorial. It irritates me on someone unfamiliar with wiki spoils articles created by myself because created then after reading much about wiki, it's rules, article layout, neutrality etc.. 'll be grateful to you. TariButtar (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tari. I hope this can wait until next week. If it can't, please do try and find someone else :) Worm^TT(talk) 20:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And on it goes...

How about removing this: [12] -just because of a minor detail? I readded the section and added a citation needed tag but i think this shows just how biased our friend is on these matter that he has to remove any mention of "conversion therapy" (which they admit using) and negative attention (which again they caused themselves). Comments Worm/Viriditas? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

He continues to censor information here about how the leader of Exodus International admits reparative/conversion therapy doesn't work (like he did before) even though the leader of Exodus International states it himself and it is reliably sourced. Lionelt challenges it first as a "BLP violation" [13] and then later deletes it in the edit after this disputing "relevance" and tags the section after it also. His continued editing on religious/homosexuality topics is too much of an issue and he's too biased to even edit fairly. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 22:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Now i have an accusation of copyright violation and plagiarism here from said user on my user talk page...Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not really available to look into this at the moment. I've still got a half written draft of my comments to the user, which I will do as soon as I can, but I'm afraid I won't be able to help out in the short term. I'll look into it as soon as I get back, hopefully that'll be soon enough. Worm^TT(talk) 20:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Revdelete revisited

Could you perform a revdelete at User talk:MichaelCrawford? This one is a bit more important as the person in question has schizoaffective disorder and is harassed on the internet. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ryan. The deletion of personal information should be done by oversight, not an admin. (It doesn't fall under WP:REVDEL except WP:RD4). I've revdel'd and passed it that way because I haven't got the time to look into it now, but if you have any more problems of this sort, please use the oversight procedures. Even if I become an oversighter, the best place for this sort of request is and will be Wikipedia:Requests for oversight - it's faster and more reliable. Worm^TT(talk) 20:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

BM has retired

Hi WTT! Since he has retired in the middle of my adoption program, can you move my adoption page as your sub page? I m probably on the last assignment and you both have same course. No problem if you are busy or don't want to do that. Cheers!  — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 00:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi TSU. I'm just a touch busy with some real life stuff this week (all happy events!), but I've made a commitment to make sure that none of Bmusician's adoptees will go without. I'd be happy to take on your course and finish it off with you. I'll move your course over as soon as I can. Worm^TT(talk) 20:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Pencil Sharpener

Check out the February 24 DYK from 2004, Wikipedia:Recent additions/2004/February.199.199.176.9 (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Chuckle* Someone pointed that out to me recently! Worm^TT(talk) 21:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

February 23rd! =P Or is that an inside joke i didn't get...ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 21:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right Jenova! Worm^TT(talk) 21:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha =] have a nice week Worm ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 21:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Barts1a

Barts1a needs a lot more mentoring. If I can find some spare time I can write a detailed explanation via email. I hope you have enough time to spare to deal with him. Arcandam (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You may also want to take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AniMate&oldid=501838418#Barts1a.2FArcandam , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barts1a&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arcandam&diff=501833398&oldid=501831559 . Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 05:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I am on my phone so haven't investigated, but Arcandam, I did see you leaving multiple messages on Barts1a's page even after he asked you to leave him alone. Perhaps actually disengaging would be a good idea? Feel free to email me, but I hope to hear that you walked away from the situation, whatever it was. Barts1a, I expect you to disengage too. Worm^TT(talk) 08:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)