User talk:Worm That Turned

User	Talk	Articles	To Do	Toolbox	Subpages	DYK	Awards

Welcome to my talk page. Leave me a message!

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

Editing

Hello again. Bbmaniac recently informed me that he edited my request for an outside admin to review a block of conversation in the deletion discussion stating that my actions were biased. This has raised several red flags for me. As I am not here 24 hours a day I wonder what else he has "edited" in the discussion and the validity of "overwhelming support" he has received. Jschro (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Worm That Turned. You have new messages at Cryptic C62's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Green Museum Messages

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

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

Not a problem, I look forward to our many discussions! Worm^TT · (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

date fiddled to prevent archiving Worm^TT · (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Discusions with Anna Simmons

Hello Mr. Worm That Turned!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussions with JcMusEd

Green Museum Topic Choices

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

Thanks,

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

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

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

Discussions with Aebeisch

Green Museum Topic Choice

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

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

Discussions with Dani2424

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

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

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

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

Discussions with Ezafiris

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

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

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

I suppose you noticed

[1] and subsequent. It was still on my watchlist. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I did. I always expected him to carry on sounding off at that location even though it's closed, but I haven't got time for it any more. I've moved on, got better things to do. If KW wants to talk to me, he can come to talk to me. If someone else takes it further, then I'll comment further but I'm quite happy dismissing the noise as beneath me. Worm^TT · (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems the wisest option. Macbeth Act V Scene V and all that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Amazing how there's always an appropriate quote from the bard! Yes, I believe that sums up my thoughts. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard task force

Hi Worm That Turned,

Since you were a part of the WikiGuides project, I thought I'd give you a heads-up about a new way you can help/mentor newbies on en.wiki: we've recently released a feature called the Feedback Dashboard, a queue that updates in real time with feedback and editing questions from new registered contributors who have attempted to make at least one edit. Steven Walling and I are putting together a task force for experienced Wikipedians who might be interested in monitoring the queue and responding to the feedback: details are here at Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Please sign up if you're interested in helping out! Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Iron Age pig

Actually, I think (as a non-expert), that it is a breed, or hoping to become one, but it is not an extinct one. Not much to go on in the article. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean, though it's quite an unhelpful article on specifics. I guess I'll have to see what the book is talking about - will have a snoop at the library. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

FA?

An article I've been working on, Hurricane Cindy (1959), is pretty much as comprehensive as it can get already. I've also requested a copyedit. Any suggestions on how to bring this to FA? Thanks. :)

HurricaneFan25 14:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The person to talk to is Hink, he's got a few featured articles under his belt, the whole process is rather daunting to me! As I understand it, the best thing to do is a Peer Review and then onto WP:FAC Worm^TT · (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed all of hink's comments on my talk page; it's at peer review now! HurricaneFan25 18:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving threads

In my opinion some of the threads are getting a bit long here and could be moved to the talk page. It's been done before. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see this has been done, I was unwilling since I'd commented on the RfA. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles in other editors userspace

Editable or uneditable or just frowned upon? Thanks Dave Jenova20 09:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the situation. Going straight in and fiddling is frowned upon, but talking to the user first and making suggestions/asking to collaborate is look upon very well. Also depends on your history with the user. So, whilst most people could edit the article in your userspace due to you mentioning it at the wikiproject, I'd expect users with whom you'd never be able to collaborate to steer clear. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Okedokie, thanks Dave =] Jenova20 10:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It was an article on alternate therapies/coversion therapy that mention only possible benefits and no criticism, nothing about there being no supporting or scientific evidence for it working, nothing about high rate of suicides and self harming caused by said therapy, or even that it is disowned by every major health body in the Western world.

Just small details like that Dave. Thanks Jenova20 10:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

While it's in the user space, it may yet have criticism added. Watchlist it, if they put it live, then deal with it. If they don't work on it for a significant period (say a year), perhaps nom for deletion under WP:STALEDRAFT Worm^TT · (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Okedokie, thanks for the response Jenova20 16:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Talk:Discrimination is currently expanding on the featured types of discrimination to political discrimination. Can i ask you to be a fourth opinion since i can't close the debate and appear to be prolonging it? Thanks Dave Jenova20 13:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Ooh - you're quick!. I'll do it meself next time! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You're quicker... by about 2 minutes! Worm^TT · (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Liverpool

I didn't realise you worked in Liverpool - hope to see you here :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I do - after about an hour commute! Hopefully see you then. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Change text colour

Hi Dave, how to i change the colour of text on WP?

I tried <blue></blue> already but i'm out of ideas now.

Thanks Jenova20 15:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Try <font color="orange"></font> --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Elen! Jenova20 16:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want a fancy colour, use the hex code eg <font color="#F0F"></font>--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Elen. Should of course mention that it shouldn't be done within articles without a good reason. Per something in that massive WP:MOS. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, i just wanted to know so i could liven up my favourite quotes and maybe the rest of my userpage.

I had no intention of using it in articles.

Thanks both of you Jenova20 10:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well... if it helps... have a look at your signature for a few other colours. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks Jenova20 11:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy your momentary victory

Because I will reclaim it swiftly. >:3

Though I do think it's a little cheap that you can add infoboxes that take 10-20 seconds or so to add and in a few minutes have made more points than I did for making a fully referenced article that took a few hours to make. :/ Silverseren^C 01:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I know I know. I will have a few decent articles soon too - but I've just been too busy to do it. I will retain my cup, I'll have you know :D but I felt cheap putting them on there... hence the edit summary of "Sorry". Oh and 10 or 20 seconds? It took me 4 hours!!! Worm^TT · (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ping

Ping! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recall process

Hey Worm, I just noticed that you added your recall process and I wanted to make one comment. I was still not a very good Wikipedian at 500 edits and I know there are some other editors (remember User:Since 10.28.2010?) who do not know enough about Wikipedia at that many edits to initiate a recall process. It is totally your decision, but I would increase it to 1000 edits and 3 months, or have some requirement that another administrator endorse it. Not that I really expect you to be put up for recall. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I used to have know someone on WP called Ryan Vesey... I'm sure. ;) Good to see you again. I've been thinking about the best way to go for recall. Many editors look for an RfC, or a reverse RfA or other methods. Some nominate specific people. I'd rather be quite open and allow a number of people to get together and say they want me recalled. If a sizeable portion of the community (and yes, 10 is big enough) think I should remove my tools - I will. I do on the other hand have a get out clause - if a equal or larger portion of the community think I should stay, I will take those views too... the counter petition. I'm pretty happy with the criteria I've set - if anything I think they're a little too high, but I would welcome any further feedback (that includes you, you talk page stalker)!Worm^TT · (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The out does seem to be pretty good. Don't worry, I'll be the first to sign the anti-recall petition if it ever gets to that point, and considering this, I don't think you'd ever have a problem finding a few other signatures unless you go rouge. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd hope that if I did anything worthy of de-sysop, I'd step down. I don't think it's likely that I'd go off the rails! Worm^TT · (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe you will want to be forever enshrined in the village stocks. Ryan Vesey Review me!

Er, what's this about stepping down, Worm? I think you're a very good admin. Can you elaborate a bit more on who these people are that would like you to lose your tools and their reasons for it? I don't beieve you've done anything wrong as an admin, and, as Ryan Vesey said, judging by the number of people who wanted you to get the tools on your RfA, I'm pretty sure the anti-recall petition would prevail. Rcsprinter (state) 16:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, there is no actual recall, Worm just posted what his process would be if anyone ever wanted him to step down. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Who said anything about me stepping down? I just thought it was a good time to formalize a method to allow users who believe I have done wrong to say so. I'm hoping it'll never be needed, but I'm happy to have one. Have a read on my userpage. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Small misunderstanding on my part there. :) Rcsprinter (chat) 17:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Everything's resolved. I hope all is forgiven. Sorry for the mix-up. Belugaboycup of tea? 16:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to forgive, it's all a learning experience and these things happen ;) Worm^TT · (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Hey WTT you probably already saw but just a quick thanks for watching my back :) User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 16:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No probs, simple misunderstanding, best it was nipped in the bud. Worm^TT · (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh and talking of editing , ive noticed that a fair handfull of users have custom coded their talk page, so when another user clicks add section above the text box ,it says like NOTE read this before editing or click here if you have any complaints or something of that effect. How do you do this? User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 22:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the page notice. If you click "Edit", you should see the word "page notice" in the top right. click on that, and you can edit it :) Worm^TT · (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN

Gracias. 28bytes (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No problems. Worm^TT · (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you from me too. :) Acalamari 10:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:27 Club

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:27 Club. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Shows own channel's media outlet - "Unreliable"

Hi Worm,

Haven't surpassed 3RR - not even 1RR - but I would just like to point out before I do somehow slip on my keyboard and revert, that the same IP has removed sourced content on the Big Brother Australia article - once again, claiming it's unreliable. I, on the other hand disagree. The news outlet that has this information, (NEWS.com) just so happens to be owned by the Nine Network...who - oh wait a second - Just so happen to also be the owners of Big Brother Australia. His/her revert of my edit is here, please have a look. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Worm. I'm wondering if you can provide me some information regarding the guidelines for reverting changes made to articles and edit summaries. I recently came across a revert that was preformed by MelbourneStar to the Big Brother Australia article. The edit that was reverted did not include an edit summary but had he or she taken a few extra moments to review the edit would have noticed that it was virtually the same information that was involved in the edit war on the 2012 page. I think for the betterment of articles that he/she is reviewing that taking a few extra steps before labeling an edit malicious/vandalism or even reverting should be taken as not everything is as it appears. It is fairly simple to edit an article but not everyone (including myself) is aware of all the steps required when they make an edit but it is way to easy to assume that just because something looks suspicious at first glance that it actually is. Could you provide a little guidance here? MelbourneStar is obviously in a position of power here and I'm afraid from the outside it looks like he/she might be riding the wave of a little power trip here. 142.110.227.247 (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've substituted a Vandalism templ. with a Removal of Content templ. Barring that, It's "He", and I better let everyone remove content w/out edit summaries etc. because I don't want to look like I'm "riding a wave of power". That, right there, is such a repulsive thing to say to someone who takes pride in editing. You don't know me, clearly, if you are insinuating such thing. I did not blast the editor for removing content, rather I simply warned them. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I never said it was acceptable to remove content without an edit summary so please don't put words in my mouth. However I accept that mistakes are made in the editing process and that I would rather look at the entire picture before I start jumping to conclusions. I've received a few of your warnings myself and they do seem to come across in a fairly negative and accusational fashion especially when you openly admit that you are basing your actions solely on the fact that an edit summary hasn't been provided. We all take pride in the work we do but I fail to see where there is any pride in making hasty judgements before looking at the bigger picture.142.110.227.247 (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait, sorry I forgot. Only some people are allowed to make mistakes, not others. I must be part of that some. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Both, I'm now looking into this situation, can you give me a few without biting each other's heads off? Worm^TT · (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries but again MS fails to see the point being made here. Can you also clarify for me what position MelbourneStar holds exactly and how they are even able to issue warnings in the first place? 142.110.227.247 (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What, you didn't read Worm's Edit Summary? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 09:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. Let's look at the behaviour first. I'd like to thank you both for not going nuts with an edit war, you've both handled the situation much better than last time. I'm hoping you can both carry on keeping calm and remembering that you are both trying to improve things (as are the other IPs around the article).

• What position does MelbourneStar hold? He's an editor, like you and me. He doesn't hold higher authority and for that matter, no do I on content disputes. If he sees behaviour which is not appropriate for Wikipedia, he can leave a warning to prevent the need for a block. As can you, or I. On content, consensus is key so getting uninvolved voices to help work out an agreement is a good idea.
• On Vandalism, I haven't seen any - and MelbourneStar, the vandalism warning was inappropriate. I see you managed to give it with using twinkle, an automated tool, and have since corrected the mistake. I also see that you've since corrected the mistake and whilst I urge you to take more care in future, I'm not too worried about it. Remember, vandalism is a loaded word here - you're effectively comparing an edit to "Huh huh John's Mum is SSOOOO FAAATTTT", which is quite an insulting thing to do to an editor who is trying to improve the encyclopedia. The word "Vandalism" should be reserved for edits which are clearly trying to cause harm to the encyclopedia.
• On warnings in general, they're templates, and may not say the best thing in the situation - however, they have had a lot of thought put into them to be draw the right balance between being welcoming and discourage the unproductive behaviour. It's a good idea to ensure they're saying what you mean though.
• On edit summaries, please do try to use them - they make things a lot clearer as to the intention behind your edit and can stop disagreements. They're not mandatory, but they are helpful.
• On the source. Well, I'm not familiar with the source myself, being on the other side of the world. One of the key factors of reliability is independence of the subject, so the fact that a news outlet is publishing information about a program with the same parent corporation does ring alarm bells. I'm not saying that they're unreliable, but I am saying that editors should proceed with caution when using them. The Reliable Source Noticeboard will be able to help you further.
• On the content. In my opinion, it's pretty irrelevent, but at the same time it's not doing much harm. I could take it or leave it and if it ends up with a big disagreement we'll all end up at the hall of "lame". If pushed, I'd say leave it out, under WP:CRYSTAL - Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. It's on the borderline, as I'm sure it will move, but Wikipedia shouldn't report every little announcement to a change of tv show, especially when it's subject to change.

I hope that covers everything, but feel free to ask questions! Worm^TT · (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Does cover everything, and thank you for your time. Hopefully this has cleared up a dispute that could have been avoided on both sides. Anyway, I won't even try revert; but Worm, could you please tell me what this is? because assuming what this policy means, Removal of Content w/out an edit summary comes under the scope of Vandalism. I'm most likely wrong - but just to be sure -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That very policy is the reason I'm not lambasting you for using the "V" word - the important point is what is being blanked, not the lack of edit summary. It says that Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason is vandalism. So, yes the edit summary is an issue, but in a 52k article, would you really say that three lines is a significant part? I'd probably not, but again it depends on which three lines. If you disagree with the removal, it's something that should be discussed at the talk page, I've given my point of view and I'd be happy to give it there too if you like. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I swear I look at policies, and only see what I want to see. Selectiving-seeing? Anyway, up to you whether or not you take it to the BB article talk page - On my side of things it's been cleared. An editor removed content without an edit summary, that's why we're here really in the first place. I think everything has been discussed on the removal - anything else would be unnecessary because, "I get it". Again, thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That's how the world works - people read things and put their own slant on them. It's a skill to be self aware enough to know that you're doing it. You're not the only one to do it, but do be careful with that V word... Worm^TT · (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you this was exactly the clarification I was looking for and I just hope this time the point gets through to MelbourneStar as I still don't think they fully understand why this was brought up in the first place. It was the way he/she went about reverting edits and less about what was actually contained within the article itself. As you explained while Edit summaries are helpful and expected they are not mandatory and the lack of one is not always equal to bad or naughty behavior. I believe MelbourneStar was under the impression that the lack of a edit summary was inexcusable and was therefore reverting articles based solely on that fact without any other form of review. This wasn't really a "content dispute" as I was under the impression that was all cleared up the last time I was just seeking clarification on what steps should be taken before an article is reverted should an edit lack an explanation as some of MelbourneStars actions seemed a little hasty. Hopefully we are all on the same page now. 142.110.227.247 (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarification? you mean straight out say you have an issue with my edits. We were here because you had an issue with the way I handle things. Yes, all on the same page now. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What I am saying is that you should at the very least look at what is being removed first before you label something vandalism or at least ask for some sort of clarification just like Worm said. Edit summaries are expected but not mandatory as you put it Worm and I'm more than happy continue to discuss the source material in question on the BB talk page if it is really that important (I thought this was all cleared up the last time?). As I explained before MelbourneStar I'm still fairly new here. I wasn't sure what the guidelines regarding edit summaries were exactly or what one could consider "vandalism" so yes I was seeking clarification. Your behavior yes was what lead me to seek such clarification and was used as an example. You didn't seem to understand the point I was trying to make so I thought perhaps bringing Worm in to mediate could be helpful. I think what you fail to see is that there was a problem with the way you handle things.142.110.227.247 (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

And I'm glad that we are all entitled to our own opinions. But let me make this clear, and chrystal clear it is: I couldn't care less, what you think - especially regarding myself. Whatever has happened; has happened. I think I had the right intentions - No, I know I had the right intentions - if you can't respect that, that is your problem, not mine. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it'd be a good idea we moved on now. I have reviewed MelbourneStar's recent contributions and he doesn't appear to be abusing vandalism templates, and has admitted his behaviour in this case was incorrect. The policy in question hangs on the word "significant" - which is open to interpretation. Let's just let things lie. On another note, 142.110.227.247, have you considered getting an account? There's no requirements to doing it, but it have some benefits, being able to use automated tools and other gadgets, create pages, and hide the fundraising banners are a couple that appear from the top of my head. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

MelbourneStar you can justify your actions all you like but it's pretty clear you did not have the right intentions and for the sake of not wanting to repeat myself for the thousandth time this morning I'll save you yet another explanation. This is yet another example of: "MelbourneStar was the one who seemed to act on impulse without examining the ordeal objectively before he/she acted." Just because I'm a n00b doesn't make my point any less valid. You need to take a more objective approach to things. No Edit Summary is not always equal to "bad" behavior and does not automatically mean you should hit revert. That is what you fail to see here.142.110.227.247 (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh please, you are full of blame for everyone else, but yourself. Last time I checked, I'm most definately entitled to make mistakes. Not everyone here is as perfect as you'd like them to be, so I will apologise for that, and nothing else. You may think I'm wrong, but the difference is, I know your wrong. You just can't say no. Always the last word. Good luck to you, if you are already having disputes with other editors. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Worm I probably will get an account very soon for those very reasons. 142.110.227.247 (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Enough - MelbourneStar has admitted he made a mistake, accusations regarding his intentions are not helpful. Drop this, both of you and get on with something productive. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I know you...

Dave! It was great to meet you yesterday! Thanks for making the long trek out, and hope I'll see you again soon IRL (not just on the wikis) :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Extra opinion needed

Hello, Worm That Turned. You have new messages at Σ's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Section is #Blocking_policy, regarding User:Spidey665. →Στc. 02:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I get a ruling?

So, since both WP:N and WP:NSPORT are "Notability Guidelines" that have been decided by community consensus, an article that meets one of the requirements given in NSPORT is considered notable even if it doesn't meet WP:GNG, correct? Then the only way for the article to be deleted would be to get consensus to change NSPORT? Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's difficult to say without a little more context, but I'll go for the hypothetical. If Jimbo Jones is a rugby player from a 2nd league club, but gets called up for an international friendly match say? Unlikely anything will have been written about him, so he wouldn't pass GNG - but he does pass one of the NSPORT criteria - technically. Should the article be deleted under notability? Possibly - if there are no sources, what can you write? What can be verifiably added to such an article? Remember it's a BLP - so we should be strict on what we're adding or not. There's quite a few factors involved - community discussion is key. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

What Worm says. Yes, he will pass, but you must find a source for the BLP. The theory behind the guidelines is that it is likely that someone who plays at international level, competes in the Olympics etc will gather sufficient comment over time to pass GNG, but the requirement to have RS for BLP trumps the 'over time' aspect. However, local news sources will pass muster for BLP, so if the chap has been interviewed for the Kilkenny Herald, that would be sufficient. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

For whatever reason, the theory almost always seems to work. I found an example of an Armenian skiier who competed in the Winter Olympics once, with a truly dismal record - only entered two races, failed to finish one and was disqualified in the other (or something like that). I'd tagged it for notability and was about to AfD it, but when I did Google searches I found there were at least half a dozen examples of significant coverage of her in reliable sources.

(That's a separate case, of course, from people who become famous because of their dismal record, like Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards of whom Wikipedia's article says "his lack of success endeared him to people all across the globe. The worse he did, the more popular he became"). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Big Brother Australia 2012

Replied to your comment on MY talk page. Bbmaniac (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the Barnstar! Now I just want to give you one!! Which one do you deserve?...hmm, I will be watching your actions very closely so I can do the honour of presenting you one! Thanks again, mate! Look forward to working with you in future! Bbmaniac (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It's tough working with new editors - and since you're actually keeping the good faith up (which is difficult in this situation), you wholly deserve it. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Input requested

WT:New editor feedback#Proposed office hours. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleting a page

Hi Dave, how can i quickly delete a page i created by accident? I created a redirect page MAZDA 121 (UK) and moved it to Mazda 121 (UK) but the original still exists and it's not causing any harm, but it is unnecessary. Thanks Jenova20 11:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that fits under WP:CSD#G7 and WP:CSD#R3 so you ask me nicely. Skidoosh. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dave =]

It appears user sub-pages are exempt?

That's a shame as i moved a page connected to my 3rd project and wanted the old one deleted.

I still added the notice anyway and have crossed my fingers.

Thanks and have a nice day! Jenova20 12:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It was User:Jenova20/List of Technologies in Civilization III that i moved to User:Jenova20/List of Civilization III Technologies (which i think sounds better).

Thanks Jenova20 12:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

pretty much anything in your userspace can be deleted per WP:CSD#U1... I'll look at that one for you. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, i think i've put the right tag on the page Jenova20 12:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

		The Eraser Barnstar
		Thanks for not just telling me how to properly delete articles but also by doing the work aswell! You earned this Dave! Jenova20 12:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ha! thank you :D Worm^TT · (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Future of the US Education Program and the Ambassador Project

There is a discussion about the future and the growth of the US education program along with the future of the Wikipedia Ambassador Project here. Voceditenore (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)