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.

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.

Happy Holidays!

Aviation^Expert ✈ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

FYI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

re adoption

Hi,

You said on my talk page that you would adopt me, and that you would get back to me regarding setting me up. You haven't forgotten me, have you?

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I answered my questions, and asked a question myself about an article I'm reviewing. Would appreciate your opinion. Happy New Year! MathewTownsend (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Twilight Zone

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Twilight Zone. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Hi Worm That Turned: thank you for removing my adoption request - I hope to return to editing once some other projects wrap up, but I am currently inactive. Will put out the call for help again once I'm back in the game. ~~oishiisou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oishiisou (talk • contribs) 02:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A Hyperthetical

Dave, Apologies if I'm bothering you,

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

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

The very next day that article is AfD'd.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good News!

So good that I have to tell you over mail - and break the possibility of a wikibreak enforcer! Tell me when you have time to hear it, thanks -- MST☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 10:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied -- MST☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 11:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Saw your message, thanks :) Btw, this. Completely forgot. Now that I have remembered, can I have next test? -- MST☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 00:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

'Bout time.. -- MST☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 08:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup

Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially began at the start of 2012 (UTC), and so you are free to claim any content from after that time. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Clerk traineeship

Hi Worm That Turned. I have added you to the list of clerks and subscribed you to the mailing list (info: WP:AC/C#clerks-l). Welcome, and I look forward to working with you! To adjust your subscription options for the mailing list, see the link at mail:clerks-l. The mailing list works in the usual way, and the address to which new mailing list threads can be sent is clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. Useful reading for new clerks is the procedures page, WP:AC/C/P, but you will learn all the basic components of clerking on-the-job.

New clerks begin as a trainee, are listed as such at WP:AC/C#List of clerks, and will remain so until they have learned all the aspects of the job. When you've finished training, which usually takes a couple of/a few months, then we'll propose to the Committee that you be made a full clerk. As a clerk, you'll need to check your e-mail regularly, as the mailing list is where the clerks co-ordinate (on-wiki co-ordination page also exists but is not used nearly as much). If you've any questions at any point of your traineeship, simply post to the mailing list.

Again, welcome! Regards, NW (Talk) 20:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My RfA votes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Jasper Deng

I think he's an unfit editor being pro-Microsoft. He doesn't want to add a criticism section in the windows 7 article despite it being suggested in the discussion section, he even said there was no consensus for a criticism, despite it being present in other version of windows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helios solaris (talk • contribs) 16:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Helios solaris and welcome to my talk page. I'd like to point out first of all that holding a point of view does not make an editor "unfit" - as long as the edits he make are from a neutral point of view and he accepts consensus. I haven't seen Jasper making any POV edits to articles - but that's the sort of thing that should be discussed on the relevant article talk pages.

As for other articles having criticism sections - that doesn't automatically mean that every article should. We don't base information that is added or removed to any article on what is in other articles, as each article should be treated the same. It may be that the criticism sections are not appropriate in the other articles. I would suggest that you take it to Talk:Windows 7 page, perhaps getting a third opinion or even starting an request for comment if you would like fresh eyes on the discussion. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I meant to write reviewer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helios solaris (talk • contribs) 18:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)