This is an archive of past discussions with User:Worm That Turned. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
No problems. I'm sorry I didn't have time to look into your edit history sufficiently to actually !vote, but I'm glad to have another admin in the corps. Congratulations! WormTT(talk) 07:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep. Just commented in one. Trying to work out if there's any way to cut the Gordian Knot, but I think the best thing to do is let all these ruddy RfCs happen. WormTT(talk) 10:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Adding to the pile... [3], [4], [5]. I'm sure I've seen this mess elsewhere too. I wish someone would get on and file an RfC, because this is getting disruptive. WormTT(talk) 10:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
No, "WP is not a forum" is definitely a useful thing to keep in mind, especially in that sort of page. I believe his explanation was reasonable, but I don't think you were out of line reminding him to keep chatter down. WormTT(talk) 09:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Everyone who's joining in... "Even if you plan to compete in a team, all members must register separately." Everyone get's a namebadge ;) WormTT(talk) 10:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and you'll need to bring something to connect your picture taking devices to a laptop... if you have such a thing. WormTT(talk) 10:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I have my phone and possibly the xoom, so bluetooth, email, wifi or the cable. Depends how new these computers are. I'd rather not bring a laptop if i can, especially since my xoom can act as a fine substitute.
Have persuaded the other half to bring her laptop... which hopefully should do the job, though it's getting on a bit. That and a camera. And a connector cable if I can find it, though the laptop has a card adapter. WormTT(talk) 11:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok Catfish, but I don't think there's much of an incident to be honest. what matters is that you do soemthign you enjoy on here and if you've stopped enjoying CVUA then stop doing it. WormTT(talk) 14:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Kudpung seems a bit upset and I quite honestly don't blame him. You two have made some great suggestions, but nothing has been done to implement them yet. I totally agree with you that I should do what I enjoy here. After all, we're all volunteers! Best, ElectricCatfish14:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC).
WP is a slow beast. I'm sure things will happen sooner or later. I don't have time to lead the project so the best I can do is prod it every so often. If it takes my advice then that's a good thing in my mind, but there's no rush. As for Kudpung, well, yes, I responded to him about that on Dan's page. Two sides to the story, no need to make it into a bigger issue than it is. WormTT(talk) 14:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
What a mess. There's no point in blocking the IP, it's likely stale, hasn't edited since the 4th June. I also don't think you should delete the article, as the nominator of the first AfD it'd look pretty bad. I don't see that it fits under speedy deletion criteria, but another AfD seems reasonable. If he turns up again on an IP, we can look at blocking that one, or at least highlighting that it's probably a sock. WormTT(talk) 09:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
For this. I've got a better one now and to be honest this has a picture of the Facebook logo in it, which could be a copyright issue(?). I'd appreciate if you could delete it for me. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)08:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what speedy criteria that would fit under (I don't work in files enough), so I'm not willing to delete it. Also, I can't see any facebook logo... and further the facebook logo only consists of simple text, so doesn't meet the threshold for originality - so that shouldn't be an issue. WormTT(talk) 09:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Dave, how you been? Me, I've been keeping busy working on my fan site and on Taylorswift.com not to mention doing work here and there on here particularly to "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together", where I been keep sources clean like crazy XD, it's like kill me! XD LOL! ^_^ Swifty*talk16:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I was listening to that song on the way home from work yesterday, really isn't my sort of thing. Full of americanisms and far too bubblegum for my liking! But I'm glad you're doing a good job on the article and working on other bits! Always good when things are going smoothly! WormTT(talk) 10:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
LOL! Not a lot of people like it but I absolutely love it. Hey can you explain what is on this: File:And It Feels Like.ogg I don't 100% understand why it's on there or what it is for... ^_^ Swifty*talk15:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I nearly had a heartattack seeing what was going on on Taylor Swift. It freaked me out. Never had that problem before. I bet a lot of people were think what in the world am I doing. ^_^ Swifty*talk16:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi worm! question for ya
Heya again Worm, so I thought I'd let you know that I'm trying to be productive(actually made that SAFE Boats International LLC via WP:AfC and it got accepted the first go-around! wewt! :D) oh yeah, back on task... I found something and I didn't know what to do so I was going to ask you because I really don't know who else to ask. So I recently found out about WikiFauna and so I added the userbox I felt I fit in. Then I noticed it didn't add a category to my userpage when I had seen the wikignome category before. So I went and found the parent category which was fun (sarcasm xD), Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy. Then I saw there wasn't a category for the WikiSloth, so then I went looking and found that it was deleted in 2007. My issue isn't with it being deleted and all, I was just more-or-less wondering howcome it could be deleted when there's other sub-cats in the parent category with a much smaller population. Here's a bit of an example. (wikignomes/fairies added for perspective)
Well this turned out a lot longer than I was thinking... but I was just curious what your take was basically. Do you think there should be 1 category for each wikifauna added into their respective userboxes (which I could do and wouldn't mind doing at all) or should it only be for wikignomes type of deal? Your opinion/advice would be greatly appreciated good sir :)daintalk04:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a bit of a weird one to be honest, but it all comes down to the editing guideline Wikipedia:User categories. The difficulty comes in having to work out whether the categorisation has a useful purpose. Remember Wikipedia is not meant to be a social website, so simply being able to interact with editors with a similar editing style is not sufficient. WikiSloth is a particularly large group too, rather broadly defined as those who do what they like to do. If you read the guideline and think any of the other categories should be deleted, I would certainly agree with you on a few of them ;)
Huzzah! thank you good sir. I'm not one for the social website aspect more than I am for a consistency one if that makes sense in this case. So I read WP:User Categories and I feel that none of the inappropriate criteria really stuck out against creating a wikisloth category and these stuck out in the appropriate criteria; "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." as well as "Quite simply, a user category is appropriate if it has the capacity to facilitate coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement of the encyclopedia. Some examples of types of user categories that are generally appropriate include:" So I think it fits the "by participation" and "by interest" aspects of the Appropriate category criteria. But I'm not sure if many of the wikifauna would pass your statement "simply being able to interact with editors with a similar editing style is not sufficient." It isn't (taken from the inappropriate category criteria) all-inclusive, vaguely defined, overly narrow, it isn't not-based, by dislike of subject, it isn't an irrelevant like, it isn't advocating a person, place, etc who is nonrelated to wikipedia, it isn't provocative, it isn't a jokes/nonsense cat (examples given of those)
Oh, since the WikiCats category is an admin category (not sure how/why) does that mean it is off-limits from WP:CfD? That's my automatic assumption but I thought I'd ask. Also... I'd agree with you on the WikiWorm :p I haven't read any other wikifauna page other than wikignome and wikisloth so I'm not sure what their characteristics would be either unfortunately. Thanks again Worm!daintalk14:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't you think the citation situation on Taylor Swift has gotten a little out of control? For example, does this statement need four citations: "In May 2012, Swift contributed vocals to "Both of Us", a Dr. Luke-produced single from B.o.B's second album Strange Clouds.[267][268][269][270]"? What's done when this type of thing happens? MathewTownsend (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
If they provide four different pieces of information, then there is nothing wrong with having four. However, if some refs double, then fell free to delete the doubling ones. Adam Mugliston Talk 17:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
This guy has done nothing but be disruptive on the talk page on "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together". He doesn't want to discuss nothing just wants to get his way, he is beating a dead horse on a subject that was dropped TWO days ago that he started to begin with and was told how to handle it then drops it and wants to bring it up two days later. He has run his mouth at both me and Toa and has gone into name-calling on two separate talk pages. Both can be found on the talk page of "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together". Now I have advised him, TWICE now to back away slowly and go edit on another page but he apparently does not want to get the hint so I want to get someone else involved before I go and report him to the ANI. ^_^ Swifty*talk17:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The only reason that I am informing Toa is cause he has had his share on this and has been more then patient with the guy as I have. ^_^ Swifty*talk17:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dave :). Hope you're doing good! I recently came around this article Bagatayam Waterfall and i think it currently does not meet the basic minimum requirements for a Wikipedia:Stub. The article only has a external link to flicker website of a picture and a external map link. There are no other reliable sources and references. If possible can you have a look at it and see what can be eventually done ? I believe your help will be invaluable . Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The evil genius presumably doesn't watch this page, but he has a penchant for obscure geographical locations, so maybe ask his opinion? Maybe he can find sources that the rest of us can't? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I boldly redirected it to Bagatayam, Sogod (Cebu) after finding only a source that mentioned it as an attraction there. I left a note on the talkpage of that article - which was created by the same user at roughly the same time - in addition to the edit summaries. Hopefully not too bold, but it's an easily reversible action. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I commented on here and have no regrets for what I have said on it and have nothing further to say on the subject and will allow it to be whatever it is there. ^_^ Swifty*talk16:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for making great mentoring tools.
Hi WormTT. I've been observing Ryan Vesey mentor a new user recently, Red Hat On Head (who really shows promise as a new editor). I took note of the tests that were given after each module, and I was really impressed that the questions not only required comprehension of the text, but also requires editors to think more conceptually about things like editing, resolving conflict, and engaging other editors means to them. It also seems to be a great tool that can reveal one's approach toward these different avenues of contributing to Wikipedia. I think it's a great test and it something that all editors -- regardless of their edit count, years of experience, or permissions -- ought to take. Anyway, I said all this to Ryan, and he told me that he got the mentoring plan and tests from you. So, I want to say thanks for taking the time and care to make it. If I ever find myself mentoring another user, might I be able to use these tools in the future? I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the message! Some of the questions need a little more work, but I am generally pleased about the fact that it gets people thinking... Of course you may use it, I think I've found about half a dozen editors using it already and I'm always proud to see that it's regarded that highly. WormTT(talk) 08:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Good Morning, Dave (In the US)! Kudpung requested me to set up a CSD log using Twinkle. However, I didn't want to lose the CSD nominations that I did up until now, so I found a tool (from Dennis Brown's RFA) that shows me my CSD nominations. My full log can be seen here. Is that an acceptable tagging percentage? Thanks, ElectricCatfish11:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC).
Well, I see 3 where they're not currently deleted, so it certainly doesn't look bad. I don't put much stock in CSD logs and percentages, it's not something I spend that much time doing. Just personal opinion though, because I know a lot of people who do. WormTT(talk) 11:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Of course, the thing about CSD percentages is that there's a lot of things that aren't accounted for. Anything that was CSD-nominated, declined, and then deleted through PROD or AFD will be a false positive; anything that was actually speedily deleted but then later recreated as an appropriate article will be a false negative (Hot walker is an example of that from my CSD log). So there's no easy way to decide things like that. Just keep on keepin' on. Writ Keeper⚇♔13:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you please take a look at this...
section of the COI/N about Michale Servetus? All the posters, other than User:Jdemarcos, seem oddly similar in their syntax and in their editing histories. Jdemarcos has posted a 'Helpme' on their talk, asking if the COI/N is monitored by admins. The issues have to do with the Michael Servetus article. I don't know if there is enough there to file some kind of SPI or not, but something doesn't look quite right... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Whats new ...
'Domesday Book'
For the TT Worm
We would like to invite you to contribute to the GibraltarpediA project, the world's first WIkipedia City. The project needs writers, photographers, translators and others to help build the first wiki city which bridges Europe and Africa. We are going to transform Gibraltar and the surrounding areas in Morocco and Spain into areas rich with encyclopedic content immediately accessible using QR codes and NFC on plaques for visitors and local people.
Hey Dave, I have come to remind you that i have completed my first assignment on User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/TheGeneralUser. I had left a message on the talk page of the adoption page and notified you about a week ago [8]. So just came to remind you if you could review all the questions & answers and post the second assignment soon. I want to complete my adoption course as soon as possible. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Quite busy is an understatement, given that I had to look into indefinitely blocking one of my past adoptees and another one submitted himself for RfA on Friday. I don't edit much on weekends, per the edit notice on this page and the status at the top of the page. What's more, since you took from 18 June until 24 August to actually do the test, I believed that you were not in that much of a rush... just because you are suddenly in a rush now doesn't mean I will be able to fit to your schedule. I should also point out that I didn't design that test and have to consider whether more questions are required.
This is a volunteer project, people edit when they can. Do not pressure editors, it will turn the project into a chore, stopping it being enjoyable for them and they will leave it. Editor retention is a big issue, and whilst I have no intention of going anywhere, I can empathise with those who do leave. If you want to go and find someone else to adopt you, you are welcome to, but if you would like to stick with me, you'll need to wait until I get there. WormTT(talk) 07:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I have never pressured anyone and never will. I was just politely asking for a request so that it can be get done soon. Do not misunderstand me in any way. You can take your time in doing it, but please do not point out on me of something wrong which i haven't done and telling me to back off. I want to work with all of my fellow Wikipedians in a civil, calm and cooperative environment. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad, just a misunderstanding then. I will get to it as soon as I can. Slightly bigger problems to deal with at the moment though. WormTT(talk) 09:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Also apologies from my side if anything i said hurt you, I have never meant anything wrong or to hurt anyone :), I want to help the project just like you too :). And i know and completely understand there are some or the other incident and other type of day to day problems going on Wikipedia, I completely understand and respect you for the hard work you do ;). Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Worm, I am Wrapping everyone's personalized gifts for Santa to deliver at Christmas. I used one of the code you gave me for your random images, but I want it to be in order, the music first, and then the present wrapping, and then the present and in the end the voice message. Can you fix it?
It's not simple, you'll have to find a way to pass a parameter when updating, without editing the page. I'm not sure why you'd want to do it that way anyway. Why not just create a single card with buttons to press? WormTT(talk) 11:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dave, as a special favour to me can you run User:BlueStars83 through your adoption course when you have the time and capacity to. I realise you're very very busy but this would be a personal favour to me and the American would get some help from me along the way to speed things up.
Thanks and have a nice evening ツ Jenova20(email)14:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. He's gonna get some tutoring from me in person wednesday anyway to get the hang of the basics and i've placed your helpful template on his talk page. Thanks again ツ Jenova20(email)15:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
very good, but more impressive is that challenge... Would you mind if I used parts of it? Also the upload part, he needs to be auto confirmed. 10 edits and 4 days :) WormTT(talk) 19:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I never expected you to ask that. This is nothing to your adoption school, i just wanted to gauge what he could already do. Use whatever you like from it. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)19:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
A Puppy for you! :)
TheGeneralUser has given you a puppy! Puppies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a puppy, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of puppies by adding {{subst:Puppy}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Worm That Turned ! I have started my second editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. I see you also evaluate possible candidates for Adminship as you had chosen to do so on Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination, so do evaluate me too! As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Hello, Worm That Turned. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Just letting you know what I am going back to school tomorrow (Thursday). Since today is my last day of my freedom, I am going to try and pull an allnighter; so I should be online, when you are up, to talk. Zac04:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't forget about the adoption. User:BlueStars83 has almost finished my few tests and i'm still relying on you to make learning about the policies fun for him and explain the differences. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)21:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The Tea Leaf - Issue Six
Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
Teahouse serves over 700 new editors in six months on Wikipedia! Since February 27, 741 new editors have participated at the Teahouse. The Q&A board and the guest intro pages are more active than ever.
Automatic invites are doing the trick: 50% more new editors visiting each week. Ever since HostBot's automated invite trial phase began we've seen a boost in new editor participation. Automating a baseline set of invitations also allows Teahouse hosts to focus on serving hot cups of help to guests, instead of spending countless hours inviting.
Guests to the Teahouse continue to edit more & interact more with other community members than non-Teahouse guests according to six month metrics. Teahouse guests make more than twice the article edits and edit more talk pages than other new editors.
New host process implemented which encourages anyone to get started as a Teahouse host in a few easy steps. Stop by the hosts page and become a Teahouse host today!
Host lounge renovations nearing completion. Working closely with Teahouse hosts, we've made some major renovations to the Teahouse Host Lounge - the main hangout and resource space for hosts. Learn more about the improvements here.
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
He's an IP, which means he doesn't have an "account". Generally we don't block IPs indefinitely, as there's no point, and since the vandalism is stale (over 15 hours ago) and he's only been warned once by cluebot that he might be blocked - this is not a block I'm going to do. It's also best to use WP:AIV for reports like this in the future, as I'm not the fastest admin, and there's a lot more people watching that board. WormTT(talk) 11:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
You're probably asleep now, nevertheless, you may wish to check this out before it gets archived - as I said a while ago, this is just the tip of an iceberg that I'm going to expose shortly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Eventual RFA, but more important I'd like some feedback
Hello Worm that Turned. I read that you were willing to consider nominating editors for adminship. I tried an editor review, but a few weeks later, nothing has happened and I considered self-nominating my self for RFA with the intention of getting some feedback/constructive criticism, but I felt like that was somewhat disingenuous so I decided to ask a user willing to consider nominating people for RFA. I know right off the bat my edit count is low, but recently (the past month or so) I have gotten much more involved and hope to stay that way. So if you wouldn't mind taking a minute to give me some feedback, I would really appreciate it. Thanks in advance. (I'm watching your page so no need for talkback) Go Phightins! (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here and I did and I think it maybe time for an admin to step. I gave my opinion and I don't know if it worked or not but I just figured someone else needs to step in. ^_^ Swifty*talk16:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought you wanted them moved here on Wikipedia. :( I only have filemover access here on en.wiki, not Commons. :( Sorry. :( - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Bongwarrior, an admin, is going to take care of it, but it might be tomorrow or the next day (unless someone beats him to it) as he is kinda busy at the moment. If it still needs done in a couple days, do leave him a reminder note on his talk page. Sorry I couldn't be more of assistance. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Say an article is brought to AFD for say, failing GNG. The community comes to the conclusion to delete it and than the subject gets significant coverage from secondary reliable sources. If the article is recreated, does G5 apply? I'm thinking about rewriting a few deleted articles (that were discussed at AFD), and expressing notability that the original author did not express. However, I don't want it to be deleted as a G4. Thoughts? ElectricCatfish23:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I assume you mean G4. The relevant portion of policy that applies is "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies..." There is virtually no way that the pages would be substantially identical (unless you wrote any of the earlier ones); however, it may be useful to ask an administrator to take a glance at the deleted revision to be sure there is no substantial similarity. RyanVesey23:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank Ryan! Yes, I meant a G4, not a G5. Charlie Echo Tango deleted it, so I'll try to work on it in my userspace and have him take a look. Best, ElectricCatfish00:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC).
Hi Dave. What's your opinion on engaging with new editors the moment they join with this? I reckon i can handle 5-10 at a time with how active i am and the amount of spare time i have. Plus i reckon that engaging with and helping them before they get stuck is more likely to result in them staying and making multiple edits. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)12:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea. I think it'd be better to tweak it a little bit though - welcome them, and as part of the welcome suggest that they could try taking "Jenova20's New Wikipedian Challenge" - which gives them a little practise on editing. If they take it up then offer them the challenge. I'd also suggest a barnstar at the end of it. You can then track some metrics on the matter... it may work really well, but it also might scare some new people off. WormTT(talk) 12:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Well for tagging 10 new accounts i expect 7 responses to be reasonable since they've gone to the effort of signing up. The amount of responses shortly after joining should give a good idea of how the gene pool of Wikipedia is growing or stagnating. I'll record the responses though. Thanks for your assistance ツ Jenova20(email)14:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest you check if they've editted - lots of people just sign up and don't do anything. Also double check their edits aren't vandalism, without a little diligence from your part, I expect the community might not be impressed with this (I've seen people in trouble for this before). WormTT(talk) 14:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Just giving you tips on who you send the new message to. I recommend new editors who have edited (though not much) and their edits are not obvious vandalism. If you choose editors who were just created for vandalism, or those who have not edited, I think you will be wasting your time - and it may reflect badly upon you. WormTT(talk) 14:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Before reading that my target was editors on their first couple edits (who may like the advice and light tutoring) or those most recently joined who are yet to edit (and may be intimidated by the complexity of the vast expanse of rules). Do you still think that is possible? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)15:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Those one their first couple of edits make sense, but those who are yet to edit.. well, it might work, but I think the shear number of accounts which are created and never used may make it prohibitive. You could give it a go, it might work :) WormTT(talk) 15:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I suppose i'll go with the original plan then. Tag 5 pages which have edited (non-vandalism) and 5 which haven't. See which gets higher responses and work from there. I'll share my findings with you if you like in 10 days? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)15:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi WormTT! Are you interested in being the Online Ambassador for any classes this term? We've got a few classes that are looking for ambassador right now (Canada, US), so if you're up for helping any, please do! Let me know if you have any questions, or if you'd like me to pick a course for you.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Sage. I'm having trouble keeping up with my adoptees as it is, and taking on ambassadorial roles this year will probably cause me issues. Let me know if you need anyone to step in to the breach at the last minute and I may be able to help (I've done it before!) but up front I'm afraid I'm going to have to be a no. WormTT(talk) 15:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Cool, no problem. You keep up with an impressive number of things on-wiki! The Teahouse has offered to provide general help to classes that don't have Online Ambassadors, so we should be fine. (Although I think once I follow up with most of the people still listed as active ambassadors, we should have most of the courses covered anyway.) --Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd say better. I'm not as keen on the massive use of colour in the article, so hiding it unless you want to see it seems like a positive. WormTT(talk) 09:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It didn't look right with the columns containing information being plain and the red "unavailable" fields ideally have to stand out. Do you have a (better) suggestion? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)10:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't - otherwise I would have suggested it! The use of colour seems sensible to me, it just doesn't please my eyes :P Collapsing the table means I'm happy AND the information is available. WormTT(talk) 10:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
For your generosity in donating your Credo account to me, especially yourself being a fine contributor. Thankyou very much! ♦ Dr. Blofeld18:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't deserve the praise, PamD explained how I could get Credo through my library online and Ryan Vesey pointed out that you didn't have it. They did the hard work. But thank you. WormTT(talk) 07:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Glad to be able to help - do tell your friends about the library service, as there seem to be vast numbers of lively-minded people out there who don't know about it and might have a use for it! PamD14:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed you have helped... the resources you opened up that way was amazing. So many newspapers to browse now ;) WormTT(talk) 14:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
It's looking fairly good, but I think we need a little more sourcing - averaging at one soruce per paragraph. There are also a lot of sections, which could be merged down. I'll have a bit of a think, and will have a look at your writing style as soon as possible. WormTT(talk) 13:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Just thought you should know Dave, believe what you want of Swifty and me I could really careless, I showed you that the IP you think it connected to Swifty isn't me and you didn't believe me, shows what friend you were to me. I have no care or concern for Swifty anymore and have no desire to edit on Wikipedia as it has too much drama on it and people believe whatever they want. The fact goes to show loyalty means nothing on Wikipedia and I'm editing to you under my real IP address to prove a point. I'm glad Swifty is blocked. It finally puts an end to all the WP:SCRUTINY and conspiracy I got under that account and it's freeing and I thank you for that. I appreciate you finally putting an end to it. You and Wikipedia can think what you will of me it doesn't matter, I really don't care. LOL! Sorry you blocked me under false and wrong accusations but it's whatever to me. I wanted the account over anyway so I guess it worked out to my advantage even if it wasn't true. 184.58.15.81 (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I am curious whether I can pass the adminship with my two blocks and my casual incivility? I would like to help out mainly in WP:CSD and WP:RFPP. I found your name here and wonder if you could give me some advice. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
With blocks that recent, I'm afraid you wouldn't stand a chance at the moment. I don't put much stock in block logs myself, but it's one of the fasted quickfails I've seen. Excellent editors with year old blocks have garnered significant opposes, despite showing themselves to have changed.
Casual incivility is another area where you're likely to fall down - if you are aware of it, then other editors will be aware of it and will highlight it in the oppose section.
It's a shameful situation, because you are clearly an excellent editor - with excellent achievements in writing articles, a skill I wish I had. I can give you some tips if you like, which would give you a fighting chance at adminship, but it'd be a long road, at least a year of keeping your nose clean which might take all the fun out of editing for you and I can pretty much guarantee it won't be worth it. WormTT(talk) 12:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Wiki Women
Hi Wrom, Sarah buzzed me about the WWC blogging project[10]. I wrote an article on meta, can you have a look through when you have time before I screw anything up again, thanks a lot! [11] --RexRowan (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me :) (close paraphrasing, not close paragraphing) otherwise, you're all good. And thank you for the kind words about me. WormTT(talk) 08:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Yay! Thank you very much! And you are welcome, you deserve all the credits and more! I will work on the park article in a little while. I think I will look around for more sources if I can find any. :D --RexRowan (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it's aimed at promoting really helpful women on the encyclopedia. And... I think your colourful signature and feminine name (Jen) has got you in that group :P WormTT(talk) 08:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Would you believe that not everyone has played FF7? I know! It's madness! It's not the first time I've seen you referred to as female ;) WormTT(talk) 09:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, i remember someone else doing it too in an argument i think and i warned him/her against making assumptions.
Did you ever see [12]? I remember being astounded by it. Which FF were you planning to buy? I really need to play XIII-2 a bit more... WormTT(talk) 10:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it is XIII-2. I still have an achievement to finish on XIII before i get the sequel. They made at least 1 film of FF7 right? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)11:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children, yep. Very pretty, but a forgettable story ;) XIII I couldn't get a few of the last acheivements... I just didn't have the dedication. One of the problems was beating two really mean baddies on top of a small plateau - can't remember the sort, but they had some sort of shield. Anyway, XIII-2 hurts my head, it's all about time travel and I've started changing the future, meaning that I have the choice to go to the original future or the changed future... and aaaaargh! WormTT(talk) 11:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Argh! Spoilers! *Covers Eyes*!!!
I have only 1 achievement missing from 13 and it's for owning every item. I messed up somewhere and accidentally sold one and will have to go back to a previous save to undo that. It's not a massive amount of work but i needed a break. I'm now working on Binary Domain and Lost Odyssey (which was created by the makers of FF) ツ Jenova20(email)14:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry! I got a different impression about how wp works for your mentoring lessions, now that I am been trashed (personally attached repeatedly) because of a general comment I made on a talk page. A group ganged up on me. Is wp meant to be collaborative, or do sole articles get special treatment? MathewTownsend (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This is obviously difficult, because this is where theory and practise collide. In the beautiful utopia that is a wiki, there are no vested contributors, everyone has equal right to edit an article placing their opinions in and changing how things work. It works very well with a small community, working on a small number of topics with a common goal. This is vaguely what I teach in my adoption school, as it's meant to be the starting point.
What it doesn't take into account is the size of wikipedia, the diversity of opinions out there and most importantly that we are dealing with people, volunteers, who work bloody hard to get articles to featured status. Take me, for example, I've worked bloody hard on Doom Bar, it's my pet project. I know how upset I would be if someone appeared and changed that article significantly, and it's not even a featured article. Yet there are editors who have invested much more of their time and efforts into writing articles, articles that people are interested in reading, articles that have been decided to be the best there are on wikipedia. Should they not feel a little pride that the article has been acknowledged as such? So, yes, a little ownership does creep in - not ownership to the extent that any edits made by an un-approved editor are automatically reverted without consideration (and I'd be interested to hear of examples of that), but ownership to the extent that someone who knows the article inside out, having read all the sources over the period of months or years, knows very quickly if an edit is "wrong".
So, Mathew, yes, I effectively have lead you down the garden path, the reality of the situation is different to the ideology that I discuss in my mentoring. However, the mentoring is sufficient to allow you to function in the encyclopedia, but finishing it does not make you a perfect Wikipedian. The further you delve into Wikipedia, the more unusual situations you find and you need to use the skills you have learned along with your own judgement to handle these situations. I have to put it to you - do you think you've used the skills I imparted when you made this edit? Do you believe you were assuming good faith, discussing civilly? You labelled the editors who have written articles as "divas", suggested that editors are only arguing with you because they are emotionally involved. WormTT(talk) 12:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
(response to Worm) I'm certainly not criticizing your mentoring of me. I learned a great deal and had subsequently the confidence to do an enormous amount of editing and reviewing.
As for the current issue, I do think I was assuming good faith because nothing I wrote is untrue and I think everyone on the Ownership page knows it. But I guess that what I said is not supposed to be acknowledged. I didn't realize the word "diva" had so much negative meaning on the Ownership page and that some editors there are so sensitive to the wording I used. I admit I was ignorant. I've seen editors say they are "divas", and I've seen the word used frequently so I didn't realize that it's verboten. I meant what I said but, in retrospect, I should have worded it better. I was under the impression that wp was a collaborative project so I'm surprised to see the degree that it isn't. The Ownership page is only for veteran FA editors to have an opinion. I still think it's a good suggestion for wp to have a section, a literary magazine or whatever, where FA ownership is allowed for those who prefer not to edit collaboratively but to edit alone or with a few chosen others, since so many seem extremely resentful of wp policy that "anyone can edit". That was my suggestion but I expressed it wrongly. The reaction certainly was a wakeup call for me.
Also, I didn't realize that my ignorantly removing a link to Simple page with POV, or accidentally making a minor formating error would be met with severe chastisement and personal attacks. I over reacted and have repeatedly apologized.
I suggest that you alert your adoptees to the very real dangers of editing on wp and that the Five pillars don't apply necessarily to all. And for newbies not to be surprised by incivility and personal attacks, e.g. no personal attacks doesn't apply to all editors so they don't feel like they're being mugged. Perhaps a practice lesson on how to respond to attacks when other editors misinterpret your motives and assume your motivations are bad e.g. assume good faith isn't followed by all veteran editors.
Also, perhaps a lesson on all the "code" words that are commonly used by longtime editors, that make it hard for a new editor to understand what's going on. I was criticized severely for not understanding obscure edit summaries on the Ownership page and for somehow not having the opportunity to leave an edit summary, even though I explained my edit on the talk page. It seems my ineptness put me under suspicion of some devious motivations. These are just ideas, but if editor retention is really an issue, then new editors need to know these things so they won't be surprised that there are areas of wp that are unwelcoming to newbies and that the newbie state will be held against them.
The depressing part is that I'll always be a newbie, no matter how much I contribute, as there will always be editors who have contributed more by virtue of having been here longer. So I'll always be a second class citizen. No way out of that! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't feel my adoption covered everything either, but then i believe it would have been impossible to with how much there is to learn and the depth some of it reaches. Can it be improved? Sure...but i'm happy with what i was taught and the way it was taught, more so considering i have a learning difficulty and yet i've still passed and am actively training someone else up. I consider it be just showing someone the ropes, since no one is going to be able to cover everything as it's impossible.
Dave, there is so much I would like to do but I am too old and too set in my ways for such levels of patience. You do it not only to bridge my own shortcomings, but for the the entire Wikipedia community. A miserable barnstar from one admin to another is a reward too modest, but we don't have anything better for all your hard work mentoring those who refuse to give sheer dedication its true respect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Sheer dedication might be a bit of an overstatement but I appreciate the sentiment. Thank you very much for taking the time to write this Kudpung, it means a lot. WormTT(talk) 07:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
About my restrictions...
The thread you started about the subject was just archived... Do you want to unarchive that with a future timestamp to prevent rearchival until it is closed or just interpret this as the restrictions being lifted as requested? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve00:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd assume the latter. I put the request forward and there was no dissent, so I think we can assume that's consensus by silence. I notified a few editors who I thought might hold legitimate concerns, but only one commented and they did not have an issue. I'll update things for you today :) WormTT(talk) 07:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Heh, of course I'd assume that it's not lifted until formally lifted - in order to keep one's nose clean. I'd wait until WTT formally goes in and closes it :-) dangerouspanda10:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I've already formally lifted it here. Barts1a has given his talk page watchers a last chance to comment, but I don't see any problems with counting these restrictions as lifted. It's what you'd expect really - if an editor is causing problems, lots of people weigh in to complain, if not, people don't. So when removing restrictions, silence is a very good thing. WormTT(talk) 10:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thanks so much for your mentoring and your good judgment and everything about you, helping me keep on the straight and narrow! (DR is settled) MathewTownsend (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Cheers. I don't really think I've got "a lot of experience" with him, but he needs time away from the encyclopedia. WormTT(talk) 09:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I came across a userpage belonging to Timeshift9 which has clear vios of WP:NOTBLOG and possible WP:UP#POLEMIC vios. The recent MFD was just closed as a week keep, the closer pointed out that "large chunks of content are problematic". Should I launch an RFC/U to try and get the user to be forced to remove the problematic parts of the page or should I take it somewhere else such as WP:DRV? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve09:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding RfC/U, have you tried to sort this with the user personally? If not, you're not really qualified to start an RfC/U. What's more, it's an unpleasant process, which I don't approve of except in very rare circumstances. DRV is more appropriate, as you disagree with the outcome but it's been closed for all of 20 minutes. I'd recommend you give the user a little time to accept the changes, or see if someone enforces them, before you run round shouting for change. WormTT(talk) 09:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd recommend 24 hours at least - and some serious introspection as to whether this really matters. Timeshift has accepted the vast majority of the stuff removed, is it really a big deal that he has some opinions on politics on his talk page? WormTT(talk) 09:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You needn't keep linking the guideline, I do know it well. That argument is rubbish by the way, we don't need to explain every situation on a policy, common sense and IAR come into play. The guideline, if you've read it, states that "Excessive" unrelated content is not allowed on user pages and is talking about "very divisive or offensive" polemic material. Those opinions do not appear to be very divisive, offensive or excessive to me, especially since it's been trimmed down. So I ask again, why kick up a fuss? WormTT(talk) 09:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You might want to look at the behavioural guideline I linked to. In fact, I'll quote it for you to make it easier, highlighting the important factors to make my point. When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. ... Such tactics are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. Now, I ask you again, are you just trying to make a point, and would you like me to follow through with the recommendations at WP:POINT? WormTT(talk) 10:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Barts1a, I suggest you go and have a cup of tea and calm down. I've explained why I don't feel it violates POLEMIC above. It has nothing to do with their edit count, which I am unaware of. You asked for my advice, and I've given it - there's no need to make accusatory comments against Timeshift, or those disagree with you. WormTT(talk) 10:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't go so far as a "dab hand", I know a bit about it :) However, that's an eeek situation to me. It would be lovely to have highlighing in the editor windown, but it's just a standard textbox (I think), and that's the problem. To have automatic parsing, you would have to fundamentally change how MediaWiki works, and a script to do it (which should be possible, but I don't know) would take a long time to load, especially on really long pages. If it's got that much support, and I can understand why, I think it might be a case of passing it to the foundation/devs to do (who will probably say "yes, we're doing something similar" and forget about it) or pass it to someone who writes scripts/fixes bugs routinely. WormTT(talk) 10:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
RfA Nomination
I would be honored if you could write a nomination statement for my RfA when I or you feel I'm ready for it. Do you accept writing a future nomination?—cyberpowerChatLimited Access17:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I am always willing to write a nomination for someone I feel is ready. I'd be happy to, but I'd have to feel you could reasonably pass. WormTT(talk) 18:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Worm, Carole and I have finished an article on Autism Cymru, we want you to check whether the logo rational is ok for us to use the image. Also, we are preparing for DYK, our hook is 'Did you know that Autism Cymru worked with the Welsh government to develop the first national autism online community?' Thanks a lot! :D --RexRowan忍(Ninja signal) 09:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you can do better than that on the logo rational, it doesn't meet the Threshold of originality, so it doesn't need to be regarded as non-free content. Check out the logos of other companies which have only words in their logo, try and use one of them. Also, it would be good if there was less whitespace on it. I'll have a look at the rest of the article in a bit :) WormTT(talk) 10:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to eavesdrop but are these two in line with policy on external links?:
Unfortunately, if you are going to use that hook fact, you will have to back it up better with independent reliable sources. Of the three Wales Online sources supporting that paragraph, the only one of them that supports the hook is written by an employee of the organisation (Hugh Morgan). The two inline refs that you have immediately after the hook fact (one of which is basically a recycled press release anyway, and therefore not independent), don't mention the hook fact as far as I can see.
Also, be careful of using phrasing like "to affect the service delivery" ...
What's a "national online community"? If I spend half an hour setting up a forum site with some free software, and declare it to be an online community for particular people in a particular nation, is that the same thing? Or is it the discussing it with the nation's government that makes the difference? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, will look for some other independent sources. There's another fact we can use as a hook: 'Autism Cymru developed the first concept of a government led national autism strategy and encouraged the Wales Government to enforce it.' How's that? --RexRowan忍(Ninja signal) 11:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to nitpick at your good work Rex but i believe around half of your external links for this article are either more appropriate for the article on autism itself or a violation of WP:External links. Especially the Facebook and Twitter ones. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)11:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I think i got 'em all but "Awares" may also be a violation...Dave may be better for checking that one. The others were mostly unrelated to the organization directly or campaigning. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)14:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I added a citation from the BBC (already in the article, it was just further down) and another from the European Free Alliance.
Regarding the removal of external links: Can you help me understand why the Emily's Ball and Holly's Ball were eliminated - I get that they're campaigning for donations - but it's a good site to explain the story. For instance, how is: [[14]]
If we remove the Autism Initiatives external link, then I think we should start a new article for Autism Initiatives.
Well, it's campaigning for donations which i am certain is a breach of parts of either WP:Advertising, WP:External links or both. It's a touching story but i don't find it appropriate for the external links section, especially since they're profiting directly from these sob stories and Wikipedia is helping them by including them. I'll recheck though Carole. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)14:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You're kind of funny! It sounds like you've got a pretty clear impression of why Emily's Ball and Hope's Ball should not be included. No need to check.
How about WARC and Autism Initiatives? Since Autism Cymru's goal is to work through partnership for change - and they are key partners - it seems like it's good to add them. Again, just trying to get clarity more than anything else. It may be that the best resolution is to an create article for Autism Initiatives - in which case the point is moot. (i.e., would be removed cause there would be a link to their page in the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I hold no personal opinions on this organization and "sob story" probably wasn't the best choice of words but then that doesn't change the fact that they do not contribute to the article and are there solely to pull on heart strings and attract donations. I can't see either of the two stories being usable as anything in these articles, except maybe as a source, and then they would likely be challenged as primary and unreliable sources. Most of the removed external links are unusable as external links anywhere on wikipedia as they're purely promotional, and the campaigning and advertising links too.
I think I just need to drop this for the moment, it sounds like you have very strong opinion and I'm not learning anything new at the moment. It's really our own personal opinions about whether a non-profit is established soley to collect monies, if so, anything on their site would be considered advertising / collecting for monies. In this case, I think that they do much more for people than collect monies - just as I believe that the Red Cross and other non-profits do more than just collect donations, but that's just my personal opinion - others may not agree. I'll sort out later if it makes sense to write an article about Autism Initiatives that can be linked to, ensuring that it's notable before doing so, but it's not terribly important at the moment. Folks can figure out on their own how to look up Autism Initiatives - it's just my nature to try to be helpful, it doesn't mean I'm right.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
That's really your choice, i'm not trying to push an opinion across other than these links weren't appropriate and are in violation of WP:Advertising. I could have left them in by all means but that does not mean someone else won't remove them when they stumble across them.
Collecting money or not though these guys will get free traffic from us from link spamming them and that's not on and it's why removed multiple links. Dave/Worm is the best to ask if you want another opinion. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)16:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I think keep WARC, Autism Initiatives and Europe-Autism. They are key partner non profit organizations and I don't think there's any violations there. Worm, what do you think? --RexRowan忍(Ninja signal) 16:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, Rex ignored all rules and did what a ninja had to do. Meeting adjourned. Anyone else has further discussions please comment on the article talk page. --RexRowan忍(Ninja signal) 16:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
"A bat and ball cost a dollar and ten cents. The bat costs a dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?" - How exactly do you get 5 cents from that without the ball and bat costing a dollar and 5 cents???
Perhaps this will help - "Bat + Ball = $1.10", "Bat = Ball + $1"... so it's got to be 5c. (If it was 10c, the bat would be $1.10, and the total would be $1.20). WormTT(talk) 12:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Nope, still don't get it. My understanding is: Bat + Ball = $1.10. Bat = $1 so Ball = $0.10.
No, the bat is $1 more than the ball - which means the ball is $0.05 and the bat is $1.05, do you see? The total is $1.05 + $0.05 = $1.10. WormTT(talk) 13:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
But the middle of the question includes "The bat costs a dollar more than the ball", not "The bat costs a dollar and 5 cents more than the ball"??
(edit conflict)If the bat is $1.05, and the ball is $.05, then the difference between the two is $bat - $ball = $1.05 - $.05 = $1.00, so the bat is a dollar more than the ball. In your version, Jenova, the bat is $1.00 and the ball is $.10, so the difference between the two is $bat - $ball = $1.00 - $.10 = $.90, so the bat is only ninety cents more than the ball. Rearranging it, you need $ball + $1.00 to be equal to $bat. Worm's version works out to $.05 + $1.00 = $1.05, which is fine, but yours works out to $.10 + $1.00 = $1.00, which is not correct. Does that help? Writ Keeper⚇♔13:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Good answer Writ Keeper, though probably not for someone with dyslexia/dyspraxia! I've moved it to Jenova's page because I've had enough of the maths on mine! WormTT(talk) 14:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I can see my mistake now, i was reading it wrong and my brain was sticking an assumption in every time that $1.10 was the price for a bat and ball, and not $1 for the bat and 0.10 for the ball. Thanks for trying guys ツ Jenova20(email)14:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I was having a nap. These are my answers:
The first one. I assumed Bat=X and Ball=Y. Then I layed two simple equations: X+Y=1.10 & X=Y+1, then I brought the second one into the first one which turned out to be (Y+1)+Y=1.10, then I got 2Y=0.10, then Y=0.05, so X=0.05+1=1.05
The second one: Assume the pond as X. 2^48=X, which means 2's 48 times powered fulfill X. Then half the pond would be X/2, so divide 2 by both sides which is 2^48/2=X/2, then 2^(48-1)=X/2, which means at day 47 the function fulfills half X.
As you'll see even when i figured it out (with help) i can't describe it so easily...Oh well, that was a fun hour. Please no more maths today...ツ Jenova20(email)14:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You've switched to C678... I can't say I think it's a great idea. I considered doing the same by linking through to User:WormTT, but decided that on hover over it would imply that I'm someone I'm not. It also leads to potential abuse of your signature (by redirecting the userpage elsewhere), you may want that fully protected. However, I don't think it's against policy despite the difficulties. WormTT(talk) 07:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Very good :) By the way, there's a bit of a debate at WT:SIG which you may want to look in on, since it concerns limitting user signatures WormTT(talk) 11:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm very curious why the European settlers did not slave on the indigenous people in New Zealand to grow economic crops or do farming for them like they did with the Africans? It seems only Africans became slaves among all the indigenous people in the world, including New Zealand, North America and Australia. Why is that? --RexRowan忍(Ninja signal) 11:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The New Zealanders were and still are mostly fishermen, while Africans have a lot of farmland and farming experience. It would be like hiring chefs to build roads, it won't work very well and they have better uses. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)12:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Oddly about 4 different answers came into my head, and I was about to start checking to see which one might be right. I didn't even think about this answer! WormTT(talk) 12:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
There's also the issue of money and how you value a life. Back in the slave days the Africans were selling their own kind into slavery and i doubt New Zealanders undervalued a life enough to do that. At the end of the day i suspect it was down to plain racism against the Africans and their high birth rate just made them a better choice economically. Hope that helps ツ Jenova20(email)13:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, I think population density had a lot to do with it. Expansionist countries, be it the early USA, the British in the Antipodes, or Nazi Germany, always had more of a focus on depriving native peoples of their land (to farm it themselves) than on enslaving them. Africa was indeed unusual, in that it already had a history of enslaving other Africans for hundreds of years, and hence developed an export economy in slaves to be shipped elsewhere. (Although they also weren't actually indigenous to the places that they ended up working.) Incidentally, I think some parts of Australasia and the Far East, and even the western USA, used large quantities of imported Chinese labour rather than actual slaves.
However, it's not true that "it seems only Africans became slaves" - in fact a young Cornish lad called Thomas Pellow (redlink needs fixing) was one of about a million Europeans enslaved in the Barbary slave trade.
Oh no, I don't want passionate editors to give me a nose bleed. I think the model they run on the India case is the most cunning, let the local governors collect tax from their subjects and then hand it over to the colonist for personal interest. I think many conquers used this strategy including Julius Caesar and Genghis Khan. Am I right? Is that what common wealth means, a country runs by another country? --RexRowan忍(Ninja signal) 13:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
you get a big ol' thumbs up for me. And the Bit Bat one is poorly phrased. There's two answers, depending on whether they are on different lines, and one is "impossible"... WormTT(talk) 15:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's if it's all on different lines (Bot is zero, But is 2xBit, But - Bot = But). Which is what I assumed it meant, because all one line... is impossible because "But" is never defined. "But Bit" is... WormTT(talk) 15:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!
Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).
If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
