User talk:Thehelpfulone/Archive/April 2011

User page	Talk page	Awards	Sandbox	Email me	Guestbook

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

• News and notes: 1 April activities; RIAA takedown notice; brief news

• In the news: Academic contributions; Jimmy Wales weighs in on murder trial controversy; brief news

• Editor retention: Fighting the decline by restricting article creation?

• WikiProject report: Out of this world — WikiProject Solar System

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: AUSC appointments, new case, proposed decision for Coanda case, and motion regarding CU/OS

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

account creator

Are you sure? I think it was Michelle who added this as I was having problems. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

• News and notes: Editor retention; Malayalam loves Wikimedia; Wikimedia reports; brief news

• In the news: What if experts just want to get their links into Wikipedia?; brief news

• Recent research: Research literature surveys; drug reliability; editor roles; BLPs; Muhammad debate analyzed

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Two cases closed – what does the Coanda decision tell us?

• Technology report: The Toolserver explained; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:SILVERLOCK

Hi, I noticed that you declined a user-requested protection of their own userspace citing WP:SILVERLOCK. That policy actually says that a userpage may be semi-protected at any time per their request. Kansan (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Rights assignment

I've left a slightly abrupt comment on my tp for you which might have been a bit hasty, but it did come after another thorough review of the editor's history. I naturally have not reverted your decision, but I do think however, that it wold be better if we admins could discuss these things before making unilateral decisions. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I never intended at all. But a comment left at the request page gave me enough pause to make a point. No hard feelings at all :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

It looks like from this, that you don't understand what the autopatrolled rights is for. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled stuff

Hey there, I noticed you commented on the permissions page "Done Reviewed and believe the user can be trusted with the right, the 50 articles is a guideline, not a set-in-stone requirement."

My own request has just been turned down on the 50-articles thing - I thought it was more about trustworthiness than quantity, and all I want to do is reduce the workload a bit for the NPP people, (see my comment there). Any chance you could butt in there for me? My first come-back article (and only second-ever) got over 10,500 views as a DYK, and has just gone GA, and there is no way I would consider abusing the autopatrolled permission. (I'd always prefer to get my articles to the standard I like in user-space - now I know that I can do it - as I did with History of the horse in Britain. Pesky (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thehelpfulone got a lot of grief for granting me the permission after another admin had denied it, and I didn't even ask him to intercede on my behalf. Admins tend to get very insulted when another admin "reverses" their decisions, and while I can't speak for him, I very much doubt that Thehelpfulone wants to be known as the admin who grants this right when others have denied it. Since any admin can grant the right, my advice to you would be to wait a little while and then ask an admin that knows you can be trusted for it quietly on their talk page. Not doing that was my mistake in the first place (and it's how I got both Rollback and Reviewer rights). I would encourage any trusted user to do this since it causes less commotion and headaches for all concerned. Jus' sayin' :> Doc talk 18:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I may do that, Doc. I have Rollback already. Pesky (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes - per Doc, I think I'm going to leave out bending rules on the autopatrolled right at the moment as it's probably not one where you need it unless you meet the requirement. Also, I don't want to start another argument with one of my fellow admins! :) The Helpful One 20:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Some, not all, people seem to think that collecting rights such as rollbacker, reviewer, autopatroller, etc., is akin to collecting trophies for excellence - a look a the huge number of WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW will show that some editors possibly make an attempt at RfA for the same reason. If one is not (yet) a prolific article creator, one clearly does not need the 'right' of autopatroller. Mass creators of short stubs, even if clean ones, do not, IMO, qualify either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you listening, Armbrust? A lot of unreferenced and one-reference snooker-player stubs for one giving out trouts... Doc talk 04:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Heya Kudpung, I'm glad you said "not all" in your above comment! All I wanted to do was my 'mite' in reducing the load on the NPP! Surely if autopatrolled were to be 'handed out' to people who are clearly trustworthy, even if not prolific, the cumulative effect would be far fewer pages to patrol? I'm not suggesting a 'radical' reform here - just maybe it should be granted in the same kind of way as 'autoconfirmed' - maybe to people who've had either a DYK or GA on something that's clearly mainly produced by them, showing that they can 'do it' and be trusted. Just a thought. And actually, if you ask the couple of people who persuaded me that I really should have rollbacker, you'll discover that I was actually rather reluctant to be granted it .... certainly not something I went and sought out! It was mainly handed to me so that I could deak with any vandalism that might happen to the DYK article while it was on the front page. It does happen - DYK articles can be targets for vandalism. I'm one of the sort that's not inspired by 'collecting trophies', at all :o) Just adding: maybe I shouldn't even have mentioned the rollbacker thing! I only mentioned it as an illustration that I've been consiedered to be 'trustworthy' by others! Pesky (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actualy, the problem at NPP is not at all with articles submitted by established editors - those articles amount to less than 1% of of the new ones. Patrollers work fast, too fast in fact, many NPPers are very inexperienced and have not read WP:NPP first, so while reasonable articles are easy to review and are passed within seconds, all the harder articles are left for someone else to patrol - hence the backlog. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow! I hadn't realised how few new articles are being generated by established editors. Pesky (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I do a huge amount of page patrolling because I'm patrolling the parollers for stats gathering. We can get SW to run another bot if you like, and I think you'll find that of the 1,000 - 1,500 new articles that arrive every day, the actual percentage is probably 0.1%, so autopatroller as a 'right' in fact has little or no effect - except for those who blatantly abuse it to automate the mass creation of 1-line stubs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

What a crying shame that more estabished editors aren't creating more stuff :-( Do you suppose it may have something to do with the number of 'established editors' who are either no longer active at all, or who've been barely active for a long time? Pesky (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Established editors have all become admins and are busy working on reform projects;) The stats seem to demonstrate that all truly encyclopedic articles have mostly all been written now and that the mathematicians, astronomers, geologists, historians, physicists, musicologists, and other scientists and researchers are busy expanding and updating existing material. If you spend 12 hours at a stretch on NPP like I often do, you don't need a bot to show you that almost all articles are - this order: soccer players, garage bands, businessmen, company spam, non notable autobiographies, Indian villages, Indian companies, movie stubs, n-n actor stubs, n-n artist stubs, childish pranks and n-n teenage autobiographies, hoaxes, n-n author stubs, non notable politicians, attack pages, schools, aPhilippines articles, articles in Arabic or Farsi. There you go. I think it's time to give Thehelpfulone their page back! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh, no I've been reading with interest! Kudpung, I see you are leading the RFA reform project, would you like any help with that? :) The Helpful One 13:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As much as we can get, but there's a lot of catching up to do. The main thing is that it moves forward, develops the ideas that have already been posited, and does not become another bar room like WT:RfA. Do pop in please. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW: I don't want to be seen as 'leading' the project, that's why I moved it out of my user space, but it would be great if other interested parties would keep the many pages on their watch lists and chime in as often as possible to keeping it moving. The task force is supposed to be composed of really active users, but I'm not sure all them really have enough time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, please join us! The more really decent brains - combined with both a belief that it can be done, and a determination to get it done - that we have over there, the better. And if you can think of any other 'great minds' (OK, yes, I'm bragging on behalf of the Task Force, lol!) who can either add impetus, come up with brilliant suggestions, or even just inspire us if we get tired or disheartened ever, bring them along, too. :o) One of my personal goals with it is to produce something(s) so obviously right that when the ideas go to RfC, the 'community' will look at it/them and say something along the lines of "Why the hell wasn't that done earlier?! Obvious that this is the way to go. Go for it!" Pesky (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

• News and notes: Commons milestone; newbie contributions assessed; German community to decide on €200,000 budget; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia accurate on US politics, plagiarized in court, and compared to Glass Bead Game; brief news

• WikiProject report: An audience with the WikiProject Council

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Case comes to a close after 3 weeks - what does the decision tell us?

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User Talk Pages

Hello, I appreciate the message that you left regarding the welcome messages I have left on new user pages. I have done that because of conflicting information that I have received from various admins. I have had some tell me that they should be on the "USER PAGE" then some on the "TALK PAGE" I am really unsure as to what to do! I want to help to welcome new editors because we need them, but I am unsure as to where to put it so that we don't have this issue. I always thought that it went on the talk page so that it would leave them a message. It is just unclear?! Thanks for the message. --Canyouhearmenow 02:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you are asking me to go back way in time! LOL I honestly don't remember the full extent of it or the name of the admin, but I know that the one that continued to beat my up on it was Wikipediatrix. She was relentless on making sure I put welcome messages on the User page and not the talk page. In fact, she is the reason all of the stuff is on the front page of my user page. I don't know what ever happened to her but it had something to do with them finding out she was a sockpuppet and that was really the last I heard of her. She was very hard to deal with to say the least. But, I do appreciate you pointing this out to me and I shall never make this mistake again! --Canyouhearmenow 11:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Requesting unprotection of template {{WWE personnel}}

Hi. Could you please unprotect this template? After giving it some more thought, I find that I have opened a can of worms that I shouldn't have. Thanks.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your help

Crazymonkey1123 has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Thanks for your help on User:Crazymonkey1123/welcome. You have made major improvements to that page. Thank you.

Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or gobble up this chicken the giver's talk page with {{subst:MunchChicken}}!!

Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^T/_S 16:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks so much for resetting PC protection on America's Next Top Model, Cycle 15, and semiing it. I can tell you how many times that page was vandalized and the edit rejected. mauchoeagle 20:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

• News and notes: Survey of French Wikipedians; first Wikipedian-in-Residence at Smithsonian; brief news

• In the news: Low-hanging fruit and sustainability; Qwiki on iPad; sceptic critic; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Somerset

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Request to amend prior case; further voting in AEsh case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Questions

Thanks... I'll endeavor to answer them as well as I can. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I may be young, but I'm old enough to be on Wikipedia!

Hello Thehelpfulone. It wasn't very helpful of you to delete my userpage. I'm not saying you're a bad person, I'm just saying you might've made a bad choice. I agree that I might be a little young, but I'm not an "self-declared minor", or whatever it says.

Sorry if this bothers you, Sock7215 (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Sock7215

Too much information?

How did I leave too much information about myself if I didn't even write anything on my userpage? Please help me! I'm starting to wonder why people even make rules anymore! I mean, isn't there an old saying, "Rules Are Meant To Be Broken"?.

Again, sorry for the inconvienience, Sock7215 (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Sock7215

Sorry, I'm Leaving Another One...

My userpage, the "User:Sock7215" one.

Sincerely, Sock7215 (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Sock7215

No Thanks.

You're right, there wasn't anything written on it. That's what I said in the beginning. So, I don't want to bother you with trying to find air. But next time, (not trying to be mean) stay out of my business.

Sincerely, Sock7215 (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Sock7215

Why your fingernail leaves a mark. . .

Hello, I recommended deleting this article, but want to be sure that deletions are done right. You did a speedy deletion as a CSD A1, which means "no context" meaning that you can't really tell what the article is about. I disagree with this, as the article had context, and tried to answer the question with information about skin layers, circulation, and so on. Can you please explain your rationale for speedy deletion? Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually placed the Speedy request after someone posted this AfD, which has since also reopened. This could perhaps have also qualified for an A10 as I am sure this information is located somewhere in Wikipedia (and sourced at that). IMO, it's an unsourced stub that will not survive the deletion process. CycloneGU (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you can find the article, then I'd be happy to re-review it under CSD. The Helpful One 00:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I did an advanced search that netted 878 results within wikipedia.org (!), of which in the first 100 results I only found two of interest: the one up for deletion, and Nail (anatomy). Anything in the first would be more belonging to the second, but none of it is sourced and it doesn't seem to have encyclopedic context to me. CycloneGU (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

AFD close

If you're closing the List of historic inventions as speedy keep, then you need to undo the delete- the whole article has disappeared.Rememberway (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, still (essentially) zero length. Check the history... They've done a user-delete, and then recreated it with nothing in.Rememberway (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

See: [1], the editors have deleted the article by removing all of the content, about 130k gone, (essentially) because they didn't like one of the editors changes. It's basically blank now.Rememberway (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

I think several users have kind of lost the plot though, and I expect more weird stuff will go down soon.Rememberway (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Gonna have to trout you for that as it seems you didn't really read the discussion. If you did, then I apologize as you didn't submit a reason as to why you restored an article full of demonstratable errors. No one was arguing for article deletion. Editors (including myself) stubbed the article until all these errors could be weeded out. Rememberway himself took this as a "deletion" and nominated the article at AfD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you deserve a trout for letting Rememberway deliberately mislead you William M. Connolley (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

They've deleted the article again (of course), and the users now have nothing to read, the article gets about a thousand hits a day. While jagged's stuff needs to go, even his stuff was better than nothing. These guys could easily have reworked it off-page (and I wouldn't have a problem with that), but they seem to prefer to be user-hostile like this. I've also noticed that they don't have any realistic plan for recreating the article.Rememberway (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I may take it to DRV if they don't sort it out. I'm fairly sure they're just going to delete the article and walk away. The point is, it wasn't actually speedy and you short-circuited the discussion- and the article is now gone.Rememberway (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying Wikipedia should knowingly put up incorrect information instead of nothing? Not sure the community would agree with that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of historic inventions

Thanks for your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of historic inventions. However, you erred in reverting to the unstubbed version. Please read the procedural notes at that AFD; the AFD was meaningless, and "speedy keep", as those voting for it (including me) meant was restore the pre-AFD version. Which was [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've undone your error William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how you think about it. Imagine how arbcom would be likely to think about this. From their point of view the article that has being deleted was the one that has been substantially unchanged on this page for several years, and was the one I stuck the AFD on, and this clearly has been deleted, even though the AFD found for speedy keep. Rememberway (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Your threats of arbcomm aren't credible. You produced an out-of-process AFD. Despite your attempts to skew the "vote" by attempting a deliberately misleading introduction, the clear consensus on the AFD to was that the AFD was wrong, and the pre-AFD (which is to say, the stubbed) state should be "kept". The speedy close effectively nullified the AFD. It did not justify your reversion to the broken Jagged version. Going off to page protection after that was definitely bad faith on your part. Instead of using up all this energy protecting, why not just help rebuild the article? That would be good. At the moment, you're just obstructing that William M. Connolley (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thank you very much for your help with the Vidkun Quisling GAR - really appreciated :o) Pesky (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I overlooked that part of the instructions and was just going to put my name on the list now. I appreciate your assistance. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Socks

Thanks for that... I don't know what's going on there. There appears to be a discontinuity now between the page as displayed on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Catfish Jim and the soapdish... not sure what that's about. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 19:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)