Nuvola apps personal unisex.png Nuvola apps filetypes.svg Crystal kdict.png Nuvola apps package editors.png Crystal package settings.png Nuvola apps bookcase.png Nuvola actions help.svg Original Barnstar Hires.png
User Talk Articles To Do Toolbox Subpages DYK Awards

Welcome to my talk page. Leave me a message!

Ledblue.svg I'm sporadic on Wikipedia these days, but feel free to email me where you will probably get a fairly swift response.

Obscured jaguar.jpgThis user is stalked by friendly talk page staplers.Swingline-stapler.jpg
Question mark.svgThis user replies where s/he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.

You've got mail!Edit

Hello, Worm That Turned. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC). 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.

TheSandDoctor Talk 16:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


Regarding my appeal I have started a RFC and although there isn't a clear consensus on what to do in general there is a consensus against bot creations (unless perhaps someone who has the skills to do the technical bits comes) and some have suggested that "X and Y" parishes might not be needed unless there is a decent amount of verifiable information. Therefore it seems that I probably need to create all the articles manually making sure sufficient content is included. Although this isn't great it at least hopefully helps somewhat with the point about consensus to create a large number of articles in the previous ARCA.

While I understand that the community are concerned about content quality is it a bit concerning how harsh you and some others have been towards editors who end up with sanctions since such editors are generally those who are least able to successfully appeal sanctions while those who are likely to be able to generally don't end up with them in the 1st place.

I'll provide a list of number of creations allowed in a table below, similar to the (2nd) tier regulations in England

  • Tier 1, all topics such as BUAs and Domesday places that aren't higher.
  • Tier 2, former civil parishes.
  • Tier 3, current (and recently abolished) civil parishes (as well as Welsh communities and unparished areas) (around 500-600).
  • Tier 4, settlement parishes (including those that are as such Welsh communities and unparished areas) (~60).
Tiers Tier 3 Tier 4
6 months ~3 a day ~2 a week
12 months ~1.5 a day ~1 a week

What this means is that if we decide tier 4, 6 months we would replace the 1 submit a week rule with me being allowed to create 2 civil parishes as defined in tier 4 a week and allow an appeal in 6 months, if we did tier 3, 12 months we would allow me to create 1.5 civil parishes as defined in tier 3 a day but I would have to wait until January 2022 to appeal next. As far as the current restrictions go I did submit some late due to the fact I didn't submit any in most of the 1st half of the year but I haven't gone over my limit. Obviously with the restrictions you could propose what you like (such as the ability to create 3 a week and appeal after 6 months) these just give what would be needed to complete such missing parishes. One other thing I'd throw in is the ability to create 1 article a month on any topic.

As far as removing the move restriction goes I'm not sure we need to lift it given I can file as many WP:RMT or WP:RM as I want however if we don't relax the creations restrictions significantly (say only a few a week) then I'd suggest allowing me to move pages as a result of a RM discussion that has been listed for at least 7 days since although I can still do this now people might question if I'm not allowed to move them myself and have to use RMT for move requests I close. However if one of the tier 3 options (or similar) happens then I'd say that this would be unnecessary since I should be encouraged to focus on creating good articles rather than potentially rushing it in order to do other things. Also if we do approve the ability to create directly as proposed a move exception should be to move pages from draftspace or userspace etc to mainspace in accordance with such creation limits.

The other thing that should be relaxed is the ability to create redirects and DAB pages as long as I keep in mind WP:RDELETE and WP:COSTLY. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, I had a look over the RfC - well done for starting that - and from what I can see, the reason the consensus was hard to read was a simple one. The community is still exasperated on the topic - and do not want you to keep pushing for these new articles. Given that you've gone on to do is talk to me about your appeal (which would have to be done at ARCA), I'm afraid I'm position stands - you should not be allowed to mass create these articles. WormTT(talk) 12:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I was asking you to see if you had any views before the appeal starts and I'll probably use this post to base the proposals on. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Crouch, Swale, I do have a view. Don't do it :) WormTT(talk) 18:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Worm That Turned!Edit

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Need helpEdit


My username is Marinaromanova55.

I developed a wiki page for Prof. Richard V. E. Lovelace, who works at Cornell University (where I am working too). I decided that he is a significant person in Astrophysics, and his discoveries should be described. Only specialist can describe his work. And I did. My work is not paid and I do not have any advantages of any kind from this contribution.

However, I am a new in wiki and probably my wiki page was not professional. Someone blocked my entrance and re-wrote the contribution in more professional way. The main scientific contributions are there, I am satisfied with the modified wiki page. No mistakes in Astrophysics, which is good.

It is OK if someone else will be responsible for this contribution.

However, I see a few minor mistakes, which a new person can easily improve. I would like to help with this.

Other issue is that it would be nice to remove the warning sign in the beginning of the wiki page. The content now is professional and neutral. Can you simply remove it?

Thank you! Marinaromanova55 (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Marinaromanova55: Thank you for the page! (I see you also created it as a draft). There was a discussion about you at the Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents after you continued editing the article without responding to concerns raised on your talk page; didn't you see the comments on your talk page? I'm relieved you say the astrophysics is still correct, since I edited the page despite having an extremely inadequate education in science. Can you please post at Talk:Richard V. E. Lovelace with the changes you want made? And please, can you tell us the sources you originally used for the life information you had in your version of the article? It's particularly important for an article on a living person to be based entirely on reliable sources, which is why all the material about his background and education was removed, but biographical information is good to have, which is why I put in what I was able to source. Further, your version of the article suggests that English may not be your first language. Foreign-language sources are perfectly acceptable in the English Wikipedia, and we prefer to use third-party sources as much as possible, rather than just his own publications and Cornell University sources as almost all the sources are now; since he collaborated with Russian-speaking scholars, are there any Russian-language sources you can add? Yngvadottir (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)