User talk:Padillah/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Your RFA

Hi, I just wanted to drop you a note about your RFA. Unfortunately I had to oppose it based on your edit count, I'm sorry to say. You should probably know, though, that according to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Statistics, the success rate for editors with >1000 edits is less than 50%. You may want to consider withdrawing and gaining more experience in the meantime, as the RFA is likely to be snowballed. It's up to you, of course, but withdrawing before a snowball looks quite a bit better if you decide to go for adminship in the future. Cheers! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I just saw your request at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching and would be happy to provide some tips and pointers if you like. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Recent changes patrol is a great place to start. Patrolling recent changes usually means looking for vandalism/spam edits to articles, reverting them, and warning the user appropriately (or reporting them to WP:AIV). Sometimes you do come across pages that are receiving a lot of vandalism that you can report to WP:RPP. New page patrol is another good one. In doing that you take a look at new pages and try to determine if they are appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia, and if they need any maintenance templates. If the article isn't appropriate, you can nominate them for CSD, PROD, or AFD. If you decide to do either of these, you may want to check out the JavaScript tools Twinkle and Friendly, which can make these tedious jobs much faster (and even enjoyable). Participation in article deletion debates at WP:AFD is also a good area of experience. Those things are how I got most of my experience with WikiPolicy, so I'd definitely recommend looking into them! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I second what Ioeth said. Patrolling recent changes is a way you will get familiar with the policies faster. And AFD, there you can get an idea what it means to be objective. Feel free to ask when you find yourself unsure how to act. Greetings. --Tone 19:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving of Heroes Talk

Usually, its better to archive conversations more than a week old, resolved matters or off-topic discussions. As you archived a conversation that took place less than 4 days ago, someone might call you on it. Just something to keep in mind to prevent having an archive undone (which is a clusterfucky mess). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sephius

Hey, I noticed you wikified the new article Sephius. Do you know anything about this topic—in particular, whether it's legitimate? There are no Google hits to speak of for Sephius Leviticus, which suggests that Sephius is at best a misspelling and at worst a hoax. I was going to list it on AfD, but I wanted to check with you first. —Caesura(t) 16:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll go ahead and nominate it for deletion. I just wanted to get a second opinion before doing so because I have zero knowledge of Bible stories. :-) Thanks, and happy editing! —Caesura(t) 16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Vandalism

Ask yourself a couple key questions, Padillah: first, is it possible that the person is making good Faith edits, and just disagrees with you? I know you always AGF, but if they are repeatedly adding the same edits without discussing them, that is being a dick, not vandalism. Secondly, ask yourself if everyone else - I repeat, everyone else - could reasonably see the reverted material as vandalism. If the answer is no, don't call it vandalism. When in doubt, revert it once and ask them to discuss their edits on the Discussion page. If they blow you off, take it to an admin or AN/I. AN/I is tedious, but it resolves the situation in such a way that folk have your back.
I looked over your edit-history, and I don't see any notes left on the User Talk pages for either Twinkle or Friendly. Usually, when reverting vandalism, I take a look at their contributions. If they are new, they get a basic vandalism template. If they have say, over 50 edits, I give them a personal message (since treating someone like a newbie when they aren't is simply bad form). I've learned through hard experience to make a solid attempt and talk to the person. if that fails, post your concerns on the Discussion page and bring more people into the loop. If this doesn't affect any change, talk to an admin or go to AN/I. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Was/were

Your edit summary at Nannie Doss: (Undid revision 176982134 by Tom Carey (talk) Actually, "family" is a plural unit - "were" is, in fact, correct.)

Actually, you are wrongly imposing British English on an article about an American. See WP:ENGVAR and American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement.

In this case, there probably aren't any hard and fact rules in any version of the English language, but the "was" for actions taken as a family unit seems more correct in American English. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Tori King

I added a link to the IMDB. She's been in about 4 films. Admittedly I've never heard of any of them. Delete her if you feel strongly about it.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 13:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I am not Tori King nor in any way a fan of hers but she's been in four films so seems reasonably noteworthy. Famous enough to feature in a crossword clue in The Independent anyway. :-)  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 13:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Blessed editing, and...

Marlith T/C 15:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Heroes talk page

  • Hiya. =) There has been a decent amount of discussion on the Heroes talk page since you last commented in opposition to adding an external link to the Heroes wiki. In an effort to reach consensus I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the recent discussions so that you could check them out and further contribute to the discussion if you're interested. =) --Centish (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I wanted to thank you for your civility and open-mindedness. I've watched a lot of discussions sour over time because people take things personally instead of just considering the issues and helping to improve the site. It's examples like yours that will encourage me to continue contributing to Wikipedia rather than reverting back to being solely a reader. Thank you again. =) --Centish (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Disappointed with 3O

I recently sought a 3O and noticed that... "Respondents appreciate feedback about the outcome of the dispute, either on the article's talk page or on their own talk page. We want to know whether the outcome was positive or not and this helps us to maintain and improve the standards of our work."

To be frank, I was quite disappointed with the 3O you offered on the SL-1 page recently, as you seemed to misunderstand the situation and didn't seem to realise the need for a "citations needed" tag at the top of the article. Thankfully another editor has since added the tag again.

Also, you said that requesting a 3O was simply lazyiness on my part. You are incorrect and in any case I don't see that a personal comment like that has any place in a 3O.

I also notice that you have done few edits and have very limited experience with Wikipedia. My humble suggestion to you is to try to get some WP:GA and WP:FA articles under your belt, as a way of gaining essential experience. Johnfos (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

On a way to adminship

Hello. You asked for some suggestions about becoming an admin. I have checked your recent contributions and my ideas are:

  • reverting vandalism and tagging for speedy deletion is good. Keep up with it.
  • 3O is good. But as you see, sometimes people disagree on the topic so make sure you know enough about the topic.
  • you have really lots of edits to Heroes-related articles. No problem with that but some editors may think that your experiences are not wide enough. Try plunging into some other topics as well, the show is not airing at the moment anyway... :-(
  • AfD. This is far the best place to get a great insight into what may await you as an admin. Different opinions, discussions about notability, dealing with problematic users... These are all the things you will need to handle as an admin.

So much for now, I think it's enough. Give it a few month's time and you'll be fine. And feel free to ask me any time. Greetings. --Tone 17:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Your facilitation efforts

Greetings. Given your fine efforts at Talk:Palestinian people, I'd like to encourage you to look at and hopefully join Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. I mentioned your efforts but not yet by name, feel free to specify. Be well, HG | Talk 18:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I think your effort has paid off with a small yet heavily dispute edit, which now appears stable. Assuming you won't mind, I'll say something about this in the new WikiProject. Meanwhile, I truly hope you'll continue working with these parties, either on Palestinian people or one of several others they debate. Congratulations. HG | Talk 02:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your facilitation

Wow. Bringing you in turns out to be one of the actions on my part which i can honestly say was an unmitigated good thing. (hopefully there are others too! :-) ) anyway, thanks so much for all your efforts. i think you've done rather well. hope you'll remember me as someone supportive, and also remember my own small part in bringing you in. i think it's been good to see your manner of playing a positive role, and also your manner of providing some fair yet firm and yet objective insights to this process. so thanks for all your inoput. i have enjoyed watching your comments, and look forward to seeing more. thanks. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

peer review

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching

I saw that you re-activated your request for an admin coach. I am currently available as a coach, and would be glad to help you out. I do, however, have a couple of conditions:

  1. watch your coaching page closely, and reply to every post there in a timely fashion.
  2. fill in all of your edit summaries (if you find yourself forgetting, there's a setting in "my preferences" that will remind you).
  3. complete all the assignments/readings you are given to the best of your ability. If you have trouble with an assignment, by all means, let me know, so we can discuss possible solutions and alternatives.
  4. don't go for your RfA or accept an RfA nomination except from me - I will nominate you when I believe you are ready.

Let me know if you are interested and we can get started. I will have limited on-line time for about the next week, so my response time after today may be a little delayed. Best, Pastordavid (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello, if you'd like to join in as a party and such, feel free. I'd welcome it, as long as the others don't mind. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What you need to do (IMHO) to prepare for admin coaching

IMO you are not close to being ready for admin coaching because I don't see any way that you will be realistically ready for an RFA in 3 months (which is one of my criteria.) But if you want specifics as to why I say this:

1) Your edit count is too low. See discussions elsewhere on the coaching page, where we're discussing this. IMHO, it should be around 2500 or more when you start admin coaching. It should be at a minimum 3000-3500 when you run for RfA (and even that is considered by many to be on the low side of things.) The exact number needed varies from person to person. The key, is how long will it take to get to those numbers? You're at 1608. As you are making about 200 edits a month, it will take you 4-5 months to get to 2500 edits... and another 3-6 months to get to 3500---almost a year. If you doubled your monthly output, and continued to make meaningful contributions, you could surprise me.
2) When I reviewed your edit history, you have only taken part in 4-5 XfD's. While this is fixable (and what coaching is for) XfD's are a key part of RfA's. They show an understanding of WP policies and procedures, lacking XfD's you have to look at the users other contributions to see if they have a solid foundation for policies and procedures---but your edits don't demonstrate that background. Coaching is just that---coaching, it should be a place to start from the ground up. Currently, your edits make me think a person would be starting from square one.
3) When I reviewed your edit history, almost all of your mainspace edits center around one subject: Heroes (TV series.) If you want to be a viable candidate diversify.
4) The diversity of non-mainspace areas where you participate is very nominal. I think you've made more edits at coaching than you have at any other administrative aspect of wikipedia. This strikes me as overly eager. This is particularly true when you consider the fact that you made your request 3 months ago---when you probably had under a 1000 edits. Being overly eager is a red flag for many people.

Again, my comment was not a personal attack, but rather a statement of my opinion. Unless you double your monthly output (which would never be an expectation of mine) you are probably a good 8-10 months away from being a viable admin candidate. Your edits are good---from what I've seen your help would be great at peer review/league of copy editors/GAR/etc.Balloonman (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Padillah, I posted an idea for managing expectations on the coaching page... I was hoping to get your input on it.Balloonman (talk) 04:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Chronology of the Quorum of the Twelve Talk changes

Hello. Since you gave a 3O POV on the Chronology of the Quorum of the Twelve Talk page, I have compiled new information based on additional research that might change things. I'd like to ask you to take a look at what I prepared on that page to see if it makes a difference in your stated opinion. Thanks for your help with this, and notify me on my talk page when you've looked at it, what you think, and if there's ever anything I can do for you. Thanks again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hi, sorry but I forgot to update my status on the page. I don't want to take on more than 1 coachee at a time because of my university and work commitments and User:Jamesontai asked a just few days ago (link). I'm really sorry to turn you down as it looks like others have also. I can however offer some advice on participation in XFD (i.e. articles, redirects, categories or misc.) debates. It was also suggested that I participate more but I didn't know how either. What I did (and it worked ok for me) is look at what other people are saying and in particular, read the policies/guidelines that they linked to. It's important to provide a valid reason when participating in an AFD because the closing admin will weigh up the arguments each way, not just count the number of people as if it were a vote. However keep in mind Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This isn't a policy, but it is a very good read if you participate in deletion debates. Most AFD debates are about notability which requires multiple secondary sources (a newspaper article about the subject of the article would be a good example of a secondary source). Various more specific guidelines exist such as notability for companies which isn't any different to the overall notability guideline but explains it with more relevance to companies. I think the best course of action would be to read a few debates and check out the arguments to avoid. Again I'm sorry to turn you down but I don't think I have the time to advise 2 people. James086Talk | Email 07:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Footballers

If you want to be an admin then nominating clearly notable English footballers for deletion isn't going to do you any favours. I'd withdraw this if I were you, otherwise it's only going to be held against you when you run for adminship again. Nick mallory (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just putting a note here as well... I just warned Nick on his talk page for failure to AGF and for making a veiled threat.Balloonman (talk) 04:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Much appreciated. --Ahoalton (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • What other recourse do I have? My original account was indefinately blocked by the same two or three people over and over again. With an indefinate block how am I ever going to get this taken seriously. Since you asked, I couldn't care less if the "safeguarded" info gets on the page or not. What I care about is that it not be censored from the page based on the unilateral decision of a group of admins with a clear conflict of interest. I am happy to take whatever help or advice you can give me. I just want to make my case.--Ahoalton1 (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate you’re going to bat for me. I can see you really want to be an admin, and for the sake of the project I hope you do. If a Wikipedia entry is going to be the top hit on every internet search I do for the rest of my life it would be nice to know the entries are being monitored by evenhanded editors like yourself. Anyway, I’ll shut up for a week and see if these people can put their house in order.--Once,Twice,ThreeTimesAhoalton (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken

I appreciate you trying to help here, but you're mistaken on a key point, [1]see this. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Please do not edit others talk pages.

I'm sorry; I did not realize the on-going conversation. The user was recently blocked and was sockpuppeteering, so I reverted all changes made by the sockpuppet as evasion of block. Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean I "don't have a clue about Wikipedia policy." --EoL talk 21:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I respect your enthusiasm to defend this guy. He really needs to stop using sockpuppets to communicate, though. --EoL talk 22:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Order of the Arrow

You were recently involved in discussions on the article Order of the Arrow. Some of the issues brought up then were not resolved. If you are interested, please participate in the continued discussion at Talk:Order of the Arrow#Safeguarded material. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability

You can go around on that one forever and not really get anywhere.  :) Most of us have given up on that one. Of course, you'll find that most editors don't have as strong feelings on that topic as someone you've encountered. Of course, he believes otherwise, but wikipedia is based on consensus, and unless I'm mistaken consensus is not as with him as he seems to think. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Vandalism

Thanks for getting that, I couldn't figure out how to remove it. SteveCoppock (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)