User talk:Ben Wiikkii
|
|
{{Request for Adminship/Ben_Wiikkii}}
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Beta (January 13)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Beta and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Are you requesting Adminship?
[edit]If so, PLEASE RECONSIDER! Adminship is not granted to new editors and you have no chance whatever of passing RfA. Any attempt to present yourself as a candidate at RfA now will be shot down within minutes and likely see you sharply criticized for lack of judgment as well as wasting everyone's time. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Request for Adminship
[edit]Hi Ben, thank you for your interest in Wikipedia, but please don't think of applying to become an administrator yet. No-one will be supported for this until they have plenty of experience and have shown what they can do as an ordinary editor. There is plenty you can do straight away - this page contains lists of articles that need improving. Best wishes: Noyster (talk), 01:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- In case you want to try again down the road, Start here. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Please avoid tests on "live" articles. They will show up immediately and confuse people. Please use your sandbox: User:Ben Wiikkii/sandbox instead. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Try the preview button, too. WP:Your first article offers massive advice. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
RfA
[edit]What I do not undersand, Ben, is why you ignored all the good advice you were given ten days ago and completely ignored the big "STOP' sign when you tried to transclude your RfA. With only 42 edits to mainspace you have a very long time to go (perhaps years) before you can be considered for adminship. Please read the the links in the welcome message above and in the advice you have been given by other editors. I'm sure you can find somewhere you can help improve articles but you will need to learn to read instructions first. If you need any help don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Kudpung:, I've studied your edits and you've been know to give advice for RfA candidates. It's easy to AGF one, twice, but sometime you're hard pressed to found out with the breaking point is. I've considered transcluding the failed nom so he wouldn't persist nominating himself to get into more trouble. Other premature noms are listed, so it's worth discussing whether he wants it to be listed or if future nominations should be the first. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- @VegasCasinoKid:, I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. Nobody 'gets into trouble' for refusing to read the instructions and take advice when considering running for adminship. However, if they absolutely don't stand a chance they will make themselves look very silly and prejudice their chances of being taken seriously for a long time. What we admins and experienced users try to do is to spare them that embarrassement by deleting their RfA page before they even get around to transcluding it. Sometimes we're not quick enough and the RfA starts with a lot of hurtful oppose votes. As the editor who is most concerned with finding ways to improve RfA and help users understand what is expected of admins, I am always curious as to why some people refuse to read the advice at WP:Advice for RfA candidates and the big 'STOP' banner on the transclusion page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Kudpung:, they might get into trouble for persisting. The point is whether or not we should keep for nom posted (at Ben's discretion) so he can see what went wrong. You pointed out he attempted to transclude his nom despite your advice not to. I don't think deletion is feasible because it comes at the risk he will repost it again and ignore our advice. That's a potential indef. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- @VegasCasinoKid: I do not think for a moment that there would be a risk of indefinite block - we want to keep new users and help them learn how they can make useful edits. They can even enter an adoption programme. The most important thing is to learn to read instructions, not guess what our policies are, and if we are giving advice, to give the right advice. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Kudpung:, that's good advice to follow. You have to remember these editors know nothing about policies and steering them to useful activity is the key. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- @VegasCasinoKid: I do not think for a moment that there would be a risk of indefinite block - we want to keep new users and help them learn how they can make useful edits. They can even enter an adoption programme. The most important thing is to learn to read instructions, not guess what our policies are, and if we are giving advice, to give the right advice. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Kudpung:, they might get into trouble for persisting. The point is whether or not we should keep for nom posted (at Ben's discretion) so he can see what went wrong. You pointed out he attempted to transclude his nom despite your advice not to. I don't think deletion is feasible because it comes at the risk he will repost it again and ignore our advice. That's a potential indef. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- @VegasCasinoKid:, I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. Nobody 'gets into trouble' for refusing to read the instructions and take advice when considering running for adminship. However, if they absolutely don't stand a chance they will make themselves look very silly and prejudice their chances of being taken seriously for a long time. What we admins and experienced users try to do is to spare them that embarrassement by deleting their RfA page before they even get around to transcluding it. Sometimes we're not quick enough and the RfA starts with a lot of hurtful oppose votes. As the editor who is most concerned with finding ways to improve RfA and help users understand what is expected of admins, I am always curious as to why some people refuse to read the advice at WP:Advice for RfA candidates and the big 'STOP' banner on the transclusion page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Edits and a warning
[edit]I'm hesitant to warn someone who is so very new, but I have to do this. You've been cautioned once about placing a request for adminship, yet you placed a second request. I've deleted the page and protected it to deter a further attempt to create a third request, but I want to stress that you should not create a third request right now. Generally speaking, admins should be people who have been editing Wikipedia for years, have already shown that they are fairly/very familiar with the policies/rules on Wikipedia, and have gained the trust of other experienced editors and admins. It's not something that you can get right away and to be honest, a lot of people tend to prefer that you be nominated rather than to nominate yourself since that also helps to show that others have confidence in you as an editor. I do think that you mean well, but I do need to caution you that continuing to seek adminship like this after other people have cautioned you against it (and the first attempt was deleted) can be seen as disruptive and could potentially lead to a block. I'm not going to block you, but I do feel that I need to extend a word of caution because a lot of first time editors don't really realize that re-adding things can be seen as disruptive. (This goes for anything, not just adminship requests.) Now that said, I'd recommend that you look into joining up at the WP:TEAHOUSE, as that's a good place to get started in general. It's designed towards people who are very new to Wikipedia and want to edit, but are unfamiliar with the various policies. Another good thing to use is the sandbox (either the general one or your own sandbox). The sandbox is an area designed for users to make test edits and you can pretty much do whatever you want there except for posting libel, threats, or copyright violations. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Teahouse invitation
[edit]
|
Hello! Ben Wiikkii,
you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!
|