Jump to content

User talk:Dwayne/Archive9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



ewart c jones

hi Dwayne, I keep on starting a page for writer Ewart C.Jones who wrote Germans under my bed, 1957.But you keep deleting it,ok i dont have a lot of info on him but i hope other users will update the page, Iains70 (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi there, i'm not the one *deleting* your articles. I'm tagging them. The reason i tagged it was because there wasn't much information to identify the subject of the article. To make chances less for your article's being tagged for deletion, make sure there is enough information to identify the subject. Writing one sentence that has nothing to do with the person wont really help. Just keep trying. BTW - you don't have to create an article right away .. you can always practice here (your sandbox). Cheers, - Dwayne was here! ♫ 21:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Reason for deleting my talk page

Hi Dwayne

I marked my talk page as to be deleted and you asked for a reason. Well I used to have another account on Wikipedia, but I used my real name as a user name on that one. So I requested a switch of user names to this account and this is my account now. I didn't want to use my real name as a user name.

There was a reference to my old account on my talk page and I didn't want it to be there. I'm sorry if I did a wrong thing, but my old account still has some traces left on Wikipedia... Seems like my old account is going to be trapped in the Wikipedia-web for ever!

Greetings, Ironpole —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironpole (talk • contribs) 17:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Unfortunately that's true; we can't delete user accounts, attribution reasons. We generally don't delete user talk pages either, partly to prevent previous warnings and notices on the talk pages being deleted. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
However, I believe if you file for a change of username, the contributions list will be moved to the new name, and the old name will effectively no longer exist. You can file for a change of username here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

NPP

Chill out on the expert template on very very recent creations. It's a little irritating for the expert currently giving the article attention. :-P

How do you get the personal message on the edit page? Nifty. --Danger (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Well - it would be actually useful for an expert to take a look at the article. Perhaps an expert can improve the article. No one really knows what the heck a Pyura praeputialis is, that's why an expert would be useful. I even had a hard time looking for this myself on search engines. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 22:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I should have been more clear. I am an expert, I do know what a P. praeputialis is and I was writing the article (ie, "giving it attention") literally while you tagged it. I've been around here for a very long time and I've done NPP, so I understand scroll-by tagging. But it still peeved me a whole lot. Had I been a new expert editor whose first contribution was tagged "needs expert attention" I would have gone my merry way and probably told my colleagues not to bother with Wikipedia. It's just something to think about. --Danger (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Dwayne, he's not that much upset or annoyed. However, newbies will be much more discouraged, and might quit editing from an incident like this. That's all that Danger's trying to say. Shubinator (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, and he was...but not as much as he could have been. Rather than focusing on his reaction, think about how you can improve on tagging new articles and how the article creators will respond. Shubinator (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I understand what the tag means. Just remember that when you are tagging articles you are interacting with human beings. The expert-attention tag isn't appropriate for a three-minute-old article. Most tags aren't useful without an explanation on the talk page. This message doesn't mean anything bad; it's just a side note. ;-) I spent a brief and glorious few months when I got twinkle pissing page creators off on NPP. Learning from the mistakes of others makes you a better editor without wasting too much time. And NB, I'm a "they". --Danger (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
While we're at it, tagging a page as A1 within two minutes of creation is way too fast. See WP:CSD#A1. Shubinator (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't think that article would get anywhere anyways, it's not notable. And check it out the creator removed the tag and another editor tagged it A1. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 23:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Within two minutes you came to the conclusion that it's not notable? After a quick search of a few databases, I'd say it has some promise. Not very many sources, but enough to make a good fight. And A1 is NOT for notability. Regardless of whether or not you think the article should be deleted, stick to the CSD guidelines. Shubinator (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'd say the other editor was also too hasty. Shubinator (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes - i searched Google, nothing. I wont just say that something is non-notable without first verifying. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 23:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
1) A1 is not for notability. Don't tag an article as A1 because you think it's non-notable.
2) Google does not define notability.
3) Even if it did, I'd say these hits are enough to make me pause.
Shubinator (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
That's not why i tagged the article. I tagged it because it was clearly nothing there, except for the title. I've seen many editors tag an article A1 because there was nothing there. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 23:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Mkay. Back to my original comment: "... tagging a page as A1 within two minutes of creation is way too fast. See WP:CSD#A1." Shubinator (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
BTW - you didn't have to waist your time repeating yourself, i understood it the first time ;) - Dwayne was here! ♫ 00:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) The Burtner Stone House is a NRHP site, which makes it "automatically" notable. It will naturally have records available about its significance. See WP:NRHPHELP if you'd like more info about these article types. It looks like this editor is having trouble with wiki-markup (indicated by having the article title as a header) and may appreciate some assistance with that.--Danger (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. Hopefully we won't have this conversation again then. Shubinator (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Oxford University Wine Circle

Hello Dwayne. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Oxford University Wine Circle, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello - it appeared the page had been changed awhile after. I let the article stay up for about 10 mins. Still no edit, so i tagged it for A1. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 20:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I saw that. It has since been deleted for being too promotional. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Wishing Dwayne/Archive9 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)





Happy birthday! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SH! - Dwayne was here! ♫ 22:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Birthday committee

--Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 12:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

 Seconded GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you guys!! - Dwayne was here! ♫ 22:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Even an expert needs more than 3 minutes to write an article

Please allow editors who are making appropriate and encyclopedic contributions actual time to make those contributions. There is no emergency that requires interfereing with an article's creation in the Colchicum baytopiorum article.[1] Giving the editor an hour or a day to create the article, then adding the tags is helpful to the new editor; tagging the article while the editor may still be creating it can be bitey. --KMLP (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

While care should be taken marking just-created articles for speedy deletion, adding maintenance templates is a pretty essential part of the review process while newpage patrolling; it indicates to the creator and to other users, how they can help to improve the article. Anyone may remove the templates once the issues have been fixed, and maintenance templates aren't designed to criticise a user's contributions, only to indicate how an article could be improved. In many cases I've tagged brand-new articles with templates such as wikify and cleanup, had the editors ask me on my talk page what the templates mean, and the result has been that the article's been improved, and the editor has gained knowledge in how to format new articles. Dwayne, you might consider foregoing the use of twinkle to add the templates in some cases and add them manually with a helpful edit summary to the article's creator (though usually there's no problem with using twinkle to do it, and if the user doesn't understand the purpose they can always ask), but other than that, keep up the good work newpage patrolling. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Adding the maintenance templates within minutes of the creation of an article, or possibly while it is still being created, is considered so bitey that Special:NewPages includes a note about it at the very top of the page:
"don't bite the newcomers: cleanup tagging within minutes of creation can discourage new users."
Other wikipedians have discussed the issue, come to the same conclusion as I have, that "cleanup tagging within minutes of creation" is bitey, and the Special:NewPages has been annotated to alert New Page Patrollers of this issue. So, please wait, and please be reasonable that this applies in instances of good faith contributors attempting to create obviously encyclopedic content. --KMLP (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you point to consensus on this? While I see your point, I often find that maintenance-tagging freshly-created articles is beneficial for both the article and its creator, especially when accompanied by a useful edit summary or a talk page or user talk note to the creator. It's usually worth being cautious about tagging is so rapidly after creation (3 minutes isn't leaving much editing time) since it's often already in the process of expansion and improvement, but I don't see it as being bitey to tag articles unless the tagging is excessive (like placing several tags onto an article only just created), or the tagger doesn't help the creator with the issues. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The consensus is its appearance on the Special:NewPages page, right at the top, first point made on that page, in bold, "don't bite the newcomers, cleanup tagging within minutes of creation can discourage new users."
It's also at New page patrol in bold and right at the top, again:
Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvio, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation is not likely to be constructive and may only serve to annoy the page author.
You can check out both of these pages in full for more information on this, and reading the talk page archives of New pages patrol can help to understand this also.
I also included in my own note, above, this comment:
Giving the editor an hour or a day to create the article, then adding the tags is helpful to the new editor; tagging the article while the editor may still be creating it can be bitey.
Although, I did not bold mine above, but just to emphasize that I know that tags are helpful, especially to new editors, and by new page patrollers with an obvious interest in working with new editors, identified by things like a welcome, a wait period, and a personal note in an edit summary or on the article talk page. --KMLP (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyway

Dwayne, I don't think your edits merited quite this much discussion. I would appreciate if you waited an hour or so, before cleanup tagging, when the contributor is a good faith contributer and the article is an attempt at something encyclopedic. I also appreciate that you added tags to plant articles, because many New Page Patrollers fear taxa articles. That's all. Thanks. --KMLP (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Hello - thanks for leaving your input about my edits, however if you scroll up, you will see that this has already been brought to my attention and i understood it the first time. To be a little frank, there was actually no need to bring it up again as i haven't actually done this again after i was told that it wasn't a good idea. But, all i'm saying is that i don't like unnecessary commotion on my talk page. But your comment was very much appreciated. Thanks, - Dwayne was here! ♫ 03:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see it above, and I don't usually read all of someone's page before posting a comment. However, yes, my commenting about your editing wasn't worth so much commotion! It was just meant to be a minor suggestion, as you appear to be a good editor. Sorry about that. Please do continue cleanup tagging taxa articles in spite of all the to-do, and I will personally not jump all over you for any cleanup tags! --KMLP (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

How's your Online Ambassador experience going so far?

Hi Dwayne/Archive9,

We're starting to get into the busy part of the semester for Online Ambassadors, and we want to check in and see how you're doing, what your opinions about where we are now, and any feedback you may have.

Please answer these questions either on my talk page or send them to me by email.

1. How many mentees are you currently working with?

2. Have you reached out to students who don't have mentors yet? If not, would you be willing to?

3. What do you think of the content of messages on the Google Group?

4. What do you think of the volume of messages on the Google Group?

5. Do you participate on the Google Group much? If not, what would make you participate more?

6. Are there any problems you've experienced so far?

7. Is there anything else Sage or the rest of the Public Policy Initiative team could do to make your experience as an Online Ambassador better?

8. Are you okay sharing your username with your answers to our Public Policy Initiative team, or would you prefer to remain anonymous?

Thanks for your feedback! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done via Email. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 20:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter

The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions), with 2260, and third to New South Wales Casliber (submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists – White Shadows (submissions), William S. Saturn (submissions), Connecticut Staxringold (submissions) and Colombia ThinkBlue (submissions). Also, congratulations to Hungary Sasata (submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is New South Wales Casliber (submissions), for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is Connecticut Staxringold (submissions), for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is Jujutacular (submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions), for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is Republic of Ireland Candlewicke (submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 03:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dwayne/Archive9&oldid=1151038732"