User talk:Steven Crossin/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

User:Steven Crossin/harassment-awareness

Hi. I deleted this, but have restored it and taken off your db-u1 tag, because many other pages transclude this, see here, and the db tag was putting all of them into CAT:CSD as candidates for speedy deletion. Deleting it did not immediately solve that: I don't know whether it would, eventually, but for now I have put it back. Any ideas? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps just delete it without me re-tagging it? Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 13:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, done that, seems to work - the other pages are not back in CAT:CSD. Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The other pages were just cached and Mediawiki's job queue hadn't caught up. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the feedback! It's always nice to be complimented on my hard work. I want to finish it before I publish it to the mainspace. I only have a little more to go, so it should be in the next hour or so. Again, thanks! —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Wayne Caparas

Hey Steven! I left you a note on my talk page, but I'm learning it's best to cc the note on to other's talk pages when possible, so forgive the redundancy! It's been a long day of research but I've more than covered all the bases that the various moderators suggested, and have more than 30 verifiable/neutral-source citations properly footnoted, so please let me know if we can move it out of my user area asap, as Googling "Wayne Caparas" currently shows the page as #1 among 50,000+ results, and it doesn't look good, as you know. As it is I removed every single comment that cannot be found in a news or magazine article, so if there is a such thing as a neutral/unbiased article written by someone who knows the person in the bio, this is it! Thanks for your help... I pray my 3 days of labor can finally come to a close so others can start adding to it!

Cheers! --Ambercaparas (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It's looking really good. There are still some areas that need a bit of tidying, and some areas that are in the article, ie Early Years, I assume are from your personal knowledge, but it'd be really good if you could find some info for this somewhere else, like you have with some of the other content. I've moved it into the mainspace for now. Keep working at it, it's looking good, but could be a lot better with some more hard work. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Steven... but at this point I'm left with nowhere else to turn but to delete the bulk of the "early years" section. The best I could do to verify that information would be to quote another member of my family, as there simply isn't any third party reference to any of this part of the article. Can you tell me what need to be cut to get that flag off there? I'll just delete everything except the reference to his parents if I must. Otherwise, I'd rather just delete the whole thing, as my father really doesn't need the article, as it's more for the sake of my love of history, and I know he wouldn't be happy to see that flag on top making him look like he put me or another family member up to writing the article. I really don't have the time or energy to do anything but cut stuff out now, so please help a sister out. Otherwise, I'd rather just cut my losses and delete the page. I hope you understand... no hard feelings.

Cheers, Amber --Ambercaparas (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steven! I see you removed that flag while I was cutting some of the trivial items... THANK YOU! You were right though... there really was more trivia in there than I was recognizing, so I hope I didn't end up cutting out more than you think necessary. That said, I'll likely come back and cut more after my father reads it, as he might want me to do major reductions. We'll see... whatever the case, THANK YOU for your guidance. I sincerely hope to become an editor/moderator like you soon, so maybe you can direct me how to apply? You have taught me more some invaluable stuff about WikiPedia, so I'll forever be indebted to you. As exhausted as I am, I realize it's only because the markup language and Encyclopedia tone is an education in itself... a very valuable education. :-) Cheers!

--Ambercaparas (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Amber. You've done very well. You might want to consider listing the article for review at requests for feedback as opposed to asking your father to look at removing content. As for being an editor, there is no application process. You became a Wikipedia editor when you first clicked that edit button and saved your contributions. What other interests do you have? Us on Wikipedia tend to edit a range of different articles. I'd be happy to take you under my wing and teach you what I know, but just promise you'll stick at it, OK? Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That's awesome Steven.... thank you, thank you, thank you! I've been published in a variety of media forms, but nothing touches Wikipedia, as you surely know! I'm proud to be part of the community, and I look forward to learning from you! I'm also a singer/songwriter so I have to split my time more than I'd like, but you can trust I'll never give up on being a contributor here... it's the only reason I spent the last three days struggling to figure it out! My dad was a good guinea pig for me, yes? :-) I'll definitely follow your advice and I'll try to keep him from influencing the article. He's a controversial guy so I expect there will be some activity from friends and foes alike... so that should be interesting. His brother (my Uncle) Rally should have an article too... but now that I know what I know I'm not going to write about people I know going forward, so maybe you or another editor will be interested... is there a place in the community to make suggestions like that to other contributors? This article should make it easy for Rally's to be written. I'm going to clock out now, but I'll be sure to list the article tomorrow for review as you suggested, and again... whatever suggestions or guidance you can give me, I'll greatly appreciate it! One quick question.. can I delete my comments from the discussion tab on the article? I don't want to advertise what a newbie I was when I started out, and I'd rather it not be so obvious that a family member started it. I'll check back here on your page tomorrow... sorry for taking up so much of your white space! ;-) Thanks again, and Cheers! Ambercaparas (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You could always go to articles for creation, and write the article there, that way, someone else can review it and look over it, make some changes, then move it into the article space. As for removing comments on a discussion page, we generally don't just remove comments from a talk page, we either strike them out, using <s>Strike out text</s>, eg Strike out, or archive the comments. Don't worry. Everyone was new once. Let me know when you're back around and we'll get started on teaching you some things. One last thing, you see the box at the bottom of the edit window, above the save page button? That's an area that you can type what we call an edit summary. In that box, after the text that is already in the box, briefly describe what changes you made to the page. For example, I will write "Reply" as I have replied to your message. Be as descriptive as you feel necessary, replying to comments don't need much for an edit summary, but if you make big changes to an article, explain in your edit summary what you changed, and the reasons why. Does that make sense? When you get a chance, have a read over my page that I wrote on Wikipedia policies. It gives a simple introduction on some of the more important polices on Wikipedia, just to get you going. While it's not critcial to know all of the policies right away, having a basic understanding of some of the key ones will help you along in terms of when you are editing articles. If you could, have a read of that page, and on this page, write me a brief paragraph on what you read and your understanding, in your own words, of what the page says. Add your paragraph in a new section on my talk page, when you're ready. Cheers. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is also a cheatsheet to some common wikicode used when editing, should help you out somewhat. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Adoption

Thanks Steven... I'll do that, and I'll be back soon... Cheers!--Ambercaparas (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I've already added the {{Adopted}} template to your userpage. :) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 16:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Steven! I just finished reading your article... it was awesome. I learned a lot, but the most important lesson was to be BOLD in making edits, which I really needed to hear. It not only encourages me to be a good editor and journalist in other articles, but it helps me feel good about the community's edits to my own work. I "feel" the community now, and it truly feels like I'm part of something that is important historically, and also on an artistic/collaborative level as well. I also learned I've been dropping the ball with the summary field, which I will try to avoid from here on. I see its importance big time. That said, overall you did a great job of reassuring me that I will learn as I go, and will one day be mentoring someone else. This rocks. You rock. Thanks Steven... I'm still trying to round out the Wayne Caparas article, as I had deleted important stuff concerning his music career and his notable charitable efforts, but I'm actually starting to enjoy finding my supporting documentation. It's the reason I love Wikipedia... it's legitimate info and many people are working to ensure it's the truth, and nothing but the truth. I'm already a far better journalist for this effort... so thanks again for being my mentor. Cheers! Ambercaparas (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Being bold is important on Wikipedia, but at the same time, don't be reckless ;) Using edit summaries is also very important, even if they are simple ones for minor edits, because it lets others know what are doing. Did you learn much else from the other bits on the page? Steven Crossinwt ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup... great stuff. Still going back over to learn more. Love the cheat sheet... would love to see more of that sort of info. Quick question... how can I merge (autogen?) the source citations as you did previously? I've added and re-cited a bunch of them so it needs another clean up... thanks! --Ambercaparas (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure you can. It's quite simple. It has to be the first use of the reference on the article, otherwise it will not work. Go to the first use of the reference on the page, and where you see the opening tag <ref>, replace it with <ref name ="use a good, short name for the source here">. Then, wherever else the source is used on the page, you can replace the whole citation with <ref name="reference name"/>. It's very important that you put ref name in the very first time that reference is used on the page, otherwise the references will break, which can easily be fixed, but isn't awfully hard to get right. Let me know if you get stuck (and don't forget to use edit summaries :) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Steven, I've calmed down now, as the more professional of the editors was rational in his explanations, and convinced me there's no way I can ever delete the article now that it has been released, so I'm getting back to a high road view and simply reducing it as much as possible. He's sure to accomplish bigger things in the coming years, so hopefully others will follow up and improve the article over time. Back to more constructive topics, I'm sorry to say I'm confused about your instructions above concerning the <ref> combining. I'm not as smart as I act. ;-) Thanks! --Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambercaparas (talk • contribs) 02:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:24

I'm willing to help on WP:24, as I now have access to the Lexis/Nexus database which has been long a useful source for 24. However, I don't want to help in vain, as there are users who will try to destroy everything that we work for.--Lan Di (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I've come back after a long break and I'm willing to give it a good go. See the work I've done on 24 (TV series). While I love the series, I think the best way to move forward with the 24 articles is to clean up as much plot info and add as much critical commentary, reception, and news coverage, make articles more like Janis Gold and Martha Logan as opposed to others. I'm willing and prepared to defend strong articles that we work on. What do you think? Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but there are articles that have been merged that shouldn't have. We still have a user that is addicted to ruining articles, and I can prove that they deserve to be on their own. Like I said, I am willing to get you guys the sources, as I am on break from college through the end of August.--Lan Di (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you could find some sources for the articles you're mentioning, sure, go ahead, but could you dig up as much as possible on anything related to 24 (TV series) especially for sections Premise, Impact and Reception, awards and nominations, CTU, and the design section. I've had a good look but if you've got access to archived stuff, that'd be great. Anything you can find is good, and we can sift through what's good and what's not so good later. I'm trying to get the article promoted to Good Article status, and it's not too far off of it, but I will need help. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 14:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll help. There's a lot of stuff that's been archived, and I have access to it all.--Lan Di (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That'd be great. Could you email me copies of what you find, and then we can sift through it? I dunno how else we can view the content at the same time. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

How much does access to the database cost? Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm particularly interested in more references about how 24 is produced and shot (see Design), how the series started (see Conception) and some more details about awards 24 has won. They're sections which are lacking a lot of info, or have very few or no refs. I've tried looking for a while today but with little luck, so if you could assist that'd be awesome. Cheers. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The database normally costs hundreds of dollars a month, but as a student, I get it for free. I've found some data on how 24 is produced, but I'm still sifting through the garbage and the good stuff.--Lan Di (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hundreds of dollars a month! I wanna help Wikipedia, but that's ridiculous. Let me know what you find :) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Adoption reply

Thanks for the note. I see you have a highly structured process. Is that just one possible option or simply the way you work? Cloveapple (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm flexible with the process, but the lessons that I've got work really well in teaching you the basics of Wikipedia. I actually took a similar course back when I started on Wikipedia, and look at me now. :) It's probably wise to give it a go. It's a good learning experience. Let me know what you think. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for my slow response. I've been deep in thought. What I'm most wanting help with is understanding the trek I'd have to undertake to get an article to GA. (I doubt I have the scientific knowledge to get the ones that interest me to FA, though that would be amazing if possible.) These are the sorts of questions I'm hoping you can help me with. But if you think the course packet is still the best way to proceed I'll give it a go. I may just be having a knee jerk reaction to the idea of reading more good but generalized stuff (I've been reading help and policy pages until my head spins) and to the idea of grading. So I'll do my best to get past that reaction and to engage in what you're offering. Cloveapple (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The lessons given in the adoption of a somewhat general nature, and are more tailored to a newer editor as opposed to a seasoned editor. That said, they are a series of lessons that attempts to cover as many major bases of Wikipedia, and when taking on adoptee, I like to know that when they graduate, that they have covered all the basic bases. We all have gaps in knowledge, and you might learn something. It's up to you. I don't just provide the lessons, I'm happy to also assist with any questions you have. With getting articles to GA, I can help you with advice on what sorts of stuff needs to be done. That said, the lessons are there to make sure all the basic bases are covered, but it is up to you. Some lessons are graded because there are some right or wrong answers. If you're happy to proceed, let me know, and we can get started. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I obviously need to work on my writing! I was trying to get across that yes I'm up for the process. Cloveapple (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I understood what you meant in your initial comment. I just felt my reasons needed clarifying anyway. I trust you've watch listed this page, as it is where I will be commenting from now on. When you are ready, if you could please look at this lesson on policies. While I realize you may be familiar with most of them, I still feel it best to refresh on the basics. If, after reading, you could summarise what your understanding of the policies on the page you read, in your own words in a new section on my talk page, that'd be great. Don't forget you're free to ask me any questions as well. Cheers. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I am an adoptee of Mr. Crossin. I would suggest it to anyone who is starting out here. I found his method could be best characterized as some Zen and all Tao. Indeed.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear. Cloveapple (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The above (what I wrote higher up) also still applies to you, jim. Feel free to ask me any questions you have. I'm back on Wikipedia now, for good. No more disappearing for months :) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Policy summary (lesson answer)

Some things fall under basic politeness:

• Give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are here to do good work on the encyclopedia. If an editor's actions are problematic address those specific actions without looking for some siniser motive to be lurking behind them.
• Don't trash the place.
• Communicate politely. Differences of opinion are normal and no reason to be rude.

Some are about communication and collaboration:

• It's important to sign talk page messages both to make it clear who's talking and to make responses possible.
• Use edit summaries to communicate the what or the why of an edit. Or refer people to the talk page and explain it there.
• Multiple reverts are a bad thing. Take it to the talk page. Try to find a way to work it out. There's an absolute rule of no more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, but it's best not to even head in that direction.

It's still an encyclopedia:

• Does your article topic belong in an encyclopedia? Is it just trivia? The exact way to determine notability varies by topic. (For example one of the ways you could show notability for an academic is that their work is cited in other academic work. Notability for a small species of land snail would be different.) But basicly if reliable secondary sources are writing/reporting/talking about your article topic, it has probably earned a spot.
• Sources. Articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources. For example The New York Times or a blog written under the name of the New York Times is considered a reliable source. A tabloid story about Elvis is not a reliable source. Self published work can sometimes be cited in limited situations (for example to quote a Tweet somebody makes about themselves) but aren't preferred. Everything that could reasonably be expected to be challenged or isn't general knowledge needs to be sourced, but it's ok to say that Paris is in France without citing it.
• No original research. No new ideas. No brilliant new combinations of ideas. This is really just the flip side of saying that you need to base everything on good reliable secondary sources because an encyclopedia is not a primary work.

And when in doubt use common sense. No, common sense isn't an official policy, but the encyclopedia isn't so fragile that it will break if you forget a rule or the comma in a rule. "Be bold" is just another way of saying that same thing: jump in, the water's fine, no lives are at stake, and everything's fixable. Cloveapple (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a really excellent summary of the page, really outstanding, exactly what I was looking for. Its quite clear you have a good knowledge of the core Wikipedia policies, which is great. If you could pick a required lesson from User:Steven_Crossin/Adoption/Cloveapple and do it on the sub page, I'd suggest read over the Permissions lesson and let me know when you're done so I can assess you, that'd be great. Really good work. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Editing discussions and project discussions kept quoting policies so I'd been reading policy pages just to make sense of the abbreviation soup.

I've paid less attention to permissions since they've affected my day to day editing less. (I did read a Request for Adminship all the way through, but that was because I was trying to figure out the people involved and the broader culture more than paying attention to what any permissions meant.) So I had to think more on this one. My permission answers are edited into my subpage. Cloveapple (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've marked the answers, except I need you to re-answer question 5 (the question was really old, back when the questions was written all accounts were autoconfirmed by default after their first edit) and I need you to clarify your answer for questions 9. The rest I have marked, if you could look it over and let me know when you're done, I'll finish off marking it. Rememer these are more learning exercises for me to gauge your understanding on various topics, so don't be too concerned if you have a few "wrong" answers. It's just a learning exercise. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I answered the new #5 and clarified the steward answer. (If there was something additional to clarify on #9 let me know. Otherwise I'm assuming it was the streward one.) Cloveapple (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Permissions Exercise

Hey Steven, I was a straight A student so this process is rocking my socks... love it... thanks for being a serious mentor... I obviously chose my Wiki-papi wisely! :-) First, here's my completed exercise: I have moved this to User talk:Steven Crossin/Adoption/ZomaFabrice/Lessons with some comments.

Hello, I would suggest that you have a re-read over the lesson and re-answer the questions, as some of then are a fair way off the mark. While this isn't a formal assessment, some of your answers might show that you don't fully understand the lesson. You can answer your questions next time at the proper section by clicking here and filling in your answers. Make sure you answer all the questions :) :) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As for what type of work I want to move into.... 1) I love writing biographies, and being an avid biography reader drawn to true life stories of people who are not just "famous" but actually do things that change the world but get no mention for it, I'd like to focus on some of these sorts of new biography creations. 2) I'd like to further flesh out articles that lack proper citations or simply omit info that is more notable than what is currently at that article... my addition to the USS Observation Island article is a prime example. How could its most historic accomplishment be omitted? We Wikipedians should do a lot of that for the sake of proper historical emphasis in a given article. 3) I'd like to root out incorrect historical or scientific into added to articles wherever my areas of higher learning reveal such flaws in an article, and 4) I'd like to recruit other highly educated writers and experts to join WP (my dad is a perfect example) so that we can see a burst of greater contribution. My dad is a master recruiter and activist who knows how to energize large populations to get involved in worthy causes, and he's raised me to have this gift as well, and I think the cause of growing and perfecting WP is as worthy a cause as there is on the web. I think we need more true experts participating, and I think their only stumbling block is that they are intimidated by any website that lacks idiot proof GUIs. I think the markup language here is quite simple after a while, but I'm already a Wordpress expert with some html skill but have to admit that the markup language here is intimidating to the average scholar who simply wants to write. I think I can come up with great ideas for how to promote WP to the mainstream. That's what we do in the Caparas family... we communicate to the masses in languages they already speak and feel comfortable using. That's good for starters, yes? Amber... aka --68.52.24.137 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to sign in again :), and forgot edit summary :). Writing new articles is great, obviously the subject of the article has to be notable, and it probably would be best if it was someone you don't know personally (like your dad). Adding references to articles is also great. With regards to removing incorrect info from articles, that depends. For example, if an article states incorrect info, but states that is incorrect, like, say, scientists used to think the Earth is flat, removing that scientists used to think the earth is flat would be a no-no, as it is a valid opinion in the past, while has now been disproven. Does that make sense? As for the Wikipedia markup language, I have a lesson on that one, but if you could have another go at the permissions assignment, and answer here, that'd be great. Cheers. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh... where did I forget to log in or leave a summary on an edit? I was sure I was logged in yesterday, and left a summary every time except on this talk page. Maybe my computer is logging me out? Your "flat earth" example makes perfect sense, and I totally agree. As for the permissions assignment, did I fail? I don't know what else to say unless I overlooked some small detail to a question. Could you tell me what I got wrong before I answer the questions again? Otherwise I'd likely give the same answers. Cheers! --ZomaFabrice (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to sign in and leave edit summary here. There is a setting in the login page to remember your sign in, so you don't have to login every time you close your browser. As for the assessment, I didn't grade it, but there were quite a few holes in your understanding. Have a read over what the questions are asking, and then read the lessons, I can't tell you what exactly you got wrong because I'd have to give you the answers, and that'd defeat the point of the exercise :). Read over it again and try answering the questions again, trying not to leave out anything major, and I'll grade it then, and if we encounter issues after that I can help you better understand, ok? just make sure you answer the questions on the link I provided, its further up this page. I will be on for another 15mins, its nearly 1am here so do need to hit the sack soon. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 14:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Steven... I'll be away from my PC for most of the weekend, but I'll be sure to find time to re-dux that exercise asap... Cheers!--ZomaFabrice (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Hey Steven... just checking in to let you know I'm not being a slacker... just very busy with music and ministry and holiday stuff this week... I had a great meeting with the folks at BMI and they want to promote me as a featured songwriter (yipeeee!) so I've had to burn some oil getting my catalogue together. I promise to get back on my homework early next week. Until then... Cheers! --ZomaFabrice (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

SteveBot Issue

It looks like SteveBot is having a minor issue in that it's substituting a template that it shouldn't be, namely {{Advert}}. If you look at Category:Pages_with_incorrectly_substituted_templates, you'll see numerous User talk pages that have notices about the Advert template being incorrectly substituted, most (if not all) of which were last edited by SteveBot. It's easy enough to revert those if need be, but I don't want to do that until I know that the bot isn't going to just repeat those edits. – RobinHood70 ^talk 03:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it's a manually assisted task. Yeah, that's definitely an error, I will fix up those issues now. Thanks for letting me know. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Did you want help with reverting? I can start at the end and work backwards if you'd like. Nevermind, I kinda took the initiative. :) – RobinHood70 ^talk 03:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

All fixed now, I appreciate you bringing this to my attention before I got too much egg on my face. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Funny welcome

You just posted a "Welcome" on the page of a user (Longjohn-something) who's already been indef'd. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hah, my bot was actually just susbting templates :) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I figured. It's just a fittingly ironic touch: "You're outta here! P.S. Welcome!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be quite funny. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it can take months or even years before a troll is sent to the phantom zone. Other times, it can happen so fast it makes you dizzy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

finding no-longer-existing articles?

Is there a way to find out what happened to an article that used to exist but is now a red link? I'm specificly wondering about Dairy science since it's on a list I'm updating for a WikiProject, but I'm curious in general. Cloveapple (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I took a look and as far as I can see, the article has never existed at all. Some red links are for articles that have been deleted, while others simply have never been created and are links waiting for articles to be created. On that note, when you are ready, perhaps it might be a good time for you to review the lesson on deletion and have a go at the assignment. This is a particulary important area of the assessment. When you're ready, link me to the 50 articles you tagged for speedy deletion, below, using the following template *[[Article name]] - Tagged as (insert speedy criteria here), and reasoning.. I'd also like to see you comment on a few articles at [[WP:AFD|articles for deletion. Five or so should do. Just link to the discussions here. While this is a somewhat tedious lesson, it is a key area of understanding in Wikipedia, and is important you understand these. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I knew that many red links were just suggested articles but I thought this one had once been a real article because it was on a list of articles to improve. (I've been working for awhile on cleaning up the to do list for a WikiProject.) It must have been in the wrong category from the beginning. Also thanks for the red links policy. I hadn't seen that one.

Before this assignment I'd commented on one AFD, but it was more of a question (to understand someone's rationale) than a comment. So I'd started venturing there but it would have probably been a while before I'd have waded all the way in. I've certainly never nominated an article for any kind of deletion! If anything, I've been watching the deletion process to learn how to keep articles (and pictures) out of it. (I'm following some heated discussions about pictures right now.) So this assignment is definitely going to push me way out of my comfort zone, which is probably a good thing.

Is it ok if I do the speedy deletes in several batches and then let you know when I'm done? That's work I'll want to have my full attention on (unlike some tasks I can do routinely now) and I've got a very rough schedule this next week. I'll be doing some overnight work and I don't want to be accidentally heavy handed due to sleep deprivation or trying to hurry. Cloveapple (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I've got no problem with you doing the assignment in batches. With speedys, what I'm looking for is a sound understanding of the CSD policy. I don't expect you to know it all off the bat, this task is both a test and a learning exercise. As for articles for deletion, rationales generally need to be a bit more detailed, but like I said, it's a learning experience. There's no need to nominate any articles, commenting on existing debates will be enough. When you've tagged any articles for speedy deletion, if you could just add a nrw section to my talk page titled Deletion assignment, and using the template above, list the article and what criteria you think it meets. That way, I can keep track of your progress, instead of me looking kver them all in one big batch. Same goes if you comment in a deletion debate, send me a link to your comment. But no need to rush :) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand if something like Nassau Royal meets the speedy deletion criteria of "No indication of importance." I understand that that's a lower threshold than notability. For sure there's no indication of notability, but I'm not sure about the more lenient standard. Cloveapple (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the article, to me, that article indicates importance, but not notability. While not backed up with a source, this indicates importance "In July 2007 he left for Glenstal Abbey in Ireland to record with Grammy award winner Moya Brennan (from Clannad)" and the fact he has apparently done tours also adds to the indication of importance. I'd say this is an article that could be sent to Articles for deletion, because while it does indicate importance, it does not indicate notability, but always have a look through Google/news/books/scholar to see if you can find any sources that would show notability. Hope that clears this article up. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 13:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then I understand where that line is. Thanks. So far most of what I've seen are things that are just in need of sources or a little fixing. I'm off to see if I can find the fellow some notability. Cloveapple (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, best of luck. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 15:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

24

You should mark/strike the finished "todos" on the talkpage so others can help you ;) mabdul 20:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)