|
To avoid cluttering up your talk pages, I have made this page for us to communicate about issues you want to discuss. Of course, feel free to drop a note on my talk page to alert me to anything posted here (although I'll keep it on my watched list, of course), and I'll do the same for you, but this will be helpful to keep things less cluttered, I hope, lol.  Ariel♥Gold 06:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Woohoo! My very own page, and stuff! With someone who actually knows something about WP policies, and stuff! I might start learning a thing or two now, and stuff! STUFF!!!1!11!!!eleven! ;-) --MikeVitale 12:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC) (who's in a frisky mood this morning...)[reply]
- Hahaha omg not everything, please. There is a ton of stuff I'm not that familiar with, thankfully, you fill in a major portion of that, the coding/script stuff! So frankly, I think we compliment each other. Plus, from what I've seen watching you, you're doing quite awesome, and probably don't need official adoption, but hey it is good for both of us, I can learn how to teach, and you can push me to learn along with you! And good morning Mike! It is Friday, is this why you're in a good mood? Ariel♥Gold 12:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed it to add Shir-El's name! Ariel♥Gold 07:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is somewhat selfish, but also might be helpful. I have made a "Recent Changes Patrol Guide" essay, designed for those who have little or no experience reverting vandalism, or dealing with issues surrounding page blanking, test editing, things of that nature. So, for your first "class" of adoption,  (whenever you have some time, that is) I'll ask that you go read it, both with the mind of someone who probably hasn't done a lot of this, but also, as someone I respect to give me feedback on the essay. Keep in mind it is an essay, not a guideline or policy, so anything advised there is not set down as a rule. Any help or comments, or ideas you can give, would be great, and if you can tell me how it reads for someone new to vandalism patrolling, that would rock too. I know it is long, that's something I'm thinking about, so that goes without saying. Ariel♥Gold 13:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whew! My comments are here. Enjoy! And thanks again for the article! --MikeVitale 21:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~*sneaks in, sits at the back of the classroom and listens*~ Hope you don't mind. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 21:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Timothy!! You're more than welcome to chime in, I'd love to hear your comments as well! ~*Runs off to read Mike's thoughts *~ Ariel♥Gold 00:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is so funny you think the personalized examples should be in there, because I had a few examples in it, and in fact, I have a whole set of personalized notices and warning templates that I created myself months ago, see them all here: User:ArielGold/Boxes2, but I think either someone suggested I remove it, as it might feed the trolls, or I removed it because it was making the essay too long. Either way, I'll look at putting it back in. As for the rest of your excellent eye for spotting errors, yep, just errors resulting from moving, trying to trim, reformatting it, etc. I'll fix all of those, and thanks, I don't know that I'd catch them, authors make horrid copyeditors of their own work, lol. Ariel♥Gold 00:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I'm gonna go look at those boxes now. Expect something in...a couple hours. --MikeVitale 15:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL I took DGG's advice and did some tweaking to them. I'll be interested in what you think of them, and if you find any code problems, lol. Ariel♥Gold 15:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, the boxes you've produced all look good to me. As I've stated elsewhere, the whole text thing is not my cuppa tea. One question I have for you is that in the "Inappropriate Username" box, some of your links there are in bold, and some are not. I don't see any other boxes that use bold links.
- One other thing, and it's more code-related...I edited that page to see how you made the boxes, and it looks to me like they're all coded directly on that page. Either that, or they might be subst'ed into the page...But I can't tell which one just from looking at the WikiSource.
- If I were to be using boxes like that, I would create each as its own page, which I could then {{transclude}} into the page. I would also make more of them. Perhaps that page is meant to show a "representative sample"...But I don't see, for example, 4 levels of vandalism warnings.
- Hope that you're able to make some use of these comments... --MikeVitale 21:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah they were subst'd, I probably should have translcuded them I guess. But I figured you'd probably want to see the code, so I did it so you could fix any problems, lol. And nope, I don't have all levels, because I don't use these 100% of the time. I use them for special situations, and I don't think I need all levels. I have level 1 in the most common issues, and level 4, and that's all I really need. I think templates are completely appropriate for the 2nd and third levels. If you want me to make a page with the boxes transcluded, I can. And yes Mike, I realize this isn't your "thing" (like, you wouldn't choose to do this sort of thing) and that's okay, but that is also good, because you will be more critical of them than someone who loves them, and I want criticism from people who would never use them. So thanks, m'dear! And I can't recall why I bolded some of the terms in the username box. I'll need to think about that. Perhaps it was because the original one I looked at was bolded (standard template) but I don't remember. I may change that. Thanks Mike!! Ariel♥Gold 07:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a little toolbox to the main page of this, for reference of many things, from links to various areas, to article tags and CSD tags. Let me know if you think of anything to include! And Mike, doth thou haveth any questions for me? Hee hee Ariel♥Gold 16:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome Shir-El too! I will go change my status to "full" as I don't ever want to be too busy. Not that Mike gives me much work, lol. (C'mon Mike, come up with something! ) Anyway, with Timothy here helping as well, we'll have a nice little group to all help each other out! Ariel♥Gold 14:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome to the "club", Shir-El too! Ariel doesn't bite. Much. ;-) Seriously, she's been a great help to me since I started here a month or so ago. I'm sure she'll be able to help you, too! --MikeVitale 14:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ROFL Mike, you've been more help to me with programming stuff than I've probably been to you with anything else, . Plus, I have you and Timothy here to help Shir-El too, I'd rather thing of it as a group all helping each other out, because really, that's what it is. Shir-El has already taught me some things, lol. Ariel♥Gold 15:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I have the page for my hometown on my watchlist, as I'm trying to keep it updated. I noticed that, overnight, someone edited it to add the text "where the fuck are the notable people? Fuck you faggots." Obviously, this is not referring to me, and I certainly don't take it as slander against myself. I'm secure in myself and all that jazz.
I also know we're supposed to AGF, and that this IP address has no warnings. However, how does one AGF when an edit is so obviously (IMHO) meant to stir emotions?
Has he gotten to me? Perhaps. But what's the right thing to do here? I would hesitate to call that a "test edit," personally. --MikeVitale 15:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, let's look at it technically. Is it this editor's opinion? Yes. So that's NPOV. However, it is also a personal attack. Overall, considering the context, it is vandalism, plain and simple. As such, I've reverted it, and warned the editor as a first-time vandal. But I'm not stopping there, I'll now go into their contributions, and examine those, to see if there is a pattern emerging. After doing that, I find this comment which is not especially helpful, but wasn't in article space, and I find two edits that added non-notable (red link) person "Andrew Early - poet" to two pages. So, I'd suspect that is the editor, and he'd like to be "noted" in Wikipedia. You'll see his edits to add (presumably) himself were reverted [1] [2]. So, since those edits were quite a while ago, we simply revert, warn, and move on. If he were to do 4-5 of those in a row, then WP:AIV would come into play, with a report. From his contrib history, there's not a pattern or history here, so I'd just shrug it off. Ariel♥Gold 16:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I thought I'd try to maybe structure something here, and I think one of the basic things that every editor should understand, is the Articles for Deletion process. I won't get into the process of how to submit articles for deletion, but simply the process itself.
What makes an article end up at AfD?[edit]Sometimes, people create "stubs" based on red links found elsewhere, that are in some way, related to a main article. Other times articles are created from lists, like Wikipedia:Requested articles. (And for fun, on the opposite side of that, is this one: Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create.) Of course, many articles are simply created because someone found something they want to put up on Wikipedia. Sometimes, these new articles qualify for speedy deletion (lesson for another time), but sometimes they are not obviously CSDs, and editors may choose to place either a {{prod}} template, or an {{afd}} template on the page. A "Prod" basically is like tagging the article, giving a reason (for instance, a band that doesn't meet the notability requirements for musical groups), and then letting it sit. If 5 days goes by with no objection, the article can be deleted. This is used often with short articles without references that are orphaned (few, or no links going to the article), and were created months ago with no editing, or very little editing. Note that these are just some of the reasons, and by no means comprehensive.
Now, if someone feels that a {{prod}} would be removed, or disagreed with, but they still believe that the article doesn't meet the minimum qualifications, they can submit the article for review at WP:AFD. This allows the entire community of registered editors (anonymous IPs can voice opinion, but they are not given much weight in the decisions) to comment on, (many editors will call this "voting") the article in question. It should be noted that these discussions are not a "vote". Meaning that if the end result is 12 to keep, and 13 to delete, this does not mean the article is automatically deleted. Consensus is used, and if no consensus is reached, the listing may be kept open for longer, or the article may be kept due to no consensus. However, if the majority of the community feels that it is not a valid article, or does not meet the qualifications, the article can then be deleted when the AfD discussion is closed.
So, what does all this have to do with you, you may ask? First of all, it is a great place to go to learn the basic, frequently used policies here. People will cite their reasons for wishing the article be kept or deleted, backing them up with policies. For instance, if I was commenting on a non-notable band, I'd say:
Often, people will simply say "Delete per nom", but many times, there are many policies given for the reasons someone wants an article kept or deleted, usually in the above format, with the shortcuts. It does take a while to learn all the acronyms, but going to the pages gives you the chance to maybe learn something new, as well as remembering the shortcut. This is just a great way to not only learn what people want on Wikipedia, but also what the community doesn't want. All these guidelines and policies hopefully work together, to provide a commonality to the system of what is kept and what is not. It is also just a great way to get a feel for how others interact with each other, and what works, and what doesn't. Some discussions get very intense, with strong feelings on all sides, and it is a good lesson in learning how to deal with those types of discussions, by watching others.
A great reference for "general" outcomes of specific types of articles, can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. For instance, nearly any "place" (town, city, village, etc.) will be kept, because precedence shows that all "places" are notable simply for existing. (Again, not always true, but a general guide.)
So, for an "assignment", visit Kornichuk, (perm link) read it through, and then you can either go voice your opinion if you want to, or you can just come here and say what you'd have done. (No cheating by looking at the AfD page first!) Ariel♥Gold 15:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now participated in my first AfD. Thanks, Ariel! :) --MikeVitale 22:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, Mike, I am seriously most impressed with your rationale given! That is amazing you thought to look into that aspect! Now, mind you, a good majority of AfDs can be somewhat "boring" (for lack of better term), but I thought this one provided sufficient interest, and challenge, to provide a really good example of the process to go through when examining articles. I'm glad you decided to voice your opinion, and hope you found this mildly amusing and/or helpful, hee hee. Ariel♥Gold 10:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check out my talk page, the last section. I am attempting to not get into an edit war with User talk:71.87.62.131, who has been editing the Delta Sigma Pi page with some information that I find to be POV, in addition to being non-cited. I realize that I'm not 100% impartial in discussions involving my own fraternity, so I am attempting to tread lightly here. I also don't want to go around breaking 3RR (I'm only at 1R so far...) I have posted responses/questions for this user on my talk page, and alerted him that I have replied. He responded well, I think, to the {{uw-pov1}} I gave him this morning. After his response on my talk page, he went and re-added most of the content that I had removed earlier. Not sure what to do. Give him some time to respond, of course. Not sure what the next step is after that....But I do believe that it's too soon to expect a response from him (or her, whichever). After all, not everyone sits on Wikipedia all day like you and I...
Anyway, I guess, just something to keep your eye on, if you don't mind. You don't necessarily need to step in yet, as nothing bad is happening, and I'm trying to engage this user in a civil conversation. I hope that he responds in kind.
Thanks, Ariel! --MikeVitale 22:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I've been following your talk page conversation. If you want a few more policies, be sure to mention original research and reliable sources, as well as citation and verifiability. And you have every right to either tag the statements with the {{fact}} tag, or remove them, and state in edit summary you "removed WP:OR and POV statements without WP:RS cited". The bottom line is, unsourced statements, that seem to be of an opinion, or a point of view type commentary by an editor, are not in line with the guidelines and policies here. Original research is pretty firmly removed when found, but sometimes if it sounds like it might be true, the fact tag is added, and if a source isn't cited, it can be removed until one is found. But if you do remove it, place the section you remove into the talk page of the article, explain why you removed it, explain the policies supporting the removal, and state that if a reliable, third party source is found to verify it, the section can be added back in. Would you like me to go review it? (I have followed your talk page conversation, but haven't looked at the edit specifically.) Ariel♥Gold 22:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike, It should be noted that none of the references currently in that article are considered reliable sources. Using the Delta Sigma Pi website is a self-reference, not neutral, and not third party, so at least some of those should probably be moved to an "External links" section, and news references should be found to supplement the information in the article. While a self reference could be used to establish facts like year of founding, etc., they should be avoided if at all possible. Just thought I'd let you know that, and I doubt you were the one that added all of those, and you also may be aware of this issue already, but just thought I'd point it out. Ariel♥Gold 17:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, interesting point. I'll look into that for sure. I suppose I'll need to figure out where else might be good places of reference for fraternal organizations. Of course (and this is a complete guess), the same can probably be said for most of the fraternity-related entries here on WP... --MikeVitale 17:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably, unless they are either so controversial, or so newsworthy that they've been reported in CNN, various AP sources, BBC, etc. Granted it is probably not easy to do. But, in the sense of WP:RS, the organization's site is neither third party, nor neutral. I am posting it here because I don't think it is a huge issue, as it does seem to be the norm for sororities/fraternities here, but more just to give you an idea of how it is a good idea to supplement those types of references with third-party sources, if possible. (Blogs, fan sites, forums, aren't reliable sources, so can't be used, but you probably knew that already, lol) Ariel♥Gold 17:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, about the only time that happens is negative publicity, such as hazing or death by overdrinking. Even I wouldn't want to see something like that published on WP about one of Deltasig's "rival" fraternities. I'll have to go do some research, but not original research.
 --MikeVitale 23:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What else is there to do around this place? I've found the DAB group. You've shown me the ropes on AfD. I can always come to you with a question on article-stuff, and you're right there with the answer. I've got a great adoptor, tis true. But...What's next? What's the Next Big Thing I should learn around here? Perhaps a policy? Or should newbies take part in RfAs? Something else?  --MikeVitale 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that watching and participating in RfAs would be invaluable to you, if you're willing to do some digging when offering your opinion. RfAs are not a "vote", they are offering your opinion based on the evidence of contributions. Consensus does not always equal success, as dissenting opinions are given weight by the closing bureaucrats. But, they are an excellent way to get a really in-depth idea of the depth of the infrastructure.
- If you don't want to do RfAs, and considering your programming expertise, perhaps templates would be up your alley. For instance, take a look at the {{convert}} template. It has tons of parameters, but it is missing cubic feet to cubic meters, and from what I see, nobody has any interest in adding that. Or, since that template is already so complex, perhaps taking a look at the {{ft to m}} template, could give you a starting point, and you could make a brand new {{cft to cm}} template. I actually have very little doubt that you could come up with this template, once you work out the syntax of the ft to m template, if you were so inclined.
- Another area to look at is the requests for page protection. This is another area where you can learn a lot about policies and the back-end stuff, just by watching why protections are either accepted, or declined. There is always the misc for deletion, or the categories for deletion, and of course, templates for deletion.
- If that doesn't float your boat, I can look around and perhaps come up with some other ideas. Let me know what you think of the template idea. Ariel♥Gold 23:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. You're not a 'newbie', dear, lol Ariel♥Gold 23:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. OK. So I've created User:MikeVitale/cft to cm and its associated doc page. There's no way it's anywhere near correct...But that doesn't mean it can't be made so. I suppose I need to go figure out what all those {{}} things mean, and how they're nested and all that. But in addition to that, I'd like some thoughts on what types of parameters "make sense" here. Hmmm. If you're not someone who's enough into templates to help, do you know someone who is? Thanks dahhhling. --MikeVitale 13:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've gone and figured out subroutines, at a very basic level. This is some advanced stuff, but whoever thought it was a good idea to have all those braces hanging around must be shot. So...Got some time to discuss the musings I placed in the "Planning" section of the doc that you see at User:MikeVitale/cft to cm? Basically: Is there any reason to accept 3 inputs? For that matter, what sense does two inputs make when it's not a range? --MikeVitale 21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, okay none of the last sentence made sense to me, lol. I'm not the right person to talk to. Let me find someone who can help with this, if you really want to do it. As for inputs, seems to me, it just needs two, cubic feet, and cubic meters. Other templates that want to do cubic cm/inches or something would be probably easier to make separately, but for the first project, probably just the two inputs? Ariel♥Gold 21:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, don't go "find somebody for me" please. Tell me where I can go find someone to assist me, and I'll go do it. I learn better that way. Thanks.
 --MikeVitale 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL Doh, I just asked someone I know who has template experience if they had time to help you, I didn't ask someone to fix it, but rather to explain things to you that I can't, if you want to go clarify it, it is Jimp who has extensive template experience. They may not even have the time, but if not, probably can let us know who would. Ariel♥Gold 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so if I wanted to go and find someone to assist with this myself....Without bothering you...And I didn't know anyone who was good at template syntax...I would go where? VPA? Or should I {{helpme}}? --MikeVitale 21:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doh, sorry I got my tabs mixed up and replied on your talk page, lol. Reply is here. ~*Giggle*~ Ariel♥Gold 22:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First CSD test
- Please note that these are going to be deliberately written in a variety of ways, from really poor grammar/spelling, to exceptional quality. Ariel♥Gold 22:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
