User talk:JTZegers/Archives/2021/April

Archives

Reverted edit

Thank you for reverting my edit. I hadn't known that it had already been determined and I saw the edit as vandalism by just blanking the page (there also seemed to be no edit summary). Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze The Wolf: Next time, look at the discussion before you revert.--JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 19:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I had jsut filtered the recent changes for the most recent revisions and most likely bad faith which lead me to believe it was just vandalism. I also hadn't even known there was a discussion. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze The Wolf: I just cut and pasted the content into the article that it's being merged into.--JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 19:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EARLY

The WP:EARLY closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's Theatre Pantomime, of which you are the nominator, after less than 30 hours listing is breathtakingly unwarranted. Have some patience, let the process take its proper course and let an uninvolved party make any such judgement come the appropriate time. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt Lunker: Geez, I better watch out before the edit wars come in.JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 22:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never close your own AfD nominations unless you are withdrawing. And nothing that is not withdrawn can be closed after a single day. Wait for at least 30 days, then let someone else assess the outcome and close, then implement consensus. Mutt Lunker was entirely correct with both reverts. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what you mean by "I better watch out before the edit wars come in", but yo wanna be taking AfD more seriously. I know you've just been told to do more "adminny things", but I've just reversed your closes of two AfDs which were egregiously poor (here and here). IMHO, what you should have been advised was to spend more time gaining experience all over the project, not just in admin-areas: with over 75% of your energies going onto your user space (and most of that is gussifying your user page), you should probably slow down, work on articles, and learning what it is we are actually doing here. Not prettying-up user pages; not "leveling up"; not creating more work for other people than you have to, but building an enclopedia first and foremost. ——Serial 16:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I also said he needed an order of magnitude more edits across diverse namespaces to have any remote chance at RfA. Nevertheless, he should get on that and not worry about RfA for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm: it's been an on-going problem since last May apparently. Pinging User:Ponyo. ——Serial 18:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: I've got my hands full with a startling similar circus of issues at the moment. I'm not sure I have the fortitude to start looking at what's happening here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: It was worse back then. Remember when I accidentally nominated the main page?JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 18:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Wolfson: Well, I have done improvement on 2020 Google services outages, I guess that's not enough. Thanks for appreciating my enthusiasm, and for helping me learn to escape "scandals" and becoming more experienced. JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 17:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to "level up" on Wikipedia, here's what you can do.

Pick an article (if you want my help, it must not be related to Google or American Politics). If you can't pick one yourself, I suggest something like Bolivia or Tree frog.
Improve it.
Ask for comment/review on your improvements.
Repeat several times.

After that, you can start to look at more "admin"-y things (note that most "admin" things don't require you to pass an RFA). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know this has been repeated many many times before, but get RfA out of your head and start taking Power's advice of focusing exclusively on content. I'd recommend picking a topic that interests you and making it a Good Article; not only will you get acquainted more with our content policies where applicable, it'll give you experience as a content creator that will help you in the long run. In the meantime, don't go anywhere near deletion processes like AfD or PROD; I know you're trying in good faith, but you're just not good at it. I'd say once you have at least two Good Articles (or one, if you're really ambitious but I don't recommend going there as a beginner, Featured Article), then you can maybe start going back into adminny areas like counter-vandalism, much of which doesn't require the mop. If you still really want to be an admin, you can then closely read our deletion policies and cautiously get back into AfD; you'd probably need to take a lot of time (at least 6 months) in that field to make up for the messes you have created to date and clear off consequent major reasons to sink an RfA. Then, when you've done all of that, get an experienced admin to vouch for you and nominate you. Overall, if you're really serious, this should take 1-1.5 years from now. Don't get too discouraged; it took me a year after joining Wikipedia to seriously consider an RfA run, and another one to actually get the mop. More importantly, there's more to Wikipedia than a simple bit that lets you do a few things, and quite a few Wikipedians respect content creators far more than they do admins; it's called the "mop" for a reason. Hope this helps! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC) @John M Wolfson:-And so I joined some WikiProjects and am helping to improve the articles that are under their scopes. Thanks for the advice.JTZegers^Speak[reply]
_Aura 19:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luison

I have speedy-closed your AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luison per WP:SKCRIT#3. [1] is linked in the article, and is clearly substantial coverage in a source that is not Fandom. As the only rationale given for deletion was that Fandom is the only source, a speedy keep is appropriate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Usman Nurmagomedov. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]