User talk:Joe Gazz84/Archive/2010/July

Talkback

Hello, Joe Gazz84. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--21:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Joe Gazz84. You have new messages at H Rockies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--H Rockies (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I just spent an hour creating the freedom4 page and you have just deleted it! what are you doing???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbcunliffe (talk • contribs) 11:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Kartelon Tanga

Sorry mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmetmcl67 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Help Request

I want a template like talkback to show up as the template code not the actual template
{{tb}} —mono 01:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

AAC Account Creation Interface

I requested an account on the AAC account creation interface on toolserver.org. Username: Joe_Gazz84

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. Unfortunately I was unable to process your request. The ACC tool is a powerful program, and at the present time your account is either too new for us to determine whether you would know how to properly use the tool or that you have not attained the necessary level of trust to be granted access. Please don't take this personally and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. FunPika 20:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The ACC Tool is much more serious then Rollback and Reviewer. If you mess up using those 2 tools it can be reverted/revoked without much effort. You mess up at ACC then we can have extremely confused newbies (confused to the point that they may be scared away from editing the encyclopedia). We can't just revert a newbie being scared away from editing the encyclopedia due to confusing and inconsistent Emails being sent out via the tool. I would prefer to see more experience before giving you access to ACC. FunPika 20:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What more experience?? What can I do, I can't create accounts without this tool that is confusing me. Joe Gazz84 (user)•(talk)•(contribs) 20:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally my preference is around 1000 edits and 3-6 months editing. Right now you are at 336 edits and somewhere between 3 and 4 months. FunPika 21:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. 21:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Asking Fastily again to give you Account Creator rights [1] after he already declined to do so 8 hours earlier is not the way to go about joining the Account Creation Team. Fastily is a Wikipedia admin but he is not an Account Creation Team/Tool admin and as such he can not approve your request to work in account creation. FunPika, who is an Account Creation admin, has already said that he looks for users to have about 1000 edits and 3-6 months experience. If the edits demonstrate a clear comprehension of relevant policy i could accept a lower total edit count. While i see the points raised on FunPika's talk page [2] about your clean record and willingness to help requesting the account creator right [3] when you are not (yet) active in account creation is out of proper order. Account creator rights are given based on trust and demonstrated need.

To show comprehension of relevant policy you could patrol the new accounts log and report wikipedia:user name policy violations at wikipedia:usernames for administrator attention or/and you could review the guidelines at wikipedia:changing username/Simple/Assistance and study some of the more recent wikipedia:changing username/Simple/Archives and clerk at requests for changing user name. The only requirements for either WP:UAA or WP:CHU are that you know the policies, guidelines, and procedures before you do any editing in those areas. Participation in either or both of those areas are generally seen as good when reviewing an application to join the Account Creation Team.

You were advised to gain more experience before being reconsidered for the Account Creation Team. Stwalkerster also declined your application via email a little over two days ago. Sixty additional edits is not what was meant. At this time i too am declining your application. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question from my talk page,[4] properly reporting accounts that violate the user name policy to UAA or noting such on a change of user name request shows that you understand the user name policy, which is the fundamental policy we work with in Account Creation. Accounts created by the Account Creation Team have a "seal of approval" regarding the user name. Showing that you can spot the inappropriate ones that have been created by the users themselves or are requested at renaming and appropriately deal with them demonstrates that you can be trusted to not approve inappropriate user names. A few of us at Account Creation can also be found from time to time clerking at CHU or reporting names at UAA as we happen upon them. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 11:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer your additional question on my talk page, [5] at CHU non-bureaucrats review requests for any conflicts on other languages, check if a name is promotional, too similar to an existing account, or any other concern so that the user name get a response as soon as possible and so that the bureaucrats, who are the ones who perform the actual renaming of accounts, can have any concerns readily noted for them. For an example see my clerk note and the follow up from Excirial on the request from the user who primarily edits on Korean Wikipedia.[6] I made a very quick note so that bureaucrats would know the person primarily edits the language in which his user name is written in. Excirial followed up with options on what the person can do here to make it easier for other users. I provided a link to the CHU clerking rules/guidelines in my initial post; the page is titled "Assistance". Not every request to change names requires clerk notes or comments; they are only added when there is an issue that needs to be brought to the attention of the respective users being renamed or/and to the bureaucrats. While clerking there is open to anyone i do strongly urge you to review both the assistance page and some recent archives to see how things are done there before you look into clerking there. Incorrect clerking is not taken fondly as it can create more issues than initially brought the person to request a change of user name in the first place. Still, mistakes at CHU are usually more easily resolved than an error at Account Creation.

Account Creation and Changing User name are similar in that in both you would review the request for any issues. At ACC you would grant or decline the request for the account while at CHU the bureaucrats make the final decision on granting or declining the request for renaming. Generally the same guidelines are followed at ACC and CHU. The guidellines at UAA are a bit different so please do familiarise yourself with them too. If you can show you know how to do one then it is likely you would be competent at the others as well.

In assessing a request to join Account Creation Team we do not look at just a handful of edits or edit count alone. If someone has a lot of experience in something else that too is considered. A pattern of behaviour in working with user names usually takes a couple of months to clearly establish as you will not find user names to report to UAA or CHU requests to clerk everyday as someone else may have already done so in any particular instance. That is why the standard reason for declining an application includes suggesting taking a few months to gain more experience. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 12:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Xenophasia

Hello Joe Gazz84, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Xenophasia, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —fetch·comms 21:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:DEFACTO, please. Species are inherently notable and you should never speedy a legitimate article about one. In any case, "context" means the article says "X is a this thing", which it clearly did--it is a genus of flies. —fetch·comms 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. :-) Joe Gazz84 (user)•(talk)•(contribs) 21:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)