User talk:Kevon kevono/Archive 3

This may be of some help to you. I'm still working on it, but there are some basic steps to get started, and you may want to add it to your watchlist so you can see the updates as I keep writing it. --Rs chen 7754 07:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Am I allowed to contribute to this essay/help page? Kevon kevono (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC) (What the hell is UTC?) 14:11 (PT)

If you have minor corrections, you can make them, but I'd rather you waited until I at least had a chance to finish it.

--Rs chen 7754 21:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Self-published sources

You should take a look at WP:SPS, but the short version is that we generally should not be citing self-published sources. Specifically, the California Highways site, like other roadgeek websites, should not be used. It would be a better idea if you could find better sources to use instead of relying on that website. Imzadi 1979 → 07:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Kevon kevono! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 21:50, Thursday, May 5, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Kevon kevono! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 21:51, Thursday, May 5, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

A bit about article rankings

Kevin, How wikipedia ranks articles is a bit of a mess. It evolved over time, and makes sense if one understands the evolution, but almost everybody admits it is overly complicated. GA and FA rankings are special in that they are assigned by the wikipedia community at large. The other grades, Stub, Start, C, B and A class are assigned by each wikiproject that decides an article is under their wings. The lower ranks (B and below) can be assigned by any person who chooses to evaluate the article against the ranking criteria. However, GA, A and FA ranking is never done by one person alone, there are review processes where those articles receive those rankings.

Bottom line, I don't know if U.S. Route 50 (Nevada) is still an FA class article. It was promoted years ago, and standards have toughened since then. Also as US 50 has evolved, there have been peacemeal updates to the article since it was reviewed. However, as Imzadi said, if you longer feel it meets the criteria the way to do that is to assemble a list of arguments as to why it longer meets the criteria and nominate that article at WP:FAR. You will have a better chance at having someone review your nomination if you help review other articles. Almost all of these process pages have a backlog of more nominations than editors willing to review other articles.

Last but not least, be aware that some of these process pages can be a bit of a lion's den. I don't know about Featured Article Review, I haven't nominated an article in a while, but some of these internal processes are where axes get ground between academic elitists, people with political agendas, people with "nerdy" interests, and a whole host of different philosophies that exist among this ball of chaos that creates miracles that is Wikipedia. Best of luck and cheers, Dave (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

To add to that, it's best to try and fix a featured article before you try and get it demoted. California State Route 78 I started writing in high school, and got it promoted to FA status in 2009, but I had to rewrite large parts of the article in 2013 as it was no longer up to standard. --Rs chen 7754 18:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dave, btw my name isn't kevin. Thanks for the advice though. Kevon kevono (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC) (What the hell is UTC?) 14;14 (PT)

I"ve reverted your FAR nomination as out of process. There are three steps to the process, and you skipped the first one.

Initiate a talk page discussion about the deficiencies. This needs to be specific enough, and open long enough, to afford interested parties the time to fix the concerns raised. Typically you have to wait a minimum of two weeks without progress before proceeding.
If that has no success, then you can open the FAR where the wider community gets involved. This stage is also designed to fix deficiencies and retain the FA star on the article. This step also lasts a minimum of two weeks, but it can also last longer if there is progress being made toward fixing the article.
If the FAR coordinators agree, they'll move the nomination from FAR (Feature Article Review) to FARC (Feature Article Removal Candidates). It's only at this stage that things turn into an up or down, keep or delist, voting period about the ultimate fate. Such a vote doesn't suspend any continuing efforts to improve the article, and if it's finally fixed enough, the star is kept.

You incompletely jumped from step 1 to step 2 without giving specific reasons why you feel the article is no longer up to expectations. You also jumped to the next step without giving people time to fix things, as required by the process. If you had actually opened the FAR nomination, in a day or so, one of the coordinators would have seen your incomplete efforts and shut it down with instructions to follow the rules. Imzadi 1979 → 22:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

My apologies Kevon, for botching your name. I agree with Rschen and Imzadi's comments, if the article can be fixed, let's fix it. De-listing the article is more appropriate when wikipedia politics or things like article instability make it impractical or perhaps impossible to fix. I don't see that as a factor here.Dave (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test/legacy— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test/legacy. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been or will be undone. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 22:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)