User:I Grave Rob/Adoption



Archive: Feb 2009 Howdy, I Grave Rob, and welcome to Wikipedia. First, I'd like to ask you some questions about yourself so I can see where you could be used to the fullest here on WP. If any of the questions make you uncomfortable, feel free to not answer them and delete the question (or part) you don't like. This is your right, as it is part of your userpage.

Introductory questions

 * 1) Where are you from (don't be too specific) and how old are you?
 * 2) *I am from Queensland in Australia and am sixteen.
 * 3) **I'm from upstate New York in the US. I'm 22 and I'm a graduate student in civil engineering.
 * 4) What brings you to Wikipedia?
 * 5) *I am looking to reform from being an addicted gamer to doing something fairly constructive with my time, while at the same time learning and contributing to a community.
 * 6) **For me it was the temptation to fix grammar errors. Then I ended up writing this article and brought it up to B-class status.
 * 7) ***I am proud of my school and I should plan to improve it soon. Even though I haven't improved it significantly yet I am always proud enough to check on it and remove the vandalism that makes its way onto A.B. Paterson College.
 * 8) What are your interests and what have you edited so far while you've been here?
 * 9) *I still have a passion for games, even though I am committed to not playing them this year, and have made a bit of a mark on Server Emulators and added in a cite on the Jagex page that has been needed for a while. My favourite thing to edit was Jimbo's Barnstars as there were many out of place or not in the list at all (I like things neat). At the moment I am lurking around the New pages as there are many that shouldn't last long, I try my best to accurately tag articles and my only mistake that I know of is when I tagged Donald Foley for speedy, but if you look at how it was when I tagged it I believe at the time it fully fell under db-a3 :(. Apart from that... I can't really think of any specific areas I have worked in, but also harbour a passion for Military Diving, which I don't think should be under the name Frogman >_>, as I plan to join the Navy as a clearance diver.
 * 10) **More power to you; I've never set foot on Jimbo's page (too scared!). See more comments in next section.
 * 11) Have you taken a look at any policies or guidelines yet? They are very important (we will get into that more later).
 * 12) *I have taken a look at a few including wp:crystal, wp:speedy, wp:civil, wp:BEBOLD, wp:CREEP and other basic ones, I also have spent time at wp:usurp as I came to wikipedia with a name I plan to usurp, looking around wp:rfa as it couldn't hurt to spend some time there. I have looked at many others but I couldn't claim to know them as well as I should :( I Grave Rob (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) **You seem to be pretty advanced for a new user. I'm still trying to get the WP:CSD (criteria for speedy deletion) guidelines down. In fact, it was part of the reason of my recently failed RfA.
 * 14) ***-slaps head- Thats where I remember you from, I still don't know what requirements there are for being able to vote but I did see people bringing up incorrectly speedied articles against you. It made me sad that someone who seems to have the communities best interests at hand wouldn't be allowed a chance because of a few mistakes (Which ended up almost succeeding)
 * 15) ****Anybody may vote in an RfA. But it's in your best interest to know what a sysop does and do research on a given candidate before !voting. And my attempt wasn't so much WP:NOTNOW as it was almost. Notnow is more for new users who have little experience (<1000 edits). I had a few thousand when I did mine. Not now is a reason to end an RfA early (it's basically synonymous with WP:SNOW, but more nicely put). But yea, I'm currently admin coaching and will go back through that in a couple months.
 * 16) *****If you're going to !vote at RfAs, I would suggest having a set criteria down in writing, similar to this, this, and this; especially since you're so new. Just a thought. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 09:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

General responses
Thanks for the answers; they give me the opportunity to get to know who in fact I'm dealing with! I have a few general responses you should look over.
 * 1) The most respected users typically start out as content builders. This includes adding to articles, adding citations to articles, and copyediting articles. You can also take part in new page patrol, recent changes, and wikignome type work.
 * 2) There are some policies you should skim just so you know what it's like to be a Wikipedian. First and foremost, we always assume good faith when reasonable. It is expected that any new user will be a positive addition to the project until they prove otherwise. Also, we are always civil with each other and we never bite newbies. You seem to already have a grasp of the last two; well done. In addition, we preach being bold because if you're bold, the worst thing that can happen is a revert, but typically it ends up being discussed and at least some content is added. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SPEEDY, and WP:CREEP are also important (lol, I only discovered WP:CREEP the other day!). Sometimes (not on a regular basis though) we need to ignore all rules to add to the value of WP. But, most importantly, we work on consensus. You may want to check out WP:5.
 * 3) There is an heirarchy here based solely on trust and wikipast:
 * 4) *IP users (trust per AGF)
 * 5) *established users (trust per wikipast)
 * 6) *admins (aka sysops) (trust per WP:RFA) - there are currently about 1600 (but, on that note, see WP:NBD)
 * 7) *bureaucrats (aka crats) (trust per WP:RFB) - there are currently 30
 * 8) *Jimbo and the board of directors themselves
 * 9) I would suggest being careful with speedy deletion. You may want to start at recent changes, in which you'll need to revert vandalism and then warn the given user for vandalizing (see this page for templates). Improper speedy deletions can be held against you in the future.
 * 10) I'm very impressed with you already. Your welcoming way of informing FingersOnRoids is reassuring. I'll tell you from experience that there is always something new to learn here. Nobody knows everything about WP and nobody ever will. Take advantage of your Watchlist - you'll become addicted.
 * 11) Do your best to use edit summaries.
 * 12) *I have enabled the warning for if I have an empty edit summary box so I try not to fall in the trap of not summarising :)

~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 04:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions from the adoptee
If, for any reason, you have a question for me (policy, technical, formatting, social, it doesn't matter), feel free to post it here and I'll answer ASAP. I'm watching this page, so you needn't leave a message on my talk page to tell me you have a new one. If I don't know the answer, I'll get someone that does to post the answer here. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 04:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I have started using Twinkle and would like to know if there are any downsides to using it. I Grave Rob (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) *No real downside, in fact it does help you get acquainted with the different CSD. For example, if you're unsure of what A7 is, you can go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:A7 and read up on it. That said, you're responsible for what you do with Twinkle. If you mistakenly press something and cause damage (albeit minor), it's your responsibility to fix it. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 13:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I made several pages redirect to special:log/newusers and most of them aren't an issue for me. My only question is about wp:new users where there was alot of discussion about a failed proposal that was two years old, the reference tag is at the top, but the proposal itself disappears from view. As the proposal itself, and the discussion about it remain intact, albeit the proposal can only be seen in the edit window, is there a problem with me redirecting this?
 * 4) *Not quite sure what you mean here. Care to elaborate? ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 23:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) **If you go to wp:new users which should be a soft redirect, then view it through the edit pane you will see there is alot of text that is hidden because it is redirected, or you can cut out the REDIRECT special:log/newusers and view the preview to see what it was meant to look like.I Grave Rob (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) ***Ok, I gotcha. I undid your edit. For the most part, we archive everything here and while that may have been a couple years old, it was saved for a reason. If it hasn't bothered anybody yet (or had never been created as a redirect), I assume it wasn't necessary. Also, note that this page is in the Wikipedia main space and the new user log is in the Special name space. They are separate. WP namespace is kept for policies and guidelines. Good intentions, but apparently not what the community needs. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 23:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) ****Ok, I see your point, but I couldn't make a page like special:newusers etc. redirect to the log, because I can't create it.
 * 8) *****Right. Mere mortals such as us don't have that power. Best to stick with vandal fighting and content building, is where I'm getting at. :-) ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 00:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Should I continue giving new users welcoming cookies? I noticed that they are highly ignored as there isn't even a userbox for people who think of themselves as a welcoming committee and when I go there each time the whole page is filled with red on their talk pages or user pages. I just go through the pages and put in {subst:welcomecookie|me=I Grave Rob}I Grave Rob (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) *In my opinion, you're better off welcoming users that have already made edits. Going through the new user log will get you on a wild goose chase with many people who will never use their logon again. Try going through recent changes and look for editors who have a redlink username and talkpage. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 23:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Agenda
Adoption usually is somewhat like coaching. I plan on giving you general tasks to make you a net positive to WP. They will be small and not too time consuming, but will give you experience in essential areas of WP. Have fun!

Assignment 1
Assignment: Insert a verifiable source into an article that interests you to make it more trustworthy as an article. Insert a link to the article diff below, under Outcome. An article diff is what you see when you click on History of an article, then choose between two versions. It will show what you added compared to what was there before. Just copy the link and place it below. Your citation must be in the format (see WP:CIT below) and must be as complete as possible. Questions: Outcome:Micro-encapsulation I know this wasn't a good example but it honestly only had one citation in it =|
 * Sources:
 * WP:V
 * WP:RS
 * WP:CS
 * WP:CIT
 * Take a look at this revision I made. Always include an accessdate |accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD . Otherwise nice work. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 23:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you did there, WP:CIT didn't have I didn't see |publisher= used in the example for web pages, maybe it needs updating :), also there are a couple of new questions up a section you might not have seen. I Grave Rob (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Assignment 2
Assignment: Reformat all references in Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama's senate seat into format. Use reference #1 as a guide (in addition to your sources from Assignment 1). Since they are all live links, it's just a matter of formatting. This will be your last citation assignment. Even though news articles online are on the web, you still use the format (it's better respected). It's best to list the publisher as its parent company (i.e. Fox News, not Foxnews.com). There are some already-formatted citations that do not follow this convention and must also be fixed. Also, if there is no author listed (which is common), do not include it. Questions: Outcome: Finished :)
 * I don't like putting "Exclusive" at the start of the news cite as it seems that there are several with the same exclusive video. Is it alright if I replace the exclusive with article?
 * You're right; I removed that (and "Article:"). These titles are unnecessary. Be as blunt and to the point as possible. If someone follows the link, they'll end up figuring it out themselves.
 * Also, I noticed that sometimes the information in the text relates more to the recorded footage, as opposed to the actual article in question, which leads me to think the reference shouldn't be about the article as such; but about the footage which is displayed on the same page as the article. Also the article doesn't contain quotes etc. of the text that the wikipedia editor is referring to. Am I thinking too much and/or is this something that nobody else will ever care about/notice once it is stuck nicely into the format? I Grave Rob (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You want to be correct in your reference. If the quote is in the video, that's fine (I didn't check). I would probably still ref it as a news article even with a video. Users are free to watch the video if they care to.
 * Sources: See Assignment 1.
 * I made a start and would like to know if I'm on the right track. You have my sincere apologies in advance if I don't make much headway this week as several assignments and drafts are already due over the next fortnight. I Grave Rob (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice job. I consolidated the references since many of them are used multiple times. The way you do that is naming the reference. When you start the reference, do this: . Then when you want to call that reference again later in the article, just type . In fact, it doesn't have to be the first instance of the ref that has to have the info. It could be near the end of the article and many calls to it could come before. Have a look at how I consolidated the refs in that article.
 * I still haven't finished the one you asked me to do but I might have demonstrated more citing here. I don't know why but I found it 'far' easier to cite my own text that I put in rather than to follow somebody elses links and do that. :-( I still will try and get the cite's in for what I was assigned sometime this week. I Grave Rob (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, it's hard to figure out what others are thinking sometimes, which is why it's essential that citations be as full and correct as possible so they can be understood by anybody that is using them. You're almost done, you've only got two more to go! Good luck on your school work this week.
 * I was literally working on the last two while you must have been doing it, then I go to submit and get error conflict which causes me to pause and watch what you were doing. I had seen references consolidated on other pages but didn't know how to do it myself, but when I looked at what you did I was able to implement that in the last two :) I Grave Rob (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. And it's always nice to be appreciated for your work! ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 19:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Assignment 3
Background: You've mentioned that you enjoy patrolling new pages. This is always welcome, as we always need help in this area. That said, it's a touchy subject for many users, causing a split between the inclusionists and the deletionists. Be careful what you delete and be sure to use the correct criterium for deletion when doing so.

Assignment: To begin with, I'd like you to go through the new page patrol to find three pages that should be deleted (in your eyes) and request their deletion. Don't request deletion for them just to finish this assignment though. Take the time to find three legitimate CSDs. Feel free to take your time; I'm well aware that this may take some time for you since there are many speedy deleters out there that may take your opportunities away (they're very quick at what they do). Provide a link and your rationale for deletion. Once deleted, neither of us will be able to see the page again; not to worry, admins can, and I'll ask a friendly admin to copy+paste the article so we may review it later.
 * Sources:
 * WP:CSD (specifically the general criteria and article criteria)
 * WP:AFD
 * WP:PROD
 * WP:WIHS
 * WP:FIELD

Questions: Outcome:
 * 1) What about an article that I saw had some reliable sources to verify the subjects notability, even though the formatting ended up horribly. When I tagged it as having some reasonably worthy sources but it needed gerneral wikifying I got an edit conflict saying that an admin had deleted the page, which led me to look and it was deleted for G3. What is your opinion on the article, even though the writer was writing about himself. Personally I think that the article definately not have been deleted as G3, and there was enough evidence of notability for it to have at least gone through AfD instead of being taken out through CSD. What is your opinion on the article on V. J. Manzo? I Grave Rob (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) *This is a great example of just on the cusp but leaning in the CSD zone. Deletion was the right thing to do but it was done in the wrong way (IMO). If this violates any of the criteria it would be A7, for being a non-notable musician (which we see all too many of). I can't see the history of the page, but I'd be willing to wager that the author of the article was the person the article is about; this is an obvious violation of WP:COI. If he's notable enough, someone will write about him someday. In addition, almost all of his references go to his homepage, more COI. The only close-to-verifiable source is the one from Kean. This boils down to a college music professor who has out-of-work hobbies, like any other college professor. I would say he won't be notable until a song of his is notable or if his software becomes successful (or gets its own page for that matter; a piece of software almost always gets an article before its developer). I would have speedy-deleted it, but you could always go with a prod if you're not comfortable or sure. Good question. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 03:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Pages tagged
 * 1) Here is one that was very obvious. I don't want that page connected to me, it annoys me, and that is why I replaced it with . You can look through the edit history to see its original state.   I Grave Rob  «talk» 03:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Here is another one I found, all deleted pages I post as part of my adoption will have their content replaced with and you can find their original state in the edit history.  I Grave Rob  «talk» 06:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Another one. This time I wasn't sure and nearly tagged it as R2 but as it wasn't a redirect and consisted of a redlink I assumed good faith and tagged it as G2. I Grave Rob  «talk» 06:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) This one would definitely have fallen to   if it was around but as it was I felt the best thing for it was G3. Do you think that was the best course of action for tagging or was there a more appropriate existing criteria?  I Grave Rob  «talk» 06:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) *I agree with you on all of those. Nice work on the third one; always AGF! ~  ωαdεstεr 16  ♣ kiss mei'm Irish ♣ 15:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Assignment 4
Background: As I think you're aware, when an article is not clearly worth deleting on site, it can be prodded or AfD'ed. Unfortunately, a prod is not something I can ask you to go out and find; it's really a situation you must find yourself in in the future. AfD, on the other hand, is something I can ask you to take part in. AfD uses user consensus to decide whether or not a given article should exist. "Consensus" in this case is a bit of a judgement call by the closing admin. Despite WP:OWN, users that really feel an article should exist (namely the author(s)) will fight vehemently for their article. It is up to the rational admin to determine consensus on basically a judgement call. AfD can benefit from other uninvolved users !voting to give a more general perspective on the article. When unsure about deleting an article in the future, be sure to keep Prod and AfD in mind because if you delete without consensus on a borderline article, it can be held against you in the future. A couple proposals over there will offer you more trust from the community because it shows you know and respect policy.

Assignment: Head over to AfD and weigh in on three ongoing nominations. Make sure that you're uninvolved with the article (i.e. neutral) and make sure to give a good, thorough, and well-written reason. Good reasons are liable to sway the deciding admin (just saying "Keep" or "Delete" with no reason will typically be roughly ignored).
 * Sources
 * WP:AFD
 * WP:PROD
 * WP:WIHS
 * WP:FIELD

Questions:

Outcome:
 * 1) Orange Avenue (band) Was this an example of a reason that is liable to sway the deciding admin?
 * 2) *Not bad, but next time be sure to reference your claims (i.e. the Crystal Reel). Now find one where your vote may affect the consensus. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  ♣TC♣ 00:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)