User talk:Darth Mike/Archive 3

Bob McHugh article
This article has been edited for your review. McBaily —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcbaily (talk • contribs) 04:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry about what i did but its just that i have an obssession for poo and would like to spread it across the world. I know that you may hate poo but i live, bath and eat in it. It is my whole life, I live in Italy and this is truly what they eat i just cannot believe you could not show these true facts and i am truly saddened by this so i will head help from the italian officials of the head state since my father and brother are in the international state office for help against what you have done too me and my precious beloved poo. Please reply or action shall be done!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Togetherwelovepoo (talk • contribs) 09:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC) i love poo this is my revenge

A quick run through
showed no problems EXCEPT, I would back off on the Huggling. Spend more time creating, expanding, sourcing, improving articles. I saw successful AIV reports and appropriate warnings. Looks like you are already doing what I recommended. Always at AFD show that you have carefully reviewed the article in question, checked for sources, checked for verification of notability and make sure your reasoning is clear and based in a knowledge of policy. I did not look at CSD yet. maybe later. maybe tomorrow.

You look to have great potential. You need to go through articles to be Vilified, expanded, sourced and make significant, more-than-adding-a-template edits. I for one keep a list of articles I've created and one of articles I've wikified. It is not immodest. It helps the community properly gauge your work. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  01:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Csd's-- I see a lot of accurate CSD taggings-- a good start. Be careful though of "hasty deletion" tagging. Rather than tagging an article that is less than 15 minutes old, it would be better to watchlist or bookmark and then return to it for further review. If an article just has an infobox, read it carefully. It may contain sufficient information to not meet CSD criteria. Any company with 12,000 employees and billions in revenue is probably notable.

I would recommend slowing down a lot. I've seen some articles tagged that do assert notability, and some that did not but were detagged by the creator. The overall impression is that you are rushing through to build an edit count but not taking due care. You need to wathlist articles you tag to make sure they are not detagged inappropriately and to make sure they are not improved to the point of no longer being speedy material. Also, if you watchlist you can get some quality control-- you can look back and see the one's that were deleted/deletion declined by an admin. Hope this helps. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  16:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My Two Cents
Per your request, I've taken a stroll through your contributions. Let me preface by saying that I'm not necessarily the best one to ask for a review, but I'll still offer my opinions. Just make sure to solicit opinions widely.

First, let me say that if RfA is a "goal", that by itself is sort of a red flag for people evaluating a candidate. It almost seems like becoming the pope, in that seeming not to want it is better than actually wanting it. There's nothing wrong with thinking you can do more for the project as an admin - it is truth, after all, if you use the tools properly - but to be seeming to want to be an admin as a goal is considered a negative.

Second, it looks like a bunch of your recent edits are huggle-based edits. I personally have no opinion on this, but I can tell you that some editors definitely look down on this as a means of editing. The thinking goes like this: "anybody can push that revert button and a large number of huggle-edits doesn't make a good editor or admin." I'm paraphrasing, of course, but I've seen it many times. It seems to me like you're trying it on for size to get some experience - which I personally view as good - but if you had an eye on a future RfA, I'd wait until the Huggle edits fade a bit into the background.

Editors considering users for adminship look for breadth of experience - which you show. I think there are plenty who view building the encyclopedia as being the primary reason we are all here. Vandalism fighting is secondary. Blocking is secondary. Reporting vandals and deleting pages and templates and the like are all secondary. It's always about the content and making it better. My own personal opinion is that too many editors are focused on creating NEW content when there is so much existing content that could be improved, but it all boils down to the same general idea: make the encyclopedia better. So, you would want to be prepared to provide examples of contributions to the project.

I like your contributions at WP:AFD, although I would say that some editors would say that there's a lot of alphabet-soup in there. Much "per WP:V" or "per WP:NFF" or similar, which is better than a plain "delete", but not quite as good as "fails WP:NOTE as no assertion of notability exists in the article, and I cannot find any reliable sources in searches at X, Y, and Z".

If I had to pick a diff to ask you to improve, it might be this one, because of two problems: it doesn't explain your reasoning beyond a Wikilink, and you didn't sign it. It's fine to reference a policy, but explaining how that policy applies to your reasoning is better. Of course, signing and providing an edit summary for all your edits is kind of a given. I didn't check for that but hopefully you're doing that as a default. The signature is probably an oversight; just make sure to keep that up.

Overall, I think you're on a good path and I think you are making great contributions to the project. I am imagining you have an eye on adminship, which I think is appropriate for you. With that thought in mind, and having examined that process for the last six months or so, I would say that you would face a bunch of people who would say you've done great work, but we would like to see more of it, rather than any real objections as if you've done something "bad". I have explicitly not looked at your previous RfA because I am not assuming that's the reason you asked me to look over your contributions, and because you're quite capable of looking it over yourself. I don't want to appear to be coaching, as I'm not an appropriate person to do that, and I honestly don't think you're really after that. I recall reviewing your contributions and offering you support because your edits look great - just what this project needs. I want to encourage you to continue that. If you have any ideas of becoming an administrator later, I say "keep up the good work" and let's give it some more time.

Again, I say to keep in mind this is one editor's opinion. Frank |  talk  00:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with what Frank said. Had I not been falling asleep I would have urged making a number of not assisted edits before turning on the tools like Huggle. I'll look through later, after House. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  00:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos
Most of the photos I've uploaded are my own. I have uploaded a few from flickr. Check the description page if you want to know, as it says there whether I am the author or not. Thanks --liquidGhoul (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry for my annoying responces i promise i will not say no more and i actually do not love poo.--Togetherwelovepoo (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

ER
Cool. I really look forward to your next RFA. I think you've got great potential. You might want to read some of the oppose votes in RFA's of others and ask one or two of the more well spoken of the opposers for ER's from the standpoint of self improvement. There are a lot sharper people than I am in the RFA cabal, and their advice could be very beneficial. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  20:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick Rundown
The biggest two issues folks had, IMHO, were the giant gap in time between editing, and lack of "adminly" areas. I see you vandal thwacking, which is awesome... but there will always be folks who have problems with Huggle. I notice that you might have a full day of thwacking, and then move on to improving articles, adding CSDs, AfDing. Thats a good way to get well rounded. Nice AIV reports, people love seeing that.

In the end, as long as you keep your head down, dont piss anyone off, dont do anything controversial, and keep up the activity, then adminship will be the next logical step. You might wanna look into actual Admin coaching. User:Balloonman is usually the dude I see doing it, although there are others I'm sure. I dont want you coming into this whole arena thinking, straight off the bat, that you want to be an admin. I had that pipe dream early on in Feb... until I actually looked at the mob scene that is RfA. And of course, I'm pretty opinionated, and wouldnt be able to pass one even if I did have all the "adminly" areas covered and fully understood.

Quick question... I didnt notice, but do you has rollback? If you dont, go ahead and contact User:Acalamari. She's a good admin who likes to ive folks a chance to prove themselves with that extra button.

Keep up the good work dude. Dont go for anudder RfA until a goodly amount of months have passed and you've talked to other admins about possible co-noms. I'd probably give you a support, but you dont want me co-noming anyone. I'd probably taint. :P  Qb  | your 2 cents  12:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll be glad to grant rollback if desired. Frank  |  talk  14:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Actually, it was already done on 2 August.  Frank  |  talk  18:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

re Articles for deletion/Devil's Weed
The article has been updated. As I mentioned at the deletion discussion, I'm now unsure if it meets the notability standard. Please take another look and see if you are still of the opinion that it should be deleted. I have no opinion either way. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

use of fact tags on biographical articles
i noticed that you objected to the use of fact tags on Willie Colón and linked to Template:Fact. but the restriction is against using fact tags on contentious material. can something unsourced and also not controversial? — Chris Capoccia T&#8260;C 06:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

if the only requirement for "contentious" is lacking a source, should all the biographical articles without any sources be put up for deletion instead of tagged with unreferenced? — Chris Capoccia T&#8260;C 06:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the needing of a tag makes it contentious. --  Darth Mike  ( Talk • Contribs ) 20:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * so Bert Johnson, Eddy Ouwens, Frank Pietri and many others should have been voted for deletion a long time ago? currently, they're sitting in Category:Articles lacking sources waiting as WikiProject Unreferenced Article Cleanup slowly works through the backlog.  — Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 21:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT comes in to question on those articles and the material I removed on Willie Colón, if someone deletes those articles, I wouldn't object. --  Darth Mike  ( Talk • Contribs ) 22:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

LBP box art
Hi. I re-added the British/European box art to LittleBigPlanet because I thought it should probably be considered under the same guidance as WP:ENGVAR (the article is written in British English). Hope you agree. Anyway, I've asked about it on the project talk page if your interested.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 07:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't bother me one way or the other. --  Darth Mike  ( Talk • Contribs ) 13:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Your 2 yr ago thought on the RR united talk page
Hi, in 2006 you left a comment asking if you should reorganise the 2 sections into 1 so its better...was a great idea and i just wondered what happened? 1 other wiki user agreed with you that it would be good earlier this year. Im sure no idiot will mess with it once its done so im just shouting you to say please go ahead with your 2 yr old plan haha nice one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.13.216 (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:LittleBigPlanetOfficialUSBoxArt.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:LittleBigPlanetOfficialUSBoxArt.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)