User talk:LampGenie01/December 2019

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy tagging
Please don't tag any more articles for speedy deletion. You don't have enough experience.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC) a
 * As you wish, although how you expect me to gain said experience by sitting on my arse doing nothing, I don't understand. I'll consider myself bitten. LampGenie01 (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a very constructive response. Also, you don't need to leave a TB message on my Talk page. Your Talk page is now on my watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a particularly constructive comment to make in the first place. If you ever feel the need to let me know how to gain said experience, then by all means, do share. Telling me to simply "not participate" is a joke, especially when I want to help. LampGenie01 (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Having seen the above, may I just add that a sensible and really good way to gain experience of anything like CSD, or AFD discussions, is first to carefully read through the guidance pages for those activities (eg Criteria for speedy deletion and then to pick articles that others have put forward for deletion, consider how you personally view them, then see how things turn out for that article. By comparing your view against the eventual outcome you can learn a lot, especially if it goes the other way to what you thought would happen. There's a list of all current 'speedies' you can keep an eye on at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Or you could pick on any editor and look at their CSD and/or AfD statistics, and see how their individual AFD votes or CSD recommendations tallied with the final decision. You can look at mine if you want to, AFD here, and CSD here. Assuming you've enabled Twinkle to faciliate quick and effective tagging, it's a very good idea to tick the Twinkle preferences to create both a CSD log page for yourself, and a PROD log page (see here). I would also say that of all the deletion processes, AFD is perhaps the safest one to participate in. But personally, I think all relatively new editors should focus on content creation, not content deletion until they are pretty experienced. Nobody likes to be thought of as a 'bull in a china shop' - but we do sadly get a lot of that. I'm pleased to see you want to change tack in how you contribute.
 * I would add that I've not checked what you've been putting forward for CSD, but when another editor or admin comes to your talk page with a request not to do something, like   did, then just appreciate that they're probably doing it for a really good reason, and that by doing whatever it is that you're doing they think you're probably causing more disruption than benefit at that time. I'll be frank: you're response back was not one I would expect from someone who is looking to work cooperatively it was rather sharp in itself. It's a simple fact that when one editor is working through any backlog of things like deletion nominations, they simply don't have time to stop and teach everyone the ropes. They'll simply ask them to stop. It's your job to read and learn how to do any task properly. (And there's one admin I can think of who seems to delete virtually everything that gets put forward without thinking about it too much. the two of you together could have a field day (LOL!). But I'm pleased you took the initiative to ask at the Teahouse for other ideas for participation. The hosts there do try to be a little more patient and tolerant of mistakes than your average busy editor or admin. I hope you found the advice that you were looking for there. All the best. Any questions - just ask at the WP:TH, or on my talk page. Regards from the East Midlands, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've just rediscovered this essay which you might find of interest: Credible claim of significance. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting back to me Nick, and sorry it took so long to respond. After a period of self-reflection on the above, I have to agree that my tone and response did nothing to help matters or to help paint me as someone who wants to help the encyclopedia. I should have stepped away and calmed down before responding, and that will be something I will certainly address going forward. I appreciate the hard work that Bbb23 and everyone else puts in and I understand that eagerness is definitely not a replacement for knowing what you are doing. I got some excellent help at the Teahouse about areas I can contribute in, so that is what I will be focussing on and I appreciate your offer of help. This will be a lesson well learned from my point of view. LampGenie01 (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that reply, which shows you're on you're way to working well, either independently or collegiately with others, and appreciating how precious a thing that is. (As an aside, I've just been preparing for something next month, and having been digging out examples of some of my own best and worst times when responding to others here. It is chastening to look back and consider how I must have come across at the time, and it's so important to remember that there's another sensitive human being on the other end of every keyboard who also wants to help build this wonderful encyclopaedia.) All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Safe areas to work on
On the Teahouse in a comment specifically addressed to me, you wrote: Here is a slightly belated attempt at advice.

The advicve in the section above from Nick Moyes is good advice, first of all. You could do worse than follow it.

Deletion, particularly speedy deletion can be a bit fraught, and really does demand a good understanding of the Deletion policy, and for speeedy deletion the speedy deletion criteria. Of these Articles for deletion is probably the safest, because nothing is deleted without a discussion, time for others to comment, and a final, public, decision by an admin or other experienced editor. But even there, nomiting pages that really should not be can waste the time of other editors and cause problems and negative comments. You might want to read AfD discussions that others have started, and perhaps express your own opnions. Yopu might also want to read Deletion Review sort of the appeals court for deletions.

One way that can be a big help is to find articles that soemoen else has nominated for deletion, and where additional reliable sources are needed to establish notability and try to find such sources. The article rescue squadron maintaisn a list of articels where such help would be useful. Some of my own proudest moments were articles I was able to source and save from deletion, including The Narrative and 500 Miles High (see Articles for deletion/500 Miles High for the latter, which I first encounterd when it was tagged for speedy deletion in this edit).

Also i would avoid highly contentious areas such as the middel-east conflicts, US Politics, E-ciggerattes and the like.

For more positive suggestions it depends somewhat what you like to do and think you might be good at. Category:Articles lacking sources shows of 180,000 articles in need of sources, and thr ar more needing work in Category:Articles needing additional references Ther are over 33,000 in Category:Articles needing cleanup. All of these and many more are linked at Backlog. There is also WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.

Or if you think you might want to try cre4ating articels from a blank start, there is WikiProject Women in Red and Requested articles.

Theer are many other areas of Wikipedia where work is needed. If you give me any indication of your likes and talents, i will try to make further suggestions.

If you want more detailed advice, I will be happy to provide what I can. Indeed if you are intersted, i would be willing to enter into a formal mentor/mentee relationship. Please let me knoe if any of this sounds of interst to you. Pleae ping me when yiou respond. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the offer of mentorship. I think I'd be a fool not to take you up on the offer. LampGenie01 (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 2017/Dec


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, 2017/Dec, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mcampany (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely fine. I messed up where my talk page archive was going to go and ended up putting it on mainspace instead. Sorry about that. LampGenie01 (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)