User talk:NYMets2000: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
NYMets2000 (talk | contribs)
1,624 edits
→‎RfA: reply
Line 93: Line 93:
:::Some interesting statistics are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfA_reform_2011/Candidates#Part_1._Data_of_successful_candidates_2009_-_2011 here]. In particular, the average candidate who passed RfA in 2011 had been a Wikipedia editor for more than three and a half years, and had over 18,000 manual edits (manual edits would be those done ''without'' twinkle, huggle or similar tools). Of course, it's possible to pass RfA with less than those averages, but the ''lowest'' number of manual edits from someone who passed, was 3894; that editor had been on Wikipedia for 14 months. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 16:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Some interesting statistics are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfA_reform_2011/Candidates#Part_1._Data_of_successful_candidates_2009_-_2011 here]. In particular, the average candidate who passed RfA in 2011 had been a Wikipedia editor for more than three and a half years, and had over 18,000 manual edits (manual edits would be those done ''without'' twinkle, huggle or similar tools). Of course, it's possible to pass RfA with less than those averages, but the ''lowest'' number of manual edits from someone who passed, was 3894; that editor had been on Wikipedia for 14 months. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 16:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
::::NYMets, you are a great contributor, but you're not quite at the experience level that a potential admin must be at. I suggest you withdraw the nomination and run again in six months to a year. I know that may seem like a long time, but experience is gained through time and effort; the more time and effort you spend here on Wikipedia, the more experience you'll have. With more experience comes a greater potential to succeed at RfA. Kindest regards, [[User:The Utahraptor|<font color="green">The Utahraptor</font>]][[User talk:The Utahraptor|<sup>Talk</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/The Utahraptor|<sub>Contribs</sub>]] 16:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
::::NYMets, you are a great contributor, but you're not quite at the experience level that a potential admin must be at. I suggest you withdraw the nomination and run again in six months to a year. I know that may seem like a long time, but experience is gained through time and effort; the more time and effort you spend here on Wikipedia, the more experience you'll have. With more experience comes a greater potential to succeed at RfA. Kindest regards, [[User:The Utahraptor|<font color="green">The Utahraptor</font>]][[User talk:The Utahraptor|<sup>Talk</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/The Utahraptor|<sub>Contribs</sub>]] 16:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::What? You're not an admin. [[User:NYMets2000|<font color="red">nymets2000</font>]] ([[User talk:NYMets2000|<font color="yellow">t</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/NYMets2000|<font color="green">c</font>]]/[[Special:Logs/NYMets2000|<font color="blue">l</font>]]) 16:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:41, 30 August 2011

Template:UserTalkArchiveBox

User talk:Wikigirl5908

While Wikigirl5908 may be a vandalism-only account, you should be aware as a vandalism patroller that WP:BLANKING allows users to remove warnings from their talk pages. You shouldn't have restored the warnings, especially with no current disruptive activity. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

August 2011

Thank you for your report about User:Sexyonyunz (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention (UAA). However, your report was removed as UAA is for name policy infringements that are serious enough to warrant an immediate block. General name policy violations should first be discussed with the user on their talk page. A helpful template to do just that is {{subst:Uw-username}}. Note that a request for comment can be filed if the user disagrees that their name is against the username policy, or has continued to edit after you have expressed your concern. You may find the UAA instructions helpful, and I'd recommend reading them over prior to making future reports to UAA. Thank you. declined by Tnxman307 Waterfox ~talk~ 15:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your report about User:Jjikjkj9okuik (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention (UAA). However, your report was removed as UAA is for name policy infringements that are serious enough to warrant an immediate block. General name policy violations should first be discussed with the user on their talk page. A helpful template to do just that is {{subst:Uw-username}}. Note that a request for comment can be filed if the user disagrees that their name is against the username policy, or has continued to edit after you have expressed your concern. You may find the UAA instructions helpful, and I'd recommend reading them over prior to making future reports to UAA. Thank you. Waterfox ~talk~ 15:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Frenchy - card game

Hello NYMets2000. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Frenchy - card game to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe WP:CSD#G3 applies to the page in question - vandalism implies intent to harm the encyclopedia, or at least not to care about it, but this guy thinks he has something he wants to tell the world about. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Valerios leonidis

A tag has been placed on Valerios leonidis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 00:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Valerios leonidis

Hello NYMets2000, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Valerios leonidis, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Is a plausible, useful redirect or is not a redirect at all. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Joseph Fox 01:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Luc Quevauvilliers

Hi NYMets2000. I see that you have recently become involved in the Articles for creation project. Firstly, thanks for your help as were are generally backlogged and can always use more reviewers. However, I noticed that you moved this [1] to the main space recently. Unfortunately, it was immediately tagged as WP:G4 meaning that it was a recreation of an article that had previously already undergone a deletion discussion. In the case of this article, this happened twice. Additionally, this really should have not been moved anyway as the sources do not establish much notability. As a new reviewer, it is important to look for these types of issues before moving an article to the main space. I would recommend that you don't do any articles other than the most obvious while you gain some experience in AfC reviewing. You are more than welcome to come to the AfC WP:IRC channel so that we might be able to help you handle more complex cases such as these. Cheers! Topher385 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:db-g8-notice|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jean-Luc Quevauvilliers|nowelcome=|{{{key1}}}={{{value1}}}}} nymets2000 (t/c/l) 22:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second this. The IRC channel is at #wikipedia-en-afc connect and please: while reviewing the references like at this article Geoffrey Lansdell, check if there are real third party and independent references. In this case the article has no third party references (which are written ABOUT him). All are written by himself... Please be careful next time. mabdul 16:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only corrected the channel, sry my mistake. mabdul 18:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RickK2

I received correspondence from RickK saying that wasn't him. After verifying it, I blocked it as impersonation. - Philippe 05:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to assert significance at Shankar chandraker

Hi NYMets. You removed the A7 speedy tag from Shankar chandraker with the statement He is a newspaper journalist. Please note that passing WP:A7 criteria for people requires a bio page to make some assertion of significance -- and editors who remove the A7 tags are expected to provide a credible assertion. In other words, it answers the question: why is this person significant? Simply having a common everyday job is not inherently significant. "He is a newspaper journalist" is no more an assertion of significance than "She is a plumber" or "He is a teacher". Although A7 criteria require a lower standard than Notability criteria -- it is a good idea to be aware of our Wikipedia guidelines for notability. (In this case, you may wish to read WP:CREATIVE as well as WP:GNG). These will provide you with a better understanding of expected biographical requirements. As the article stands, there is still no assertion of significance. Additionally, no independent reliable source is provided for even cursory verification -- a violation of WP:BLP. I had actually already deleted the above article after it had been A7 tagged earlier, then tagged it myself after the same editor recreated this autobiographical article. If you wish the article to remain, you will need to address the above issues. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Shankar Chandraker

The article Shankar Chandraker has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

An autobiographical BLP with no assertion of notability and no independent references. A speedy A7 tag was declined by a reviewing editor with statement "He is a newspaper journalist" yet no assertion of significance was provided. A search for references finds only self-submitted profiles and blog pages.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi there. I noticed you're transcluded your request before answering the questions. You'll want to answer the questions first, so I've undone your transclusion for now. I should warn you, though, the request is not likely to succeed at this point; I recommend waiting at least a few more months before requesting adminship. 28bytes (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many? 3? 4? 5? nymets2000 (t/c/l) 16:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, you'll want to have at least 6 months' experience and 4000 edits. There are of course other considerations; I recommend you read up on some of the helpful essays other editors have written regarding requesting adminship; I can point you to some if you like. 28bytes (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some interesting statistics are here. In particular, the average candidate who passed RfA in 2011 had been a Wikipedia editor for more than three and a half years, and had over 18,000 manual edits (manual edits would be those done without twinkle, huggle or similar tools). Of course, it's possible to pass RfA with less than those averages, but the lowest number of manual edits from someone who passed, was 3894; that editor had been on Wikipedia for 14 months. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NYMets, you are a great contributor, but you're not quite at the experience level that a potential admin must be at. I suggest you withdraw the nomination and run again in six months to a year. I know that may seem like a long time, but experience is gained through time and effort; the more time and effort you spend here on Wikipedia, the more experience you'll have. With more experience comes a greater potential to succeed at RfA. Kindest regards, The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 16:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What? You're not an admin. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 16:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NYMets2000&oldid=447509630"