User talk:Xp54321

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Please read before adding to this page:

This user is NOT an administrator on Wikipedia. If your issue requires an administrator's attention, you should probably post your problem on the appropriate Administrator Noticeboard. If your issue involves getting a repeat vandal blocked, report them to Administrator Intervention against Vandalism.
Conversely, you may contact an administrator directly. Several administrators that I have consulted in the past include User:Acalamari, User:J Milburn, User:Jj137, User:Kafziel, User:Malinaccier, User:Pedro, and User:Tiptoety. You may also view a complete List of Wikipedia Administrators.
Several people have posted comments on this page regarding issues that require an administrator's attention. I have added this notice so that people can have their issues resolved without having to wait for me to reply saying basically that I cannot help them.
Notice Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Read this page first...
Notice Reply on your talk page I will to any comments here made. (yes, I speak Yoda-ish)

This is Xp54321's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Xp54321.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Please click here to leave me a new message.
Notice
  • I will archive this page every few days or when I decide it takes too long to scroll through messages.
  • No attacks,bullying (or anything close), or anything else that bugs me.
  • Be warned vandalism of this page or my userpage has serious immediate consequences.Don't Vandalize!!!
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Because of school, Xp54321 will not be very active on weekdays, but should be back editing voraciously on weekends (except while doing homework).
Xp54321 is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives
5/8/08-5/10/08
5/10/08-5/18/08
5/18/08-5/23/08
5/23/08-5/24/08
5/24/08-5/25/08
5/25/08-5/30/08
5/30/08-6/8/08
Archive 8
Archive 9
Archive 10
Archive 11
Archive 12


Contents

[edit] "Adoptee" userbox

I've just noticed the {{adoptee|Iridescent}} userbox on your userpage, and removed it - while I appreciate you didn't add it maliciously, please don't re-add it. "Adoption" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and it's a role that I wouldn't be in a position to meet even if I thought it were appropriate. You'll notice that I have no adoptees on Wikipedia, and turn down requests for adoption and admin coaching. There are three main reasons for this (note - I've used Wikipedia technical terminogy in parts of this; if there's anything you're not sure of, J.delanoy will explain):

  1. The nature of my work means that I am often either away from a computer, not in a position to make personal use of one, or too busy to be working on Wikipedia, for months at a time, sometimes with no notice at all. As adopters are generally unofficially considered in some way responsible for their adoptees edits, I wouldn't feel comfortable being held responsible given that I won't always (or often) be in a position to review your talkpage, let alone your contributions;
  2. Although I do have Wikipedia sysop status, I tend to work in very specialised areas (merging of geographic stubs and deleted substubs into larger area articles; Commons image sourcing; contribution history analysis for potentially controversial RFA/RFB; validification and reconstruction of deleted content; semiautomated category splitting). I've no particular expertise in the revert-block-ignore and AIV side of Wikipedia, which is where you tend to work (in my entire time on Wikipedia, I've only ever blocked 249 users and 80% of my edits have been in the mainspace), so am not really in a position to be giving advice;
  3. As I've already issued you with (many) warnings, I'm not certain it's appropriate for me to be giving specific advice.

One thing I will give you though which might be useful to both you and J.delanoy, is this tool, which you both probably ought to bookmark. (It's not a "secret tool", but not widely publicised, as it puts a strain on the server every time it's used.) This will let both of you analyse which automated tools you're using and how your use of automated tools compares to manual edits; see which articles you're working on; and monitor which namespaces you're working in. (One that leaps out at me is that you have almost 12% of your edits in userspace - for comparison, mine is 1% and J.delanoy's is 2%.) – iridescent 19:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I totally understand it and won't re-add it.But I do have a completely off-topic question. I just finished reading the "Wikipedia is failing" and the "wikipedia is suceeding" essays.With which do you agree?Xp54321 (Hello!,Contribs) 19:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
In addition I clicked random article 50 times and came up with :
  • number of stubs = 34, 68% of survey
  • number of starts = 15, 30% of survey
  • number of B's = 1, 2% of survey.Xp54321 (Hello!,Contribs) 19:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with either. WP:FAIL was written by a bunch of disgruntled Esperanza users (believe me, you don't want to know...) angry that the rest of the community wouldn't let them treat Wikipedia as their personal toy while WP:NOTFAIL is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If you want my personal opinion of the current issues affecting Wikipedia:
  1. There is no good reason for IP editing to be allowed. Yes, IPs are responsible for 50% of valid edits; however, they're responsible for 95% of vandalism. If an IP clicking "edit this page" were confronted by a "log on/choose username" box, it would only take 30 seconds of a legitimate editor's time, but would discourage the majority of vandals;
  2. Far too much weight is put on Jimmy Wales's opinions. Yes, he (co)founded Wikipedia but that was seven years ago, and there's nothing to indicate that he understands that issues affecting a site with 2000 users and 1000 pages aren't the same as those affecting a site with 7,279,125 users and 2,406,925 pages. He has not held any position for over a year, but far too many people treat whatever he has to say as holy writ;
  3. Wikipedia's internal processes are totally broken. The RFA process is a glorified popularity contest where perfectly good editors are turned down because they've offended someone in the past who then goes through their history looking for any reason to oppose; meanwhile, appallingly unsuitable candidates pass. Perfectly good articles are regularly deleted, whilst badly written stubs are kept because of who wrote them. And (if you'll forgive me being very bitey towards you) perfectly good edits are wrongly reported to AIV and incorrectly blocked;
  4. Wikipedia's core strengths aren't recognised in the quest to "be like Britannica". People think the number of stubs is a weakness, but it's actually our strength. The "popular" subjects are all covered elsewhere, but Wikipedia's great strength is that it covers subjects other sources don't mention. If I wanted to find out who John Lennon was, there are thousands of other sites that will give me a better version of his biography and without any "is gay lol" - if I want to find out who Beki Bondage was, on the other hand, no other site will give such complete coverage. However, these minority-interest articles are regularly deleted as cruft despite being what most users come here for;
  5. Our coverage of Living People is appalling and will one day get us into serious trouble. Since anyone can edit any article, it's possible to insert seriously libellous material into articles anonymously. In my opinion, there is no good reason for all biographies of living people not to be semi-protected as a minimum. However, because Jimmy Wales is against it, it doesn't happen.
I can't say strongly enough that all of the above is my personal opinion. If you ask a dozen people, you'll get a dozen different opinions and I don't claim to necessarily be right. – iridescent 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response.I totally agree with you on number one.And you're right most vandals would go away. I also have to agree on number 3. Can you give me an example for number 2?And I completely agree with you on number 4.Problem is I think if you started semi-pro. every bio you'd be de-syoped(at the current state of policy anyways).They should all be semi'd.Also what's the new level of auto confirmed?I know it went up,right?Xp54321 (Hello!,Contribs) 21:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
For number 2, WP:DEAL is a good example, since anyone who still thinks no aspect of adminship or RfA is not a big deal is clearly off their proverbial rocker. giggy (:O) 03:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Autoconfirmed status is now given after four days and ten edits, previously all you had to do was wait four days. The ten edits thing was added to make creating many, many accounts in order to vandalize semiprotected page more difficult since now you actually have to do something other than simply wait to become autoconfirmed. For someone who is here to help out, ten edits is absolutely paltry. J.delanoygabsadds 03:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you a queston on your adoption page, but honestly, I could give you questions until the world ends and I would not cover everything. The only way to gain experience is through just doing your thing, using common sense, and learning from any mistakes you make. J.delanoygabsadds 04:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Afd

Thank you. You are much nicer than most of the people I have met on Wikipedia.Remilo (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)