User talk:Xp54321: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
date |
Iridescent (talk | contribs) →"Adoptee" userbox: new section |
||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
:'''[[/Archive 12|Archive 12]]''' |
:'''[[/Archive 12|Archive 12]]''' |
||
}} |
}} |
||
== "Adoptee" userbox == |
|||
I've just noticed the <nowiki>{{adoptee|Iridescent}}</nowiki> userbox on your userpage, and removed it - while I appreciate you didn't add it maliciously, please don't re-add it. "[[Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area|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 [[User_talk:Iridescent/Archive_3#Reply_re_admin_coaching|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): |
|||
#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; |
|||
#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 [[WP:AIV|AIV]] side of Wikipedia, which is where you tend to work ([http://toolserver.org/~sql/sqlbot.php?user=Iridescent 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; |
|||
#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 [http://toolserver.org/~sql/sqlbot.php?user=Xp54321 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%.)<font face="Trebuchet MS"> – [[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">''iride''</font>]][[User_talk:Iridescent|<font color="#C1118C">''scent''</font>]]</font> 19:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:41, 8 June 2008
| This is Xp54321's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 |
Please click here to leave me a new message.
 | *I will archive this page every few days or when I decide it takes too long to scroll through messages.
|
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
| Xp54321 is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
"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):
- 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;
- 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;
- 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)