User talk:Singularity42/mentorship

• I thought it might be easier to keep these conversations organized on a separate page, so I've taken the liberty of creating a talk subpage. The first thing I would say is that if there is something I point out that you need to work on in order to pass RFA, and you don't really want to do it, don't do it. You shouldn't feel that you are obligated to act or feel a certain way in order to become an admin, aside from basically following WP:5, and you shouldn't be doing things that don't interest you just to pass RFA.
• So far, I'm not seeing any of the "quick fail" type of stuff that would make an RFA a foregone conclusion, you seem to have a solid grasp of deletion policy, you're very consistent with edit summary use, and as you know I was already impressed with your civility and good faith.
• The main thing that sticks out in your recent contribs is a lack of content creation. While actually using the admin toolset does not involve creating content, many users feel it's important for candidates to have experience in this area. The idea is that an admin who has created content will be more sympathetic and less likely to delete content without a good reason.

I agree that this is probably my weakest area. Ultimately, I'm probably more of a "maintainer" on Wikipedia. That being said, I have three or four substantial articles currently in the works, some of which will be posted soon.

• One good way to "test the waters" is to request an editor review, although that process is often backlogged and a response may take a few weeks.
• A good way to test yourself is to look for admin tasks that you can do without the tools. Category:Speedy deletion is often backlogged, if you can root out nominations that are not valid, you can remove the tag yourself and reduce the admin workload while you're at it.

I've been doing that here and there, but I'll definitely start taking a look more often. It's actually an area I see myself as being active in if/when I become an admin.

• A lot of people like to see some experience in dispute resolution in an admin candidate. AFD is a good start, and I see you've got some good experience there, but if you're up for it there are other non-binding forms of DR you can participate in. I spent a lot of time at WP:WQA last year myself, it's interesting to try and resolve disputes between users without the threat of a block hanging over everyone's head. There's also always plenty of issues needing attention at WP:RFC, and WP:3O.

Sounds good. I was once active with RfC and I think I'll start looking at them again. WP:WQA is also a great idea.

• From what I can tell, you are not using automated tools to edit. This can be big plus at RFA actually, if you are seen as overly-reliant on tools to edit it can reflect badly on you. However, you may want to consider using WP:TWINKLE if your browser is compatible with it. It makes deletion noms, user notifications, etc very simple, and unlike some other automated tools, it still requires human thought and judgement for each edit.

For reasons to silly and stupid to go into, I've been stuck using IE for most of my Wikipedia edits. So I never got into automated edits. I agree, it's actually been a good thing. I've been able to personalize my comments when needed and/or get a better idea of what the overall issue is with a specific editor and respond/help accordingly. My RL situation might be changing in the next few months, allowing me to use alternative browsers more often. When that happens, I plan on using Twinkle to help with AfD noms and other areas.

• These are just my first thoughts upon reviewing your most recent contribs, and are not in any particular order. I'll have this page watchlisted so you can ask anything you like here and I'll get back to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Beeblebrox. I'll get back to you tomorrow on some of this stuff. Singularity42 (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I was going to add that you should keep up with current RFAs, even if you don't comment in them, but there aren't any right now! You might want to peruse my first, failed RFA and my much more pleasant second try for some idea of what iRFA can be like. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've replied individually to some of the points above as well. Why don't I get started in some of those areas, and then we can check-in again soon? Singularity42 (talk)

Works for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Women Open Network was a copyvio and blatant advertising

While looking through copyvio speedy deletion noms I came across this one, which turns out to have been nominated by you. I did delete it as it was obviously copy and pasted, however this is not the only problem. Many, if not most, copyvio articles are also what would be considered blatant advertising. If we don't mention this aspect when leaving a csd notice on the creator's page, they get the impression that if they just get the copyright released, they can go ahead and post spam to Wikipedia. There's no rule or policy saying you have to mention this, but personally I think it's important, as it avoids re-posting of spam and can avoid biting a newcomer. Some users will use {{db-reason}} and fill in the appropriate criteria themselves as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'll keep that in mind. Singularity42 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

MIA

Looks like you have left the project. If you ever decide to come back and take a run at RFA, let me know. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)