User:D.M.N./Coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

D.M.N. (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)

Thank you for choosing me as your coach.

Let's get started...

Tutorials
User guides to ...
In the wp:Signpost
The published book, online
Help contents

Please tell me about your wiki-self...[edit]

Here are some questions for you...

What internal interface do you use?[edit]

(See User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Internal interfaces)

What external interface do you use?[edit]

(See User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/External interfaces)

What other tools do you use?[edit]

Main article: Wikipedia:Tools

Your navigation: how do you get around Wikipedia? (Please be specific)[edit]

To get to project pages that I'm assosicated with, I normally just click the links on my userpage. To get to something like WP:ANI, I normally just type in the shortcut in the "Search" box. The same goes for articles, I normally just type in the name of the article in the "Search" bos and search it. D.M.N. (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV
WP:WARN
WP:ANI
WP:SPI
WP:RCP
WP:RPP
WP:RFA
WP:AFD
WP:XFD
WP:DRV
CAT:SPEEDY
WP:CSD
WP:RM
WP:FA
WP:RFC
WP:RAA
WP:ER
WP:TM
WP:LOP
WP:PNT
WP:BACK
CAT:HELP
WP:VP
WP:HAHA
WP:BARN
WP:RD

How do you fight vandalism?[edit]

I normally fight vandalism at first by simply reverting a users edit, and give the user a warning. If it's patent nonsense vandalism, I'd probably just give them a {{uw-vandal2}} warning, however, if it's somethng more serious, for instance a personnel attack or a edit that could have serious consequences in the future, I'd give them a {{uw-vandal4im}} warning. However, you never know how vandals can react, sometimes they do it for fun (see this for more information on vandals targeting me), and sometimes they come back and personally attack you. If it gets serious, I'll seek admin intervention, and go to WP:ANI to let them deal with the vandals. D.M.N. (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What patrolling have you done?[edit]

I did patrol the Recent Changes section, but I rarely ever did that. I do tend to patrol WP:ANI mostly, and give my opinions on matters there. Apart from that, I don't do a great deal of patrolling. D.M.N. (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please describe your XfD activity[edit]

I don't do that much to do with deletion stuff and deletion discussions. If I do, however, stumble across a article that doesn't seem to be notable, I will go ahead and nominate it for deletion as I have done in the past. Apart from that, I do sometimes give my opinion in deletion debates, or attempt to clean up the article nominated for deletion, but I very rarely do that. This is probably one area where I could contribute more to. D.M.N. (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What conflicts have you been in? (All of them)[edit]

Right, I've been in several major conflicts, so this is going to be the longest section of the whole bunch! Do you even what me to write about the tiniest of conflicts that even I cannot remember? :)

Anyway, my first major conflict came in March 2007, over at WP:F1. For several months before that, I had been expanding 1994 and 1995 Formula One race reports, for instance, 1994 Brazilian Grand Prix, see here. For some, for instance on that diff, I edited under my IP address. When I made a query about the race reports at WP:F1, it became very clear to them that all the information was a copyright violation of GrandPrix.com, see here for the conversation. At this time, as I was a newbie on Wikipedia, I didn't know much about the rules, and was informed of WP:COPYVIO.

A few weeks later, a user planted a load of image tags on my talkpage. I got very annoyed about this (again because I didn't know much about Wikipedia at the time), and asked her on her talkpage why she did it, see here. I got very annoyed with this, and legally threatened the user (see here), again not knowing about Wikipedia's policies, I was indefinitely blocked (see here. I then went and used sockpuppet accounts, but they were all indefinitely blocked. Again, the two above conflicts were 100% my fault.

I was unblocked in July, and my first conflict after that came with Cowboycaleb1. I cannot remember everything to do with him, but after a few weeks, I presented a sockpuppet case on him in which he was indefinitely blocked. D.M.N. (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please describe your conflict/dispute resolution work[edit]

I haven't done any dispute resolution work I don't think. I think you could make the question a little clearer for me. D.M.N. (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Have you stepped in to try to stop a fight?
    • Yes. During a discussion on WP:PW, a heated debate was going on about spoilers. The debate and was going on for quite some time. I attempted to step in my proposing a series of new spoiler templates, see here. At first, several WP:PW members agreed to it, but then the wider Wikipedia community got involved and the proposal that I made was turned down. A member of WP:PW, The Hybrid left Wikipedia because of it, but soon after come back. D.M.N. (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you handled a negotiation between disputers?
  • Have you taken a neutral stance in any discussion, and participated in order to smooth things out?
    • Yes. I got involved in The Troubles Arbitration case as a neutral party. I knew about this, as one user in particular, One Night in Hackney (who I had involved with several months earlier) came back for this case. In this case, I never actually smoothed things out as such, but just really kept a briefing eye in case anything sharply got out of hand. D.M.N. (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you given advice on a user's talk page about his uncivil behavior and how he could and should correct it?
    • Yes. I warned LifeStroke420 a few times (see here) after he blanked material from the One Night Stand (2007) article, citing "pointless cruft". Me and a few other users attempted to work with him to get his vandalism problems sorted out, and he started to act more civil. However, he went back uncivil a week or so ago, after leaving this comment on my talkpage. D.M.N. (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you approached a user on his talk page or in email about how his poor handling of a dispute (such as an AfD discussion)?
  • Have you responded to an alert at WP:WQA?
  • Have you answered a request for assistance with a dispute at:
  • Have you participated at:
  • Disputes may also surface at:
    • WP:AN
    • WP:ANI
      • I've done a little bit of work at WP:ANI. I mainly tagged resolved discussions with the {{resolved}} tag, but not many people liked me doing that. In fact; you'll probably want to see this. D.M.N. (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The Transhumanist 10:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your watchdogging: how do you watch?[edit]

I (believe it or not) have never used my watchlist! D.M.N. (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What have you done to motivate others or boost morale? (Showing your wiki-appreciation, etc.)[edit]

I've tried to help motivate others, but sometimes it can be very, very hard. Sometimes, some people don't feel that there work is appreciated and its hard to give them a morale boost. In most cases, I will give them a barnstar to help them feel that their work is appreciated. If they are in a conflict with another user, I've tried to show a bit of WikiLove. Thinking about it, I think that I should probably give barnstars out a little more often. D.M.N. (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Which request pages have you helped out on? How much?[edit]

None. D.M.N. (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Which help-desk type pages have you helped out on? How much?[edit]

None. D.M.N. (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What other departments have you been involved with? How much?[edit]

I have been involved in other departments on Wikipedia, such as WP:RFARB and WP:AN, but only sometimes get involved in discussions there. D.M.N. (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What WikiProjects do you run or participate in? What have you done there?[edit]

I participate in the Football, Formula One and Wrestling WikiProjects. I don't do much with the Football WikiProject, but do tend to get involved in discussions there from time-to-time. I used to do much with the Formula One WikiProject, as I was trying to get 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix to Featured Article status. However, I have had several disagreements on the whole with them, and do no longer participate in the project as much as I use to. I participate a lot in the Wrestling WikiProject. One of my proudest works on Wikipedia has to do with that project is to do with the recent expansion to do with Wrestling Pay-Per-View articles, splitting them up, and creating new, expanded articles (see here for more information). During this, I managed to expand a PPV article, December to Dismember (2006), and it is now a FA level article, my first FA contribution on Wikipedia. I'm currently also expanding other PPV articles. D.M.N. (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What are your major contributions to content development?[edit]

See above question D.M.N. (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your answers above give me an idea of what to work on...

Administration is maintenance[edit]

If you are interested in adminship, then that means you desire to help maintain Wikipedia in general. (At least that's the kind of editor they're looking for to grant adminship to at RfA).

The admin buttons and admin duties are only the tip of the iceburg of tools and responsibilities. You don't need the admin tools to participate in the vast majority of Wikipedia's maintenance activities.

And to maintain an area you have to be aware of what needs maintenance...

That's where your watchlist comes in.

You will be participating on and taking care of many different pages than you are now, so get into the habit of checking your watchlist as soon as you log on, every single time you log on.

Two of the main purposes of watchdogging with your watchlist are:

  1. To monitor for changes to a (large) set of pages you are taking care of (for reverting vandalism, repairing damage from poor edits, etc.). It is far more efficient to use your watchlist than it is to manually move around, and the watchlist increases the number of pages you can monitor by at least a magnitude.
  2. To monitor discussions for new entries. Many departments are manned, requiring volunteers to respond to those seeking the services provided by those departments. Also, you can take the pulse of the Wikipedia community by placing all major departments on your watchlist (request pages, noticeboards, bulletin boards, forums, help desks, etc.) - but there is a better way to do this so that you don't drown out the departments you are involved in. You can also use it to monitor the activity of users by watchlisting their talk pages - this is crucial for keeping an eye on problem users, students, etc.

On my monobook.js page there is a script for formatting your watchlist to display results by namespace. It's an essential watchlist enhancement. Install it on your js page. My js page is described on my tools page.

Once you have your watchlist configured, what should you watch?

What good is developing articles if they are not maintained and therefore deteriorate?

Therefore, let's start with the subject areas you are involved in on the main namespace. Add to your watchlist all the articles you've worked on in your main fields of interest. Also add other articles that you care about.

Done - now got 21 articles on my watchlist. Eight of them are the articles I've worked on, the rest are articles which I care about. Should I add a few more or will that be OK to start with? D.M.N. (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And add one maintenance or help department you would like to participate in. Add your coaching page too.

What's my choice for the department? I was going to put down WP:AFD, but wanted your opinion on it first. I've added my coaching page to my watchlist also. D.M.N. (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Once you've completed the above tasks, let me know how many pages are on your watchlist, and which department you've chosen.

The Transhumanist 09:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, add more pages to your watch list. The watchlist can handle thousands of articles, which is especially useful when most of the pages aren't edited that often. You really can't get a feel for the tool until you place a lot of pages on there. You can even monitor them in real-time using Lupin's Vandal Tool feed called "Monitor my watchlist" (in another window, so you don't fall asleep from boredom, and then check on it every so often). I assumed your subject of interest had more articles in it. Sorry about that. You could help me monitor all the Basic topic lists, to begin with. And add the other student's pages for the fun of it. I just restarted using my watchlist again about three weeks ago, and only have around 600 on mine. Many editors have far more than that. Pick more articles to maintain, and place them on there. Keep adding them until the changes to those pages keep you busy. You'll be monitoring the edits for vandalism, factual errors, typos, grammatical mistakes, unwikiness, etc.
AfD sounds good. I'll add it to mine too. (Done).
Go to "watchlist" in "my preferences". Check "Add pages I edit to my watchlist", and "Add pages I move to my watchlist".
Don't worry about your watchlist growing too large for now. You need to play around with it to discover the ways you can best make use of it. You can edit it directly and weed pages off of there that you don't need to monitor, any time you like.
The Transhumanist 07:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have 5724 pages on my Watchlist - about to become 5725 as soon as I click "Save page". It's an invaluable tool. I strongly recommend you follow my advice about XfD and FAC/PR. Get stuck in - ensure you're the first contributor and go back (using your watchlist) and review how the debate develops and contribute again. Also, I'd add a suggestion you review others at Editor Review. --Dweller (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not reading this page sooner. I have taken your advice and added more pages to my watchlist. I've also added the main maintenence pages (WP:FAC; WP:AFD; WP:PR). I'm going to be contributing to a lot of AFD discussions now for a bit. D.M.N. (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I just say that the watchlist has been a huge help for me in quickly getting to articles. I'm now so happy that I've actually starting utilizing it now. Thanks. D.M.N. (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Power trip tip: You can load your watchlist into AWB. You can also configure your watchlist to add pages automatically -- see "My preferences". The Transhumanist 01:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, watchlisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion doesn't reveal much except the daily addition of the new day log. You could go there daily and then click on and watchlist the new log for the day. The Transhumanist 04:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Closing AfDs[edit]

This is something that I possibly shouldn't be doing, but over the past few days I have closed the following AFD's:

Could you possibly leave a comment next to each stating whether I was right in closing the AFD. For The Mexicools one, I am involved in the topic, would that potentionally go do badly, say for instance, if I was an admin and deleted a non-notable wrestling article as I am a wrestling fan? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's okay for editors in good standing to close XfDs. Are you in good standing?  :-)
You should not close XfDs that you participate (post votes/comments) in, or for articles that you edited heavily. You weren't in the Mexicools deletion debate, so closing it was okay if you weren't a major contributor to the article. Admins typically edit thousands of articles and monitor thousands more. If admins weren't allowed to close debates concerning any article they worked on, then their hands would be tied. Just be careful.
Keep in mind that you don't have to stop with deletion. If the consensus was that an article was non-notable, but the supporters swore up and down that it was notable, and as an admin you were closing the debate, you could offer someone to copy the article to their userspace so that they could track down sources to prove its notability. Advise them that once they find the needed sources, they need to submit the article to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Many users do not know that they can request that a deleted article be copied to their userspace so that they can fix it.
WP:DPR#NAC states that you should only close debates that are unambiguous, which is ironic, because that statement is subject to interpretation (i.e., it itself isn't unambiguous). For example, can "no consensus" be unambiguous? If you can clearly see that the result is "no consensus", then the results are not ambiguous to you. If I remember right, User:AGK was criticized in his RfA for closing non-unanimous deletion debates (this was before the guideline's wording was changed to "unambiguous"), and others came to his defense stating that unanimous deletion discussions were rare, and that closing debates that weren't clear and doing it correctly was further evidence that he was ready for adminship. Be bold, but get it right.
Here's something to be on the lookout for... A quirk of the deletion debate process is that participants often do not come back to check to see if their objections have been addressed. So you may come across tricky situations (which you should probably leave to admins to close, but it's up to you to decide how bold you should be):
  • a deletion debate where there are mostly deletion votes, but it was a pile-on based on a misunderstanding of policy. A frustrated and distraught supporter pointed this out, but nobody returned to change their votes. In such a situation, go with the correct interpretation of policy and guidelines, rather than the vote count, but state your reasons clearly. If you keep an article in error, it's not an earth shattering mistake, because the article can be nominated for deletion again in about a month.
  • the votes are all for deletion, with one keep vote at the end that states he fixed all the problems. Check to see if he really did, and if he did, it's a keep. There's a danger that someone will close the debate while you are checking, so if it may take awhile to check, place a "I'm working on it" template on the debate page.
The Transhumanist 20:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I misinterpreting WP:SNOW?[edit]

This is something I need to know, especially if I do become an admin. What should be classed as closing per WP:SNOW? I've always thought that like a 0-4 consensus would be WP:SNOW, and require closure, but would it be something much higher e.g. 0-8. Am I misinterpreting WP:SNOW in any way. I'm asking now, as, when (and if) I do become an admin and happened to close an AFD with it being delete 4-0 and happened to say per WP:SNOW, I don't wish to have loads of users asking me "why". Thanks; you've been a great help so far! :) D.M.N. (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You've got to look past the votes, to the reasons they are based on. If the reasons are faulty, then the issue of SNOW isn't relevant. If people are voting to keep because the article is now sourced, but the sources don't qualify under WP:SOURCE, then the votes are all in error, and the discussion should be allowed to run its course. Also, for non-admins to close deletion discussions that haven't run their course (5 days) is a bold action, so be especially careful. SNOW needs to be completely obvious. "Snowball's chance in Hell". The Transhumanist (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, OK. I won't close AFD's until five days unless the decision is blantently obvious. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've just closed an AFD that has lasted 8 days, see here, but is my decision appropriate based on my reason. Just wondering, as there seems to be some disagreement (and possible sockpuppetry in my view). D.M.N. (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreement between voters is not evidence of sockpuppetry. WP:AGF applies until there is overwhelming or conclusive evidence of foul play. Unsubstantiated accusations, even if they are expressed in the form of suspicions, not only assumes bad faith but also violates WP:NPA. If you suspect someone, keep it to yourself until you have strong evidence. The Transhumanist 22:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Spartaz[edit]

DMH tells me that his closes are generally being approved by his coach. If you check his talk page you will see that in addition to comments from disgrunted editors about a number of closes I have two AFD closes that I have taken issue with - one where he commented on the debate and another closes as no-consensus where the delete comments were based on policy and the keep comments were a mixture of proof by assertion (and no refs provided) and I like its. This is definately not the kind of boldness that should be encourages of aspriring admins. I have discussed with DMN and apparantly I need to take them to DRV since the coach has approved the closes. Did I misunderstand that? Purely on a commonsense level the first close is going to be overturned at AFD and I would be surprised if the other wasn't at least overturned and relisted if not deleted at DRV outright. That's not helpful for anyone planning to stand for a future AFD and I wonder whether the advice being given to DMN about this might be reviewed in his own interest. Boldness is all very well but is not always in an editor's best interests if they end up with a reputation of being reckless and overbold. Spartaz Humbug! 20:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He'll be fine. He's getting experience first hand. And thicker skin.  :) The Transhumanist 11:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

Quick Question: I'm also going to be starting participating in RFA's, and possibly ask questions to the candidate. Is this an appropriate question to ask. Please tell me if the question sounds bitey or insulting in any way. I'm going to ask questions in several RFA's in the next few days, so would like to know if this is an OK sort of question. Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question. WP:BITE doesn't really apply, since there's no need to ask newcomers questions, as they will be opposed out of there on the basis of lack of experience. Check the candidate's start date and edit count before asking questions. The Transhumanist 23:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. D.M.N. (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a good close. Unambiguous is relative (and depends on your skill to discern it). The Transhumanist 00:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin closings[edit]

I've been reviewing the procedures concerning non-admin closings, and have come to the conclusion that they are a crock. Unanimous AFD discussions are rare, and they are so easy to close that they don't significantly add to any backlog. To close just those, you have to hunt for them, and that's a waste of time -- or you have to watch and wait for them, and what's the point of doing that? It's akin to having too many hunters and not enough ducks.

If you close non-unanimous discussions, any admin could come along and reverse them for no other reason than because you aren't an admin yet (which is pedantic).

I'm going to explore this area further.

In the meantime, you should participate in AfD discussions rather than close them. I recommend participating in discussions that are still open but that are in the archives. That way, if you come across any that are obvious keeps, you can close those rather than comment.

The Transhumanist 03:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, OK. D.M.N. (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done some experimenting with closing "no consensus" AfDs. First for real, and then as "practice closing remarks". Neither went over well. Someone suggested practicing closing dummy AfDs (i.e., copy them to a sandbox page and close them there). But it would be better to vote in the AfDs and help prevent them from going the wrong way. Helping to save articles from deletion by actually working on them would be even better. The Transhumanist 12:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, I couldn't help but notice the topic on you over at ANI! Anyway, I've sort of saved an article from deletion by expanding it. Maybe I should continue doing that.
Well, I'm not afraid to get my feet wet.
The admin who posted it there said on my talk page that he just wanted to gather more input on the approach. It was just a discussion about procedure, rather than "incedent intervention". So no big deal. Posting it at Village Pump Policy would have been more appropriate. Posting them as mock closing remarks was kind of confusing to people. Better to find another approach...
Comments within the discussion (at the end of it) about its closing, or notices addressed specifically to the closer, don't violate any guideline or policy as far as I can tell, so I'm going to try that. And they don't censor what is said in discussions unless it is uncivil. The idea is to demonstrate closing ability while participating (so it can have some affect - what good does it do anyone sitting in a sandbox?). I'll let you know how this approach turns out.
For example: "Notice to closer - references have been added to the article, so it no longer violates WP:N."
See my talk page for some interesting discussions on AfD closing, including critiques of the AfD practice closing remarks I posted. Of the 4 I posted, one was endorsed/ratified, another was kept as suggested, one was deleted contrary to my suggestion, and another was deleted against my suggestion but overturned at WP:DRV. So, I was on the mark in 3 out of 4 of the practice closings.
To see the structure of deletion-related activities on Wikipedia, search for "Category:deletion" (do not press "Go" or collect $200).
Since you are interested in rescuing articles from deletion, you may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron.
And this: Wikipedia:WikiProject proposed deletion patrolling (prod patrol)
And this: Category:Wikipedia deletion sorting (to monitor for deletions in specific subjects)
There isn't any procedural guideline barring non-admins from relisting AfDs, and reaction to me doing this has been favorable, so that's another thing you can add to your AfD repertoire.
I hope you find the above advice useful.
The Transhumanist 22:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I do. I apologise for not commenting in many (in fact none) AFD's in the past few days. I'm doing a little bit of content development work at the moment, and haven't had enough time to dedicate to AFD's. I will get back to commenting on them in the next few days though. D.M.N. (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Slow and steady would be good. Like participating in one AfD each day that you log-in. The Transhumanist 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to look at the AfDs I've participated in, open WP:AWB, make a list of "User contribs", sort the list (select "Sort alphabitically" from the List menu), and remove duplicates (a button in the Make list section). Then scroll down to them in the list - they'll all be together in one group. The Transhumanist 21:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, OK. Is there any other areas of Wikipedia which you would like me to focus on a bit more, which would possibly make me a good admin in the future. One thing I can say is that I think I've got off to a good start under admin coaching. :) D.M.N. (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Now what?[edit]

Yep, OK. Is there any other areas of Wikipedia which you would like me to focus on a bit more, which would possibly make me a good admin in the future. One thing I can say is that I think I've got off to a good start under admin coaching. :) D.M.N. (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are doing great. By the way, how am I doing?  :)
Moving forward, there are a few things I think you should do:
  1. Shift your focus from adminship to improving and maintaining Wikipedia. There is almost no difference between an admin and any other experienced user. Just access to a few extra tools (buttons). Once you have a track record and lots of accumulated experience, you'll be a shoo-in for adminship. So don't worry about it. Don't skim over areas. Become part of them. Delve into them for the long haul. Like AfDs...
  2. Continue participating in AfDs on a regular basis. Saving articles from deletion by improving them up to standard is especially good. AfDs themselves are necessary maintenance. It's an ongoing chore that is never complete. Become a dedicated AfD participant.
  3. Continue editing articles.
  4. Explore every nook and cranny of Wikipedia. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's directories and navigation menus, until you know them like the back of your hand. In addition to knowing your way around article space, slowly but surely read every page in the help system, and every significant page in the Wikipedia namespace (the Manual of Style, every department, policy, guideline, instruction page, essay, etc.). This will take months, so be patient.
Besides the encyclopedia itself, your reading list includes all the pages listed on these pages:
And all the pages listed on the subpages of the Help page.
When you come across an area that especially interests you, let me know, and I'll be happy to share what I know about it (or explore it with you if I'm not too familiar with it).
(I wonder what I'm getting myself into).  :)
The Transhumanist 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Another excellent navigation page is: Quiddity's user page. The Transhumanist 01:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the above. I'll have a look at the above when I ahve spare time. ;D D.M.N. (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know that my watchlist is up to just over 200 pages, and that I am now contributing in many more areas on Wikipedia. You may also of noticed that I have added a navigation box on my userpage. D.M.N. (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool. How often do you check your watchlist? The Transhumanist 22:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Policy proposal[edit]

You may wish to see [1]. D.M.N. (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also set this up.{I noticed you said something in the conversation at WP:AN) Feel free to discuss it on the discussion page. D.M.N. (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you evaluated the reasoning of the opposition? What do you think of their analyses of your policy proposal? I think you should respond at the discussion on ANI to each person who opposed your proposal. This will help you think it through. Does each observation apply? And if not, why not? They have basically given reasons why they believe you shouldn't move forward. So you should consider their reasons carefully before you do move forward, to make sure you are doing the right thing. I look forward to reading your responses at ANI. The Transhumanist 22:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You may wish to read the conversations here, where I've tried to address some of the Opposes. D.M.N. (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You only answered a couple of them. For example, Spartaz pointed out a fundamental flaw in using the numerical approach to deal with something as subjective as admin incompetence. That and other points really need to be addressed. Spartaz even used you as an example, and his post especially warrants a response from you. The Transhumanist 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

At some point you'll need to evaluate the proposal's prospects with respect to WP:SNOW. Can you reasonably expect the policy to be adopted by consensus? If so, then press on. If not, then drop it graciously. The Transhumanist 22:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped the proposal, and left my reasoning on the talkpage. Saying that, I am still very happy that I brought the discussion up in the first place, and have no regrets in doing it. Is it worth leaving a note at WP:AN about my decision? D.M.N. (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Expressing new ideas is a good thing. Withdrawing them for lack of consensus is also good, freeing up the time that would otherwise be spent in controversy. A brief note at WP:AN would be appropriate, and enclosing the discussion between {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} would be good too. By the way, the email I sent you is now moot for the most part, so don't worry about it. The Transhumanist 17:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. D.M.N. (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I've left a note at WP:AN. D.M.N. (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration[edit]

I'm pushing a collaboration to complete the list of basic space exploration topics.

Should be fun. Drop on by.  ;)

Also, see my post to User talk:Quiddity#Basic topic lists if you want to delve in deeper.

The Transhumanist 09:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, not exactly my expertise area, but I'll give you a few helpful tips on what to make that a very good page (BTW, I've planted the {{underconstruction}} tag on the page, and I've added it to my watchlist.):
Explain some of the key areas! - Give a brief overview of the topic in question.
I notice in the History part there are several "Exploration of ....." links. You could possibly convert this into a table, make the reader feel involved in the topic.
I suggest for the "Leaders" section, that you put a little bit of detail onto why they are a reader in that department.
I'll pop back and see your progress later - I am meant to be on a Mini-Break!! :D D.M.N. (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've worked on all the basic lists, bootstrapping on the expertise presented in Wikipedia. I can't claim expertise in any subject.  :) But it's not really needed, after all, these are rudimentary lists, and we're in an encyclopedia! Everything needed to build these lists is at our fingertips. The Transhumanist

Think of it as a link hunt. TT 07:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ways to find links include reading articles, browsing related lists, browsing see also sections, AWB's list builder, Google (using site-specific searches of Wikipedia), Wikipedia's search box, Special:Prefixindex (though the redirects water it down), and categories (but these are usually pretty sparse). The Transhumanist 07:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I was actually planning to help a little last night, but a power cut decided to intervene! D.M.N. (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Update[edit]

Yes, I am still here. :D

I haven't been that active in the past few days. I've just added my opinion to about 10-20 deletion debates to make up for not commenting on deletions in the past few weeks.

I'm doing a bit of content development at the moment, if that's OK with you? I'll still comment on AFD debates. D.M.N. (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Resign[edit]

I resign.

I've moved your coaching page to your userspace for safekeeping.

The Transhumanist 03:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

AFD Debates[edit]

All debates which Spartaz has asked me to provide opinion on

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Industrial Systems Research. While this is clearly a deletion I wonder if you can work out which arguments are valid and which should be discarded? Spartaz Humbug! 21:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The first delete by Smerdis of Tlön seems fair, but the 2nd delete by SFC9394, doesn't say exactly why he thinks it should be deleted. His decision seems more based on the user's reputation rather than the quality of the article. Even if there is some kind of COI, there might still be some outside sources available to help improve the quality of the article. The third one is OK, yet, sources could still be found (if possible). jonathon also says that it "reads like a publishers catalog", suggesting that it is not in encyclopedic tone. So out of the three, I'd probably discard the 2nd one. D.M.N. (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Close. Personally, I'd discard the first and second deletion votes. COI isn't a reason to delete. Most AFDs come down to notability and verifiability and being a publishing house for nn books can still be notable if someone writes about them... Being written in an unencyclopaedic tone doesn't get you deleted either. The fatal point for this article was the lack of sourcing, Fisher Queen had done a very thorough job looking for sources before nominating which is always a very good thing to see in a nom. Spartaz Humbug! 19:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Also see [[2]]. There is a lot of text here. Which arguments are relevant and which do you think should be discarded? How would you close this one? Spartaz Humbug! 22:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

From the outset, there is pretty clearly sockpuppetry your dealing with here. In normal circumstances, I would consider the opinions from the original account, but remove all other accounts created by that particular person. "Dogfit" has a pretty clear COI - "I served in the MFO a couple" - saying he served in the MFO is COI as he is/was closely involed in the subject. As "Moondyne" rightly points out, Glanvis, SigsA, Proqa, Crynt1, Dumbelmore have not contributed much outside the topic. Blatant conflict of interest and potentional sockpuppetry by those accounts.
:That leaves us with 2 delete and 1 merge. If I was left with that, I would delete it, as there are clearly no notable outside sources available. This website is the only references in the article, and that appears to be a government website. D.M.N. (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
And so it was closed ;). Excellent analysis. Spartaz Humbug! 22:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Last of The Summer Wine cast members. How would you close this one? Spartaz Humbug! 22:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Definite delete. Pretty obviously an indiscriminate list. The second option would be to merge into Last of The Summer Wine, but as one of them commented, that would probably not work. D.M.N. (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • and this one [[3]] What should we do with this? Spartaz Humbug! 22:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete again. As Phil Bridger shows, sources do exist, but all are from a single book. In my opinion, sources are needed from several different locations to show an articles notability, which this article badly fails. As Chanigo points out, the book sources aren't very reliable. As no one else in the deletion debate has provided different sources, I would say it's a delete. The term in the article seems a little vague, so if it was kept, I suggest that the article should maybe be reworded. D.M.N. (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Both spot on. You seem to have the hang of this. Spartaz Humbug! 22:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Just the one tonight - There aren't any very interesting AFDs to consider today. Three questions from one AFD. How would you close this one [4]. Do you know why you can't delete the article if you break up the article into sub articles? How do you deal with the left over article? Spartaz Humbug! 22:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd split it, as in its current state, it is excessively long. However, I would not create new articles for the countries where there are only four or five entries e.g. Belarous, I'd delete it outright. After the split, I'd put it in table format, with country, then probably Amount of Manufactors maybe. It may not be the optimum solution, but its definitely workable. D.M.N. (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This is something admins must always be careful about. The GFDL requires attribution of authorship - which is part of the reason why we keep the article histories around. If you delete the article you are losing the history and the attribution. The effect is that the spunoff articles then break the gfdl. The way we do this is usually to redirect the old article to the new one. Do you have any suggestions on how we can do the same trick where an article is spun off into multiple versions? Spartaz Humbug! 11:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Not really. Can't seem to think of anything at the moment. I do understand the bit about the GFDL, but can't think of any suggestions where an article is spun off into multiple versions. D.M.N. (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The best you can do in these cases is make a null edit and use the summary to add a note linking to the history of the original article. The original can be redirected to one of the child articles. I'll see if I can scare up something more interesting to discuss. Spartaz Humbug! 19:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Nice juicy one here. [5] How would you close this one?
    • Wow. For a start off most of the sources in the article are primary sources as they come from thechurchofgoogle.org. I would prefer a lot of secondary, reliable sources to prove that it is indeed notable. One thing I did notice about the AFD, was that the previous one occured a few weeks ago, suggesting that the nomination could be pointy. However, one or two arguments in the debate suggest WP:IHATEIT by one or two users deciding delete. The article has been there since 2006, but saying that, a huge amount of progress has been made within the last few days. Partially due to the nomination just three weeks after the last AFD, I'd probably close it as No Consensus as both sides of the argument as reasonable, but it would be default Keep as a result. It won't surprise me at all if in the future it goes through AFD, and maybe DRV in the forseeable future. D.M.N. (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also [6]

  • Again both delete and keep arguments seem reasonable. "Thuringowacityrep" has a probable conflict of interest in the article. However, I mainly agree with NickDowling. I would close it as Keep but suggest cleanup to avoid another visit to AFD. If consensus changed, then Merge into City of Thuringowa also seems a sensible option too. D.M.N. (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

and a little trip into the snakepit that is Eastern European Articles [7].

I've seen articles better than that. The sourcing isn't superb, but it's got a basic level of depth. As EdJohnson rightfully says, the article satisfies notability criterion set out by WP:MUSIC, which suggests the article should be kept. I would close as Keep with the rationale that it's notable as per WP:MUSIC. I would suggest in closure to try and find more sources to help improve the article's quality further. If one or two more sources are found, it would be a nice, solid little article. D.M.N. (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm away all day tomorrow and I guess you will be tied up as well. We can probably move on to CSDs next. Spartaz Humbug! 19:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'm fine with moving onto CSD's. If we do, can you shift the content from the due to be deleted article into my sandbox, so that if it does get CSD'd, I can still see it? Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:D.M.N./Coaching&oldid=465412333"