Misplaced Pages talk:Adopt-a-user: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:43, 10 November 2008 editNorthern Romania (talk \| contribs)110 edits →Help: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 09:41, 18 November 2008 edit undoFlorentino floro (talk \| contribs)6,750 edits adopt meNext edit →
Line 171:		Line 171:

	I needed help, so I got myself into an adoption. But that person told me that he would not be too active on the website, and suggested that I get myself a "co-adopter." And that is what I did. But that person doesn't seem to answer my inquiries. What should I do? I still need help. ] (]) 00:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)		I needed help, so I got myself into an adoption. But that person told me that he would not be too active on the website, and suggested that I get myself a "co-adopter." And that is what I did. But that person doesn't seem to answer my inquiries. What should I do? I still need help. ] (]) 00:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

			==Help, adopt me==
			Since my adopter had been offline since ],2008, may I request that I be adopted by any non-Filipino adopter, forthwith, amid the present controversy
			Hoping for your swift action on my request. Cheers.--] (]) 09:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:41, 18 November 2008

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user: edit · history · watch · refresh

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Inactive adoptees

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but I've noticed that my adoptees have become inactive (three last edited in January 2008, and one a year ago). Given the long period of time, I'm assuming that they are not coming back, either because they got bored with Misplaced Pages and decided it wasn't for them, or I'm a bad adopter—I'm hoping not the latter.

I wondered if there are other cases of this or if some standard practice is in place. Frankly, I'm not sure if I should keep the adoptee boxes on my userpage for people I don't think will return to editing, but I worry they may pop back in think I've forgotten about them. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 21:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

Hi Guyinblack25, i've found that if you dont think your adoptee will come back to the project, they usually won't. It won't be anything you've done that's driven them away, some people just don't find the project is for them. Previously i have had adoptees stop adopting, and i've found that the best way to deal with it is to leave a note on the adoptees talk page, stating that you are ending the adoption, but then say that if they do come back, you will happily pick up were you left off as adopter. Then you can happily remove the boxes. Hope this helps. Reece (Talk) (Contributions) 22:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi GIB! I actually don't display a userbox for each individual adoptee, I have a table (User talk:Xenocidic/wikiadopt/header) transcluded onto my main adoption page (User talk:Xenocidic/wikiadopt) and when they become inactive, I just "noinclude" them on the table so they don't get transcluded onto the main adoption page and make a note of their last edit date. Feel free to robbe anything you want from my pages. –xeno (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. (Guyinblack25 22:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC))

question

are u allowed to have more than one adopter, --Daisy404 (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)daisy404--Daisy404 (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Referral from context of WP:AN/I?

I don't know whether or not this is urgent? If this is urgent, I am responding with appropriate urgency to a well-intentioned suggestion.

The following comes from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks.

This posting was addressed to Caspian blue:

I think you are overreacting, because the fundamental problem with Tenmei is his inability to make himself understood, not civility issues. It is not my intention to mock you. The other blocks is less indicative than what I assumed when looking at your log, and as such is not really relevant to this discussion. Taemyr (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This posting was addressed to me:

Tenmei, I urge you to seek a Mentor. The fact that most editors find your style of discussion to be difficult to understand, as well as tending to sidetrack the discussion, is going to be a problem for you and editors around you until you substantially improve your prose. Taemyr (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd made an on-point contribution to this thread; and Taemyr's response was the following, which suggests that it was not seen as helpful or appropriate in the context.

Something definitely needs to be done about Tenmei's style of discussion if he is to be a constructive participant in this project. I suggested mentorship higher up in this tread. Taemyr (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The following is the text I posted. Taemyr's reaction was not what I would have expected -- not positive or approving, to be sure. --Tenmei (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Extended content
When two men fight over a woman it's the fight they want, not the woman It seems to me that there's a commonly-used American expression which applies here -- an old joke that when two men fight over a woman it's the fight they want, not the woman. I think it's the fight itself which is most important to Caspian blue. At best, maybe it's an adolescent attempt to do what seems to be the right thing ... but somehow the best intentions fall a little short of the mark? I don't think anyone can sort this one out. I know I can't. The more important problem at hand is that there are likely to be other similarly-motivated wiki-editors who make the prospects doubtful for any article which includes both Korean and Japanese themes. The future is especially uncertain for articles like Korean missions to Edo and Joseon Tongsinsa which rely for their ultimate success on a collaborative merging of Korean and Japanese scholarship. These articles seem already to have become another one of those Sterling examples of wiki-failure. As some of us know quite well, there are some Misplaced Pages articles which have devolved into nothing but proxy battlefields in a centuries-old set of disputes between Korea and Japan, between Koreans and Japanese. When I created the rough draft of Korean missions to Edo, I thought there was a chance that this specific subject could become a meaningful example of something else -- an illustration of something which worked out well to the advantage of everyone; but whatever progress I thought had been made was dashed when Caspian blue accused me of personal attacks and Korea-bashing. As everyone knows, this deflects attention away from working towards developing commonly-understood objectives ... and indeed, I had some reason to believe that an AfD discussion was working towards a consensus decision, but that was untimely closed merely because of the unsubstantiated allegations Caspian blue posted here. I tried to find an example of this American saying on the Internet. The following is from a televised discussion about a political compromise in the US Senate in 2005. We don't really need to understand the politics of whatever it is these two men are analyzing -- the objective was simply to find an illustration of an apt phrase used in context. JIM LEHRER: Take us through this, David. These are your folks -- the conservatives. How are the conservatives going to react to this? Is anybody going to have to pay a price, do you believe? DAVID BROOKS: I don't think they'll have to pay a price. The conservative like James Dobson are apoplectic. James Dobson wakes up apoplectic. But, you know, they wanted to fight. I'm reminded of that old joke that when two men fight over a woman it's the fight they want, not the woman. They were geared up for this fight. But I think in a not-too-distant future people are going to see that this is a good win for those conservatives because .... Two wiki-examples of wiki-failures are Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women. I recognize that the real-world disputes about these subjects are both controversial and valid; but the talk pages provide ample evidence that for many contributors, the proxy wiki-fights are more important to the combatants that the article itself. In the example from American television offers another useful mirror in terms of a word I had to look up in the dictionary. Brooks says that "James Dobson wakes up apoplectic," meaning that he wakes up in morning highly excited, ready for a fight about what he believes in. If I've understood wiki-etiquette correctly, Brooks would be reprimanded at WP:AN/I for writing "Dobson wakes up apoplectic," but I think I can safely write that Caspian blue acts as if he were apoplectic before he clicks into a discussion about Joseon tongsinsa or Korean missions to Edo; and what seems like Caspian blue's frustrated anger is only indirectly related to whatever words are to be read on the computer screen. For Caspian blue and other peers with whom there is common cause at articles like Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women, it appears as if it is often very difficult to maintain a distinction between what infuriates them in the real world and what is construed as inflammatory, offensive or personal attacks in the wiki-context. When I nominated Joseon tongsinsa for deletion because it did not comply with WP:V, that was not an anti-Korean gesture. When Caspian blue added an online Korean encyclopedia entry as a reference source for 4 in-line citations in Joseon tongsinsa, I translated the article via Bablefish. That was not an anti-Korean gesture. The machine translation was largely unreadable, of course; but by simply highlighting the Gregorian calendar dates with a bold font, it became possible to show that there was no correlation between the alleged citations and the source. That was not an anti-Korean gesture. I mistook the ensuing silence as an indication that the real work of merging reliably sourced information had at last begun. I was even proud of myself for having stumbled through the onerous task of machine-translated Korean to English which could be read by the other AfD discussion participants. But NO -- that's not what happened. Instead, the modest momentum of constructive engagement was stalled, quashed, blocked. Instead, the consensus reality of wiki-dispute resolution focuses attention elsewhere. I predict this can only happen again and again ad nauseam as it has played out in other articles. The task at hand is difficult enough, but it explicitly becomes a Sisyphean exercise unless something is done differently. In my view, Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women are doomed to failure because each are independently re-inventing the wheel over and over again. Caspian blue has participated in both talk pages -- and I mention this only as a way of demonstrating a knowledge that both articles exist and that both illustrate talk page difficulties. In addition, I know about both these pages, and now anyone who reads these words will know as well -- but where is the wiki-mechanism which allows for a chance that participants at Talk:Korean missions to Edo can profit from the investments of time, energy, and intellectual engagement in difficult discussions on these talk pages? Other than posting here, what can be done to avoid the endless cycle of re-inventing the wheel in Korean missions to Edo and other similarly difficult articles? --Tenmei (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Extended content

When two men fight over a woman it's the fight they want, not the woman

It seems to me that there's a commonly-used American expression which applies here -- an old joke that when two men fight over a woman it's the fight they want, not the woman. I think it's the fight itself which is most important to Caspian blue. At best, maybe it's an adolescent attempt to do what seems to be the right thing ... but somehow the best intentions fall a little short of the mark? I don't think anyone can sort this one out. I know I can't.

The more important problem at hand is that there are likely to be other similarly-motivated wiki-editors who make the prospects doubtful for any article which includes both Korean and Japanese themes. The future is especially uncertain for articles like Korean missions to Edo and Joseon Tongsinsa which rely for their ultimate success on a collaborative merging of Korean and Japanese scholarship.

These articles seem already to have become another one of those Sterling examples of wiki-failure. As some of us know quite well, there are some Misplaced Pages articles which have devolved into nothing but proxy battlefields in a centuries-old set of disputes between Korea and Japan, between Koreans and Japanese.

When I created the rough draft of Korean missions to Edo, I thought there was a chance that this specific subject could become a meaningful example of something else -- an illustration of something which worked out well to the advantage of everyone; but whatever progress I thought had been made was dashed when Caspian blue accused me of personal attacks and Korea-bashing. As everyone knows, this deflects attention away from working towards developing commonly-understood objectives ... and indeed, I had some reason to believe that an AfD discussion was working towards a consensus decision, but that was untimely closed merely because of the unsubstantiated allegations Caspian blue posted here.

I tried to find an example of this American saying on the Internet. The following is from a televised discussion about a political compromise in the US Senate in 2005. We don't really need to understand the politics of whatever it is these two men are analyzing -- the objective was simply to find an illustration of an apt phrase used in context.

JIM LEHRER: Take us through this, David. These are your folks -- the conservatives. How are the conservatives going to react to this? Is anybody going to have to pay a price, do you believe?

DAVID BROOKS: I don't think they'll have to pay a price. The conservative like James Dobson are apoplectic. James Dobson wakes up apoplectic. But, you know, they wanted to fight. I'm reminded of that old joke that when two men fight over a woman it's the fight they want, not the woman. They were geared up for this fight. But I think in a not-too-distant future people are going to see that this is a good win for those conservatives because ....

Two wiki-examples of wiki-failures are Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women. I recognize that the real-world disputes about these subjects are both controversial and valid; but the talk pages provide ample evidence that for many contributors, the proxy wiki-fights are more important to the combatants that the article itself.

In the example from American television offers another useful mirror in terms of a word I had to look up in the dictionary. Brooks says that "James Dobson wakes up apoplectic," meaning that he wakes up in morning highly excited, ready for a fight about what he believes in. If I've understood wiki-etiquette correctly, Brooks would be reprimanded at WP:AN/I for writing "Dobson wakes up apoplectic," but I think I can safely write that Caspian blue acts as if he were apoplectic before he clicks into a discussion about Joseon tongsinsa or Korean missions to Edo; and what seems like Caspian blue's frustrated anger is only indirectly related to whatever words are to be read on the computer screen.

For Caspian blue and other peers with whom there is common cause at articles like Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women, it appears as if it is often very difficult to maintain a distinction between what infuriates them in the real world and what is construed as inflammatory, offensive or personal attacks in the wiki-context.

When I nominated Joseon tongsinsa for deletion because it did not comply with WP:V, that was not an anti-Korean gesture.

When Caspian blue added an online Korean encyclopedia entry as a reference source for 4 in-line citations in Joseon tongsinsa, I translated the article via Bablefish. That was not an anti-Korean gesture.

The machine translation was largely unreadable, of course; but by simply highlighting the Gregorian calendar dates with a bold font, it became possible to show that there was no correlation between the alleged citations and the source. That was not an anti-Korean gesture.

I mistook the ensuing silence as an indication that the real work of merging reliably sourced information had at last begun. I was even proud of myself for having stumbled through the onerous task of machine-translated Korean to English which could be read by the other AfD discussion participants.

But NO -- that's not what happened. Instead, the modest momentum of constructive engagement was stalled, quashed, blocked. Instead, the consensus reality of wiki-dispute resolution focuses attention elsewhere. I predict this can only happen again and again ad nauseam as it has played out in other articles.

The task at hand is difficult enough, but it explicitly becomes a Sisyphean exercise unless something is done differently. In my view, Liancourt Rocks and Comfort women are doomed to failure because each are independently re-inventing the wheel over and over again.

Caspian blue has participated in both talk pages -- and I mention this only as a way of demonstrating a knowledge that both articles exist and that both illustrate talk page difficulties. In addition, I know about both these pages, and now anyone who reads these words will know as well -- but where is the wiki-mechanism which allows for a chance that participants at Talk:Korean missions to Edo can profit from the investments of time, energy, and intellectual engagement in difficult discussions on these talk pages?

Other than posting here, what can be done to avoid the endless cycle of re-inventing the wheel in Korean missions to Edo and other similarly difficult articles? --Tenmei (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Theresa Knott counsels: "You need to keep posts short. No one reads huge long posts. Try limiting yourself to a maximum of 5 sentences (normal length ones) or one short paragraph of 10 likes of text. That way people will actually read what you say." Although I want to post the following on her talk page, it is too long -- hence unhelpful, ineffective, useless.

Extended content
Theresa Knott -- I wonder if you could become a kind of "fulcrum" in ways neither of us can imagine yet? As you know, Guy describes WP:ANI#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks as a "festival of Stupid" and Future Perfect at Sunrise characterizes it as mere "bickering." In that context, you represent a plausible fulcrum from which to leverage an ultimately constructive outcome: Please re-visit just the second clause from a sentence which knowingly mis-states my AfD position: Caspian blue's summary of the complaint at hand: Tenmei ... also claims that the nominated article should be completely deleted even after it is getting cited with a reliable source by me. For the moment, set aside the fact that each of the following explained that the only way to invite assistance from the Article Rescue Squadron was by nominating an otherwise unsourced article for deletion: Talk:Joseon tongsinsa#Merge Talk:Korean missions to Edo#Merge Talk:Joseon tongsinsa#Deletion Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joseon tongsinsa Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Needing diplomacy and finesse Just focusing on that second clause, Caspian blue slyly managed to avoid scrutiny of the Korean language source which was cited. All that was needed was changing the venue from the fully-engaged AfD discussion thread to this one where the issues could be re-framed in more superficial terms. The AfD was summarily closed by Seicer because of Caspian blue's unsupported allegations that the discussion had degenerated into personal abuse. Future Perfect at Sunrise has now merged the articles. In my view, it was only possible to get as far as we had done because there were a sufficient number of others participating in the AfD discussion. It plainly took more time to struggle with figuring out how to engage a process to resolve the WP:V problems with the rescue process than it took to locate and post a single Korean language encyclopedia entry. It took longer to translate the source than Caspian blue has invested in making a substantive contribution to article content. What was this really all about? I don't know, but I do know that this specific on-line text does not support any of the specific sentences for which it was cited. QED: From this experience, Caspian blue will have learned that this is an effective gambit. There's no arguing with its success; and as a special bonus, the exercise furthers an unfathomable anti-Japanese vendetta. This was a victory in a one-sided fight was gained with relatively little effort except for a bit of argumentative prose. The disputing itself has value because of a modest adrenalin-boost fuels a practice-session which improves Caspian blue English fluency. Who can deny that Caspian blue achieved a defined set of goals? I would have wanted to add some part of the above to the thread which is soon to be archived; but I can't see how to explain myself more succinctly than this. Why is this outcome a good one? Perhaps you may become a fulcrum at some point in a future in which Caspian blue's over-reaching comes to your attention in a dispute involving someone else? --Tenmei (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Extended content

Theresa Knott --

I wonder if you could become a kind of "fulcrum" in ways neither of us can imagine yet?

As you know, Guy describes WP:ANI#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks as a "festival of Stupid" and Future Perfect at Sunrise characterizes it as mere "bickering." In that context, you represent a plausible fulcrum from which to leverage an ultimately constructive outcome:

Please re-visit just the second clause from a sentence which knowingly mis-states my AfD position: Caspian blue's summary of the complaint at hand:

Tenmei ... also claims that the nominated article should be completely deleted even after it is getting cited with a reliable source by me.

For the moment, set aside the fact that each of the following explained that the only way to invite assistance from the Article Rescue Squadron was by nominating an otherwise unsourced article for deletion:

Just focusing on that second clause, Caspian blue slyly managed to avoid scrutiny of the Korean language source which was cited. All that was needed was changing the venue from the fully-engaged AfD discussion thread to this one where the issues could be re-framed in more superficial terms. The AfD was summarily closed by Seicer because of Caspian blue's unsupported allegations that the discussion had degenerated into personal abuse. Future Perfect at Sunrise has now merged the articles. In my view, it was only possible to get as far as we had done because there were a sufficient number of others participating in the AfD discussion.

It plainly took more time to struggle with figuring out how to engage a process to resolve the WP:V problems with the rescue process than it took to locate and post a single Korean language encyclopedia entry. It took longer to translate the source than Caspian blue has invested in making a substantive contribution to article content. What was this really all about? I don't know, but I do know that this specific on-line text does not support any of the specific sentences for which it was cited.

QED: From this experience, Caspian blue will have learned that this is an effective gambit. There's no arguing with its success; and as a special bonus, the exercise furthers an unfathomable anti-Japanese vendetta. This was a victory in a one-sided fight was gained with relatively little effort except for a bit of argumentative prose. The disputing itself has value because of a modest adrenalin-boost fuels a practice-session which improves Caspian blue English fluency.

Who can deny that Caspian blue achieved a defined set of goals? I would have wanted to add some part of the above to the thread which is soon to be archived; but I can't see how to explain myself more succinctly than this. Why is this outcome a good one?

Perhaps you may become a fulcrum at some point in a future in which Caspian blue's over-reaching comes to your attention in a dispute involving someone else? --Tenmei (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Inactive waiting-for-adoption?

I was perusing the waiting-for-adoption category.. A large number of the users listed haven't been active on the site in months. Should they be removed? If not, should we establish an activity cutoff point? Prince of Canada 20:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I normally would remove the userbox if they hadnt edited in 60 days and I would leave them a note on their userpage. See Category talk:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user#Spring cleaning for a suggested boilerplate message. –xeno (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I went through several months ago and offered adoption to everyone who hadn't edited for more than a month or two (several dozen, as I recall). As I expected, none responded. I think this is a little more friendly than just removing the box, and accomplishes the same task. You're at little risk of being overwhelmed by responses, too, so this is the approach I'd recommend. And if anyone responds, bonus points! --Sopoforic (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine as long as you yourself don't plan on becoming inactive in the near or distant future. Make sure to change the boxes to adoptoffer to clear the cat =) –xeno (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I prefer xeno's approach; I don't see it as unfriendly, plus Soporific's apprach just moves them from one cat (waiting) to another (offered). Prince of Canada 20:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You could always combine the two, removing the userbox completely, but still offering adoption. –xeno (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean that it was unfriendly--for an inactive user, simply removing the box is fine. I meant, rather, that by offering adoption to the inactive users, you have a chance of coaxing them into editing again; something like 'encouraging' might have been a more appropriate term. Too, I don't really see them sitting in the 'offered' cat as a problem. But, by all means, do what you prefer. Xenocidic's approach is fine, too. --Sopoforic (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Doh, I should have gotten that meaning. My bad. Prince of Canada 01:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Elite Rhodes-Looking for Adoptions

I am looking for adoption, I am a new and inexperienced user at editing Misplaced Pages and need a mentor to teach me how to contribute more to wikipedia. Can anyone help... Thanks.

New IRC channel

I'm currently working on a new IRC channel, #wikipedia-en-adopt, I'm seeking a bot that can monitor the C:ADOPT and I'm also seeking folk who are familiar with freenode who would be willing to OP this channel, thanks —— RyanLupin • (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Update

I think Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters needs a serious update. Some users have retired, some which are not listed as admins are now, some users are full for adoptees, and I think the page could overall not help a newbie. I'm proposing a message sent to all listed adoptors, and asking them to update their status. If a user doesn't respond within two weeks, they will be taken off the list, and possible be put in a "Former Adoptors" category, like WP:ADCO.--LAA Fan _review 16:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the list does need some updating. -- RyRy (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. I think you could probably ask Xenocidic to use his bot to mass notify everyone on the adoption page (I'm assuming his bot is capable of such a task) ——Possum (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

xenobot can certainly do this. does someone want to draft the message to be delivered? –xeno (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Adopt-a-user!
	We've noticed that some of the great members of Adopt-a-user haven't updated their adoption status in a while. We'd love it if you could drop by and update your info. Thanks!

- Prince of Canada 13:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

How about this?

Hi there Adopt-a-user!
	We've noticed that you are in the Adopt-a-User program under Active Adopters. We are currently updating the information for adoptors. If you could, please update your status here. Thanks.

I'll give this to Xeno.--LAA Fan _review 17:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, perhaps we could discuss first? AaU is a friendly place, I'd prefer that we used somewhat more friendly language in our outgoing messages. Prince of Canada 23:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea, there's no rush... alternatively rather than blasting the entire list we could just remove adopters who have not editing in 60 days and leave them a message notifying them of that. I did this a while back and you can see the message I used here: Misplaced Pages talk:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters#Spring cleaning... –xeno (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I dunno.. I think I'd prefer to see the whole list blasted, as we probably have some people who are at <60 days but don't want to be involved anymore, so may as well ask them to clean out now. Plus it increases the chance of unaffiliated people seeing a PRETTY BLUE BOX and saying "Hey, what's that about? I want in on that!" Prince of Canada 23:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Something along the lines of... Hey there! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Something like that? –xeno (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Warm and fuzzy! Prince of Canada 00:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I like that version, too. BTW, shall I go and spring clean the user who haven't edited in 60 days?--LAA Fan _review 01:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Blast is done. –xeno (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha my watchlist is full of the same edit summary! XD ——Possum (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Major reaction! --Hirohisat 00:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

While there was some minor confusion over the phrasing (some thought that we were referring to them specifically as "60 days inactive"), overall this has been a successful initiative with many people tweaking their status. Kudos to everyone involved. –xeno (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking to becoming an adopter

Hi. I'm interested in becoming an adopter, but I wasn't sure if the 500 edits limit is for mainspace edits or total edits. Would I qualify? I haven't been blocked/warned during my stay on WP. For your convenience, a link to my edit count: . — Twinzor - Do I suck or rock? 16:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, go for it! We can always use more active adopters. –xeno (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Housekeeping

I've just been doing a bit of housekeeping in the Adoptees category. I've removed a few people who haven't been active in at least a month, and changed the status of a couple. 19:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Help

I needed help, so I got myself into an adoption. But that person told me that he would not be too active on the website, and suggested that I get myself a "co-adopter." And that is what I did. But that person doesn't seem to answer my inquiries. What should I do? I still need help. ] ] ] (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Help, adopt me

Since my adopter had been offline since September 30,2008, may I request that I be adopted by any non-Filipino adopter, forthwith, amid the present controversy Hoping for your swift action on my request. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories: