Uncyclopedia talk:AAN/Adopters

Ruelz

I think the rules for adopting eligibility should be steepened. 500 edits is a good basis, but its not enough to make someone a regular or even a truly experienced editor. Adopters should be full-fledged Uncyclopedians, and I don't think the current requirements reflect that. --THINKER 14:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Invalid candidates

Adopter	Admin?	Adoption status	On Uncyclopedia	Notes
Zerotrousers	Of course not!	Yep!!	Haven't made any articles, haven't made any decent contributions. I'm currently being adopted by The Premier and Todd Lyons. Any admins looking to be adopted by a noob, feel free to request adoption!	In other words, I suck.
Gumbal1	No, I only annoy them	FUCK YEAH!	I really have not made any good articles. Maybe one day...	Wake up at 6:30 sharp, clean on Tuesdays, no Wikipedians allowed, off to bed at 9:47 sharp.
Extra	Nope	Currently Accepting.	I'm an Administrator on Wikipedia, But I have recently decided to hang up the seriousness of Wikipedia and become an Uncyclopedian. I'm Quite experienced with the policies and I know how to edit very well, If you want me adopt you, just message me on my talk page.	One Space Available.

Invalid. You're an adoptee, you can't adopt. Man, you're such an attention whore. I'm really starting to dislike you. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle  [scream!] 01:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm adoptin' just to build an army. ^_^ 19:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe we can exchange military knowledge... Did you see my drill program? -- herr doktor needsAshuttle  [scream!] 19:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

Well, I wasn't sure where to post this, so I figures I'd put it here, as well. Is the "must not have any recent blocks" rule strictly enforced? Because I was considering being an adopter, and I was blocked a few days ago for 2 hours. I don't think it was serious, it's not like it was a severe ban or anything. So, can an exception be made? P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you can just go ahead with that, I don't think Famine was that serious in that specific case. However, I find come back and find that I'm blocked myself, I must revise my advise...:) ~ 08:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, okay, thanks. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 14:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear god a time when Mordillo wasn't a SysOp! - [19:12 11 February 2009] YYettie

.

I'm interested in joining the program, but I was recently blocked for a few days, as per above, is it still strictly enforced? The ban was a month at first, but it was resolved, and I am working on articles and am not being bad. I think 6 months is to harsh and if you don't think I should sign up now, could I do so in a few weeks? I think I have enough experience, being here for 2 months, I could do a good job with it. I am also here on a regular basis--Sir Manforman 20:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Two questions you need to ask yourself:

1. Do you really like to help around here?

2. Do you think you have enough experience with the way this site work and with the wiki platform.

If the answers for both are yes, I'd go for it. But think closely about number 2. ~ 23:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Activity status

Hey there. I'm going to create a new colum in the table for whether the adopter is active or not or banned and such. Just thought I'd post a heads up incase anyone objected, but I doubt anyone will. Any help would be apreciated. Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. --THINKER 18:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sup with this?

Okay, now I love noobs just as much as the next guy. But what's up with noobs making themselves adopters right out of the chute? That's not good, other noobs may go to them under the assumption that they are getting advice from an experienced editor when that "experienced editor" may be just as clueless as they are. What I'm saying is: babies havin' babies. It's wrong.

Perhaps we need some kind of a qualification process for adopters? Such as being an Uncyclopedian for a minimum of (insert time period here)? Or perhaps winning NotM will override that rule? I dunno. I'm a Democrat, I have no ideas. Discuss. —Sir SysRq (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

“Adopters should have a minimum of 500 edits.”

~ AAN page on n00bs having n00bs

- [18:47 11 February 2009] YYettie

Although I agree, the last two adopters, should probably be struck off. - [18:48 11 February 2009] YYettie

Well, let's look at their respective edit counts.

Meganew: 520 edits

Joe SheA: 315 edits

Meganew is barely over the line, and yet I still do not think he has enough experience to be an adopter. Some other rules need to be put in place to limit the adopter list to only experienced editors. Perhaps this should be a bit more organized, like an adopter has to be approved or something. My logic there is that someone could be very experienced while making very relatively few edits and being here for only a few months compared to someone who makes many talk page edits and has had an account since 2007. (Meganew actually has a good number of mainspace edits, however) My point is that this needs to be more regulated. —Sir SysRq (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I think the admins should jsut keep an eye on it and then leave a polite message on less experienced editors. Or we could change the 500 edit rule to "800 edits or 2 months". Or you have to have won any official award or have got a feature? That's slightly more radical... - [19:08 11 February 2009] YYettie

Yeah, a little too radical for me. Perhaps we could set up some sort of small cabal committee that is in charge of admitting new adopters. That seems much more practical. I'd just have to gather some support for the idea and then run it past Mordillo. —Sir SysRq (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say that you just need to have one or two admins watching this page and new adopters. People can join up freely, bu the admins can then decide whether it's appropriate or sexy for certain users to become adopters. Based on their own rules. Because admins play by nobody's rules. - [19:27 11 February 2009] YYettie

I think we should have "2 months and 1000 edits" or other higher requirements. An asocial categorization monkey (like myself) could get 500 edits in a few days without much effort.--Mnb'z 19:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Guys, at least give me some credit. I probably can stand up and claim that I'm adopter material. However, you guys probably are right in not allowing Joe SheA as an adopter, as he doesn't fit the criteria. --Meganew 20:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My concern is not so much with the actual criteria itself, it's just that I personally don't think that either of you are quite ready to be adopting noobs. In the future, we'd love to see you helping new users. But I think you need a little more experience first. —Sir SysRq (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ideas

Before my iPhone pops a cap in its own ass, here's ideas(btw, I know I ain't adopter material iwas being an attention whore):

• 3-5 sysop review board for AAN applicants
• Check applicants' edit count/quality(especially in Template name space )
• Six months active on uncyc and at least 2,500 edits
• If applicant has fancy sig, give extra points (not neccessarily a prerequisite)

Holy Crap, I have good ideas that don't include whoring!

--J-Shea 05:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe. But that's gonna be a fair bit of work. How about something more like people are recommended to be adopters, by current adopters/admins and then an admin (or that admin) adds them to the list, if they think it's appropriate. I prefer the no-specific-guidelines route, because that way admins can be flexible and use common sense. Six months active, seems a little extreme, too. Because, some people get the hang of things very quickly, while others never do (well actually he did, but he kinda went on a killing spree...or I forget, maybe not a killing spree as such, but it was bad, so he's my example - got a problem with it?). - [07:48 12 February 2009] YYettie

OHAI! ~ 19:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC) What was that thing that Woody always say? Rules<Funny? We don't need to make it so strict, and the use of common sense is pretty good in this case. If you want an overview of the process, I'll be happy to assist. All in all, some people can get the hang of the site quickly in a couple of months, while other shall be forever noobs. ~ 08:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I think it would be good, for admins just to make the occasional purge. ALSO HAI! - [16:33 12 February 2009] YYettie

Sucks I can't be an adopter

Because I was blocked two weeks ago. --      Go Crazy Awards ~ Contribs ~ Gallery ~ Piglet 03:11, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Sucks Spike can’t Adopt Me

My dad isn’t on the available list of adopters, this burdens me because I look up to him. Please forcibly add him to this list so he can mentor me like I’ve always wanted &dreamed of. Gay (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)