Wikipedia:Editor review/Mike1

User:Mike1[edit]

Mike1 (talk · contribs) I've had an account on Wikipedia since November '05 and have been editing regularly since late February. Early on I didn't have a clue, but now I think I've gotten a more firm grasp on Wikipedia and I just want to know what some of you think of my contributions. Up until yesterday I was known as Mjg0503, although for the most part I signed my posts as Mike anyway. As of right now I have about 1,300 edits, and I am working on trying to make some changes to the WP:EL policy (see the talk page). Also, I am pleased with my contributions to the Netscape article, which I did some merging and resructuring so that it is now about the Netscape company rather than just the browser. I also added several citations and footnotes. Currently it is a GA nom. I hope it passes :-). Anyway, just trying to get some feedback on my edits. - Mike 20:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As of today I am up to 1,930 edits. - Mike (Trick or treat) 20:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Now up to 2,500 edits! - Mike | Talk 23:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

First off, I suggest that you try to use edit summaries for every single edit that you make, since they make life so much easier for everyone; if you intend to run for adminship at some point, people will be much less likely to oppose if you have at least 90%+ edit summary usage. Aside from that, you would probably benefit from expanding your activities into the Wikipedia space, which includes activities like AfD voting and requests for adminship - each of which have a lot to teach about Wikipedia policy and processes. Aside from that, you appear to have a good spread among your articles, and nothing worries me about the edits you've made. Keep up the good work. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 08:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As of today, my edit summary usage is at 98% for major edits and 92% for minor edits :-). - Mike (Trick or treat) 20:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've made progresses since your last RfA. I see you've been participating more on AfDs, although you could step up and considerably improve such participation. For instance, yesterday you took part in many AfDs without explaining your positions/without adding something new to the respective discussions. On this one I believe you meant "Redirect" but you stated "Keep and merge" which is something totally different. This way other users are unlikely to praise your input. I suggest that you consider searching about the AfD's subject instead, in order to provide new information to the discussion. You should also cite WP:NOT, WP:BIO, WP:NFT, etc., when you believe that an article should be deleted for a clear violation of an established WP policy. If you study the deletion policies and speedy deletion criteria, you will find AfD discussions much simpler and other editors will soon start to recognize your policy knowledge. Now, I also think that you could fight more vandalism. Installing Vandalproof or manually patrolling recent changes would greatly increase your participation in this task. Getting accustomed to spotting/tackling/vanquishing vandals is a good step for getting accustomed to blocking policies, and that is fundamental for becoming an administrator. When you're done with XfD/countervandalism improvement, you might just discover that you've gained a lot of experience and that you might be ready to risk another RfA. Until then, I foresee some hard work. :-) Apart from these, you're a good editor and I reckon you won't find any major opposition regarding article building. It's good to see your work with Netscape (I'm the only person I know who actually uses Netscape) and Calvin & Hobbes (I'm a big fan of them + the deranged mutant killer monster snow goons). I wish you good luck and I'm looking forward to see your new RfA in a few months. Best regards.--Hús ö nd 00:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've asked me to comment but I haven't really got any idea what to say. I have no real concerns with your editing. I hadn't realised you were up for RFA, I don't think I would have seen any real reason to oppose, you have the makings of a good admin. Let me know next time you run. Just carry on as you are, engage with issues and be personable. Looking at your rfa, people feel you need experience, and I see you afd participation is up. There's are also other deletion processes, have a look at them too maybe. Help out in a collaboration or two? But to be honest, you ain't doing too much wrong. Hiding Talk 13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

See this user's edit history with Interiot's "Wannabe Kate" tool and edit summary usage
User's current editing statistics according to Flcelloguy's tool. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 20:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Updated for 22:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC) using "Wannabe Kate" tool. - Mike | Talk 22:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics for: Mike1
(Permissions: N/A)
- Total: 2547 -
Category:	4 
Image:	18 
Mainspace	929 
Talk:	268 
Template:	61 
User talk:	422 
User:	362 
Wikipedia talk:	165 
Wikipedia:	318 
avg edits per article	5.17 
earliest	18:39, 5 November 2005 
number of unique articles	493 
-------------------
Total edits: 2547
Major edit summaries: 98%
Minor edit summaries: 89%
-------------------
* - percentages are rounded down to the nearest hundredth.
-------------------

Questions

Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
As I've stated already, I'm really happy with the Netscape article, and the reformatting and references added. I'm also really happy with the work I've done on Calvin and Hobbes, including the "Noodle Incident" section and lots of minor edits. I've been contributing to it for my whole time here. Another thing I would be very pleased with would be to come to a consensus of some kind at the WP:EL debate that I started to allow for linking to more than one fan site.
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
In mid-March, after only actively editing for a few weeks, I got into a little argument with Hiding for spam linking. At the time I was adding links to my websites to articles, and, as stated at WP:EL this is against policy. But I gave him a hard time about it and I really regret the whole situation. I know I was inexperienced, but what on earth was I thinking? I wanted to drive traffic to my sites, yes, but that's not the main reason I'm here, and that's what those edits made it look like. I've never been involved of anything of the sort since, and I've apoligized to Hiding since.
You've done a lot of good work cleaning up articles : I know as I've contributed to some of the same articles as you. I wonder if you've thought about trying Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser to do some of the donkey-work for you? --Oscarthecat 17:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a useful thing, although I'm running Mac, and according to the page it only works on Windows. :-( - Mike 19:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second question from me : although you've amended many articles, have you thought about contributing any articles from scratch? There's a page requested articles page listing them, that you might want to take a peek at. --Oscarthecat 20:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've contributed a few articles, e.g. Scooby-Doo Meets the Boo Brothers and Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes), but you're right, I've never been heavily involved in creating articles from scratch, mainly because articles I have an interest in already exsist. There have been many articles that, while I didn't start them, I contributed a great deal of their content, and totally restructured and reformatted them. The biggest example of this, as you know, is Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes. I'll certainly check out the page though, and I'll give it some thought as to what sort of articles I can create. - Mike 22:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mike (Trick or treat) - This signature, while fancy, probably isn't the greatest (click edit, scroll down here, and you'll see what I mean - the size is somewhat disruptive.) Could you please change it, if you haven't already? Thanks for understanding. Picaroon9288 03:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you guys are always getting me on the sigs, huh? I really like my new sig, but maybe I'll do something to it to make it a little less disruptive. - Mike (Trick or treat) 11:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who you mean by "you guys" - I don't think I've ever corresponded with you before. Maybe alternating colors on each word, as opposed to each letter? Just my suggestion. Picaroon9288 19:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I didn't mean for that to come off to mean "the cabal" :-). I'm just saying this is about the third time I've gotten a message from the "signature police" (not about this sig, but about others). Something similar to your suggestion is what I was thinking too. I'll give it a try and post it here. - Mike (Trick or treat) 19:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a new version. I don't like it as much, and I'm not sure why Wikipedia is so "un-fun" about sigs, but if it really does bother people I'll live with it. - Mike (Trick or treat) 19:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another version. I'll leave it up to you which one is best. Mike (Trick or treat) 19:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note BTW, that all of these sigs are temporary and I will probably move back to the basic one after Halloween. - Mike (Trick or treat) 20:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is up to you, Mike; your signature is your signature, and I can't choose it for you. And bear in mind that Pumpkin (color) exists! Picaroon9288 20:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks for that! I've changed the sig to that color :-). - Mike (Trick or treat) 20:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created another new sig now. I think I'll stick with this one through October. Easier to read, and it's a lot cooler looking. -- Mike | trick or treat 18:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the basics as of today....Mike | Talk 22:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]