Wikipedia:Editor review/Reywas92

Reywas92[edit]

Reywas92 (talk · contribs) Hello! I've been here on the Wiki for nearly a year now, and I'm quite interested in becoming an admin. I have 3500 edits, 2200 in mainspace, with fairly good summary usage. I will often CSD new articles, I participate often in XfD, and obviously patrol RC. Backlog is much too high and vandalism is on the rise, so I'd like some input on what I can do to better myself for an RfA. Thank you very much in advance for your comments. Reywas92^Talk 03:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

I reviewed as much as I could manage because you have a lot on your user page and edit count readout.

I'm surprised that you lack the confidence to write or rewrite articles given your experience. You've clearly done something with Jeopardy!, and you've listed a few other articles on your userpage. If you're looking for more to write about, try the community portal (link on the left sidebar) for ideas.
Your edit summary usage should improve. See Help:Edit summary to understand why it's a good idea to use summaries.
Most successful admin candidates have more edits than you do now, but I'd encourage you to go forward with a self-nom if you think you're ready. What's most likely to derail you, if anything, are the "many minor conflicts" to which you refer. I'd encourage you to review them in some detail and examine if there are any lessons to learn. I'm not offering to do that, but you might be able to find someone at Wikipedia:Admin coaching.

I wish you good luck. YechielMan 04:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem like a good user, but I would caution you to reread WP:SPEEDY and think a little bit more about when it's appropriate to apply speedy tags. As an admin you would have the ability to delete articles without tagging them first, which is why appropriate application of tags is pretty important if you want to be an admin. I don't think you're terrible at it, but I do question the following: tagging this userpage with db-bio [1], tagging this language stub with db-empty a few minutes after it was created - if you check it out now, the creator (and me, after I declined to speedy it) has worked on it more and it's a perfectly good little stub: Mishing language. Here you tagged something that already had an article and was better sorted out by redirecting as happened here. In short, speedy deletion is for specific things and not for others. A little research is often necessary before deletion. I often find myself redirecting, fixing stubs or userfying instead of deleting. All of which are actions any editor can take. It's not complicated, but it is strict. However, check out the relevant info a bit more and I expect you'll be fine. I would also suggest going back through articles you have tagged that were not speedied and determining (or asking) why. I personally would be happy to answer any questions. Cheers. Dina 17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the imput. My gosh! I do need to slow down. I had thought it was a vanity article; for some reason I didn't notice it was in userspace. Reywas92^Talk 19:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to get wrapped up in fighting spam. That's not why we are here. Have you ever created, nominated or reviewed a good article or featured article? You may want to get involved in these rewarding processes. Also, I notice that your talk page edits are low relative to your total edit count. One of the qualities of a good administrator is the ability to work with other editors to build consensus. For instance, with this edit, you could leave a message for the other editor to explain why you reverted his addition, or you could leave an appropriate user warning message. The other editor seems to have violated WP:BLP. You should take this opportunity to help him become a better editor. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 02:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(*I have notice that since this date, you have nominated two articles for speedy deletion using the "reason" "dead-end, no links, says it is very uncommon, only one conributor Speedy concern: dead-end, no links, very low google hits, only one conributor" [2] and another (a family name) using the reason "dead-end, no links, says it is very uncommon, only one conributor}" [3] and yet another using the reason "db-bio"

for an article beginning "A distinctive voice and prominent figure" [4]. It is clear that you do not know what the criteria for speedy deletion are, and you have not learned since the previous reminder. DGG 01:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard of weasel words? That is sure POV to me. Anwar Al-Ghassani also has only one writer, so it hasn't really been checked. It has no sources or wikification, and it is a possible copyvio.

The name is one of thousands of names, mostly non-notable. The article itself said it was an uncommon name. The other person has very few Google hits and is also unwikified, one author, no in-line sources, and is a possible copyvio.

Also, it really is a reason, whether valid or not, and requires no quotation marks.

Finally, although I admit that these articles may not be candidates for speedy deletion, I do not see enough notability to warrant an article. I will nominate them for deletion and see then. Reywas92^{TalkReview me} 20:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right that it isn't notable--I didn't say that it was. But knowing the right process is important, especially for an admin., and I'm glad you're taking it seriously & learning. DGG 04:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that in your edit summaries you have a tendancy to be snide or even nasty, rather than informative (e.g. diff "noo! learn how to use a comma!" and diff "what says these need these?!!?!" when removing unnecessary quotation marks). I'm sure it's exasperating that other editors are not as familiar with the rules of punctuation as you are, but try and be more patient with them. Even your response to DGG above: "Have you ever heard of weasel words?", is not particularly civil. I also get the sense that you sometimes zoom along prodding or speedying without stopping to really consider each article. I know how easy that can be to do but you might want to give it a little more consideration. You are obviously intelligent for your age but knowledge and wisdom are not the same thing. Some day you might make a fine admin but, frankly, I'd be dismayed were you to be granted that power at this time. Precious Roy 01:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do consider the article, and a poorly formed article about a song where the exact same information is in the band's article is not really a notable article. I check the what links here, history, and sometimes Google it before I tag it. I obviously lean toward deletionism, but I try not to be indiscriminate. About weasel words, I was trying to be as civil as a could, though when read a different way I guess it could be taken diffently. Reywas92^Talk 14:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that articles are not kept or deleted on the basis of the quality of the article (though that obviously can be a factor). It's whether or not the subject of the article meets notability standards. If you come across a crappy article, by all means, slap the appropriate clean-up templates on it—better yet, clean it up yourself. Don't just write it off, especially in the case of recently-created stubs. Precious Roy 16:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I notice that in AfD discussions you add a colored symbol ( a check mark Y for example) next to your !vote. This may not be a good idea--it tends to emphasize your own decision, and also detracts from the principle that what is wanted is not a keep or delete, but an explanation. DGG 23:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

Questions

Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I don't particularly have major edits I am proud of, but anywhere I have made many edits I like. I make more minor edits - copyediting and vandalism reverting, but I wish I could make bigger edits. I only regret that I am not quite knowledgeable of most topics to make major edits. Wikipedia is already so big that it has nearly everything; I can't add too much more!
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?
I have been in many minor conflcts on rather minor things, but nothing in particular has caused much stress or needed arbitration. I must remember to post on talk before reverting again.