Wikipedia:Editor review/Springeragh2

Springeragh

Springeragh (talk · contribs) I hope to become an administrator in the not-too-terribly-distant future, and I want to tie down some loose ends before I get nominated (so that hopefully I don't get all that many oppose votes for lack of experience). —  $PЯINGrαgђ  02:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC) P.S. You can see my previous review (from when I was a lot less experienced) here. 00:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

• Compassion - It's what I see in you. Your userpage says it all. You seem to be a good editor, and you have made great progress in terms of raising your edit count, (not that edit count says everything!) I am glad to see that you have gotten into RfA's a little more. Moreover, I am glad to see that you have more mainspace edits. Always remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia. From here, I would check out admin coaching. Here is a little tip: go to "my preferences" click the "editing" tab, and then check off "prompt me when leaving a blank edit summary." It is the last option to check off. This way, you will never forget to leave an edit summary, and your edit summary count will go up. Cheers --wpktsfs 02:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• [1] & [2]. Vendettas carried out with personal attacks and incivility don't look so great to requests for adminship reviewers. I hope you're over whatever was going on back then. Picaroon (Talk) 04:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't mean to argue (as that would also look bad for me), but especially in regards to diff #1, I'm not alone in my opinion. With diff #2, I was actually replying to Húsönd who basically said the same thing as I did.
    I do have a question though: What do you mean by "vendetta"? I don't really have one—at least I hope I don't. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  22:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • One: No, Steel359 was pointing out the flaw in your reasoning. Two: That's not a reason to mock someone. And if you don't have a vendetta against Cyde, well, that's good to know. Appearances can be deceiving, I guess. Picaroon (Talk) 23:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Zoot review by Spawn Man - Hmmm, I thought you had more edits than that? Considering your edit count, I'd say you definitely need to work on that - almost 2/3rds of your edits are to user & user talk pages, not good in regard to RfAs. Your Wikipedia namespace & mainspace counts are also too low for my liking. We are predominantly here to write an encyclopedia & although numerosu people argue with me about it, I feel those writing skills are of far greater value to admins than anything else. Anyone can press a button & revert things, but to recognise what to revert, you need writing skills, referencing skills, template skills etc etc. If an admin disappears (God forbid!) ;) then nothing much happens. But if a writer goes, lots of things stop & it has a much bigger imapct. So overall, get your count up, especially in those mentioned areas. In regard to civility - let's face it, the voting system isn't perfect on Wikipedia in regard to RfAs & you are what I like to call a "social editor". A social editor more often than not makes it through RfA easily, making WP:100 even though they don't do much article writing. This is unfair in my view, but unfortunately, you are what I consider to be a social editor. Don't get me wrong, you deserve to be well liked because you are indeed a wonderful guy, but the fact is, is that you could enter RfA right now & I could garuntee you'd nearly make it. So keep that in mind when you come to being nominated - you'll probably make it, but do you want it to be by your hard work or personality? So you could quite easily do nothing right now & keep on people's good side until the big day, but you'd probably lose all my respect, not that my respect is worth much these days. Becasue of this, I'd suggest you concentrate on article & wikipedia namespaces, instead of user & user talking. I sometimes go for days without having anyone but the signpost place a message on my page - sure it's lonely, but it porves that just because you've currently got 2/3rds of your edits towards those namespaces, that you're not a one track pony. Anyway, I've rabbled on for long enough now. To sum up - Work on Mainspace, Wikipedia, Talk, Template & Wikipedia talk. Don't work on User talk & User namespaces. Stay out of trouble & you'll be unstoppable at RfA & you'll definitely have my vote. Cheers, Spawn Man 05:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That's good, considering that's what I'm working on now. At least I'm doing something right. :) —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  20:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Spawn's assessment. Spring, you are a terrific guy and you're one of the people that makes Wikipedia such a (usually!) nice place to work--building a community of editors who respect and trust each other is quite important, and I commend you for the positive effect you have had on that front. However, we are here mainly to write an encyclopedia, not to chat with friends. (Sheesh, but I'm one to talk, I'm the one who stays up until one in the morning yakking aimlessly with István and Biruitorul!) You are obviously a smart guy and know how Wikipedia works, and I'm sure you have a lot to contribute in the mainspace. One thing you might want to try is picking one or two articles to do some intensive work on, like what I'm trying to do with Szigeti (it was a stub when I first got my hands on it and I'm only halfway through, I swear I'll finish it once schedule permits) rather than allowing yourself to get spread too thin--a grammar fix here, a minor re-phrase there--that stuff is useful, but it's just so damn satisfying to take a miserable shriveled little vestigial stub of an article and turn it into something good. K. Lásztocska 23:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

   I would say mostly my minor tweaks and re-writes (the latter of which I probably haven't done enough of as of late) to classical composers' articles, and also to a much lesser degree articles about musical intruments. I also have a large number of articles for symphonies, concerti, sonatas, etc. etc. etc. by various composers on my watchlist, so that results in the not-so-occasional edit. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  02:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

3. 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?

   Really the only major thing that comes to mind is the huge war on Liszt's talk page about nationality (at least that's what it was originally) and really trivial and tiny things by a user who, to put it in a AGF way, is slightly misled. Surprisingly it has not really caused me much stress at all; most of my stress-related things that happen here come from real life. As for the future, the only thing I can say is hope for the best. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  02:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionals from Dfrg.msc

Borrowed from Glen (talk · contribs), I'm sure he wont mind. These should test you editing skills, and show if you have any weaknesses which you can work on. So, just write your answer next to the Question. Good luck.

Speedy Delete or not:

1. CSD1 Delete; not notable.
2. CSD2 Delete; possibly spam?
3. CSD3 Not sure; it could be fleshed out more, but if it isn't, it could be seen as spam.
4. CSD4 Delete; nonsense
5. CSD5 Keep but wikify; good stub.

Vandalism or or not:

1. [3] Vandalism
2. [4] Vandalism
3. [5] Vandalism
4. [6] Vandalism
5. [7] Borderline—not correct for a heading but not really "vandalism" per se either
6. [8] Not vandalism, but not good article information either

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment regarding Jimmy Wales. That part I fixed yesterday in the education section was logically inconsistent. It reads like the school was donating the software to itself. So why did you undo? greg park avenue 13:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

EC:

User:Springeragh

     run at Thu Jul 5 07:23:57 2007 GMT

Category talk:	2
Image talk:	3
Image:	22
Mainspace	777
Portal talk:	2
Portal:	9
Talk:	154
Template talk:	5
Template:	16
User talk:	1771
User:	1101
Wikipedia talk:	32
Wikipedia:	206
avg edits per page	3.47
earliest	23:50, 18 November 2005
number of unique pages	1182
total	4100

That's a good number Spring, but you've got to use a consistent edit summary. You will get opposed for it! Dfrg.msc 07:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)