Wikipedia:Editor review/TheM62Manchester

User:TheM62Manchester[edit]

NOTE: This user has been blocked indefinitely as a confirmed sock-puppeteer. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 21:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheM62Manchester (talk · contribs) I wish to gain feedback on how I'm doing; and if anyone wants to nominate me for RFA soon, then let me know here. Thanks! BTW, I am not good at RC patrolling, I'm a bit slow at that!! but I am OK at article writing, but have recently joined a few WikiProjects. Advice is appreciated! --TheM62Manchester 10:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Before you run for an RfA, I strongly recommend that you spend time increasing your edit counts in both the Article and Talk namespaces, since many !voters at WP:RFA place great emphasis on candidates' perceived ability to actually write articles. For reference, you can find a record of many users' personal standards here. In order to achieve this, you could consider joining a WikiProject that piques your interest, or select a single article that you believe could be developed to FA- or GA-class. On the other hand, if you're not confident in your actual writing skill, you might consider something like new page patrol which, unlike Recent Change Patrolling, does not require especially fast reflexes - mostly, you'll find yourself adding stub tags and categories to new articles, tagging some for speedy deletion and others for cleanup, and so on. You're off to a good start, but you might be judged harshly if you run for an RfA today; give it a couple months, and you'll be fine. :) RandyWang (^chat/_patch) 10:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not actually running for RFA now, and I'm in about 4 WikiProjects. Thanks! --TheM62Manchester 10:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough - just thought I'd review you on that assumption. Good luck for the future, at any rate. :)

RandyWang (^chat/_patch) 10:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is 400+ article edits a good one to aim for before going for RFA? --TheM62Manchester 10:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As high as it sounds, I'd recommend you aim for something like 1,000 article edits. The things is, some people place a very great emphasis on that particular area, and you'll find it difficult to succeed without meeting their standards (even if you don't intend to make article editing a large part of your workload as an admin). Aim to make around 5-10+ per day, and you'll be fine in a month or two - don't rush yourself, though. You might pull a muscle. :) RandyWang (^chat/_patch) 11:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second Randy's suggestion about edits to the main (article) namespace. You do spend a lot of time identifying socks, which is an extremely valuable activity, but Wikipedia's an encyclopedia first and foremost. I suggest looking at articles that need to be wikified (WP:WIKIFY has the full lists) and reverting vandalism in Recent Changes Patrol. Make sure that you add an edit summary for all of your edits; some editors consider 78% edit summary usage to be too low. Also, make sure you mark any minor edits as minor. Minor edits include copyediting, rearranging text, wikifying, and reverting vandalism. I imagine you'll glide through an RFA in a few months. :) Keep up the great work! Srose (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
78% of edit summaries is low?? --TheM62Manchester 13:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you don't edit a summary, someone watching the article must check the difference to see if you have added something useful or not, especially if the user has never crossed you before. By editing summaries, the first four or five times he may check what you have done, and afterwards will just trust you, only reviewing changes in depth when For every four of your edits, one is missing the summary, which as said, can be considered low (I believe because 80% is a magic number in Wikipedia, in example, it is usually the lowest percentage needed for consensus at RFA and probably AFD). -- ReyBrujo 17:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice numbers, but as stated, you need some more edits in the article namespace. The main drawback for me is your small number of edits in article talk pages. User talk pages are good for talking to other users individually, to warn, ask or reply. However, most times the interaction is one against one. By editing in article talk pages, you will be talking with several editors at the same time, learning to build consensus in order to improve an article. One thing is talking to an editor individually, and another is trying to talk with several, which may or may not agree with your interpretations. You need to learn how to manage around a group of editors, when to stay quiet to let others cool down, admit that you are wrong when you actually are, etc. -- ReyBrujo 17:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notice Apparently this user, as confirmed by checkuser, created self abusing socks towards himself and has been banned. Yanksox 19:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow...that is disappointing and rather surprising. Thank you for the heads up. :) Srose (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

See this user's edit history with Interiot's tool and edit summary usage (Warning:Both tools have stopped updating and the edit counts are way off. Please consider using Flcelloguy's Tool or Interiot's Tool 2)
User's current editing statistics according to Flcelloguy's tool. RandyWang (^chat/_patch) 11:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics for: TheM62Manchester
(Permissions: N/A)
- Total: 1541 -
Main: 221
Talk: 54
User: 599
User talk: 298
Wikipedia: 254
Wikipedia talk: 37
Image: 2
Template: 65
Template talk: 2
Category: 7
Portal: 2
-------------------
Total edits: 1541
w/ edit summary: 1210 (78.52%*)
w/ manual edit summary: 1178 (76.44%*)
Minor edits: 35 (2.27%*)
First known edit: May 6, 2006
-------------------
* - 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?
I feel pleased when I write articles on cars and place-names (toponymy being a specialist area of mine, as well as cars)
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?
Not really, but this is probably because I edit articles that are not likely to be that controversial (e.g. Fife)

$Insertformulahere$