Wikipedia:Editor review/The Bread

User:The Bread

The Bread (talk · contribs) I've been doing the whole Wikipedia thing for a while now, and I'd like to see if anyone's got any thoughts on how I could improve my edits, self, and any other stuff †he Bread 01:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

• Why, a Kiwi! :-) You're doing pretty well recently. Although your first edit dates back to February, your edit count is still too low. But I presume that you only started contributing actively in the last month or so. So if you keep up that pace you're in the right path for adminship in a few months. I see that you've contributed in many different areas and that's good. But you must increase your participation in AfD, RfA, etc, if you pretend to become an administrator. Other users will have to recognize your work before they agree to entrust you with the admin tools. I can't see any recent vandal fight, I would recommend that you start patrolling recent changes. Start with a manual patrol until you've learned the wonders of vandal fight and then you may try installing Vandalproof for a more efficient patrol. About conflicts, I suggest that you avoid warring with other editors, especially administrators. Sometimes it's better to ignore a stubborn position by another user rather than to foster a useless war and be deemed a troll. Above all, do never resort to uncivil behavior, that would be catastrophic to your future RfA. Anyway you're doing a good job. Keep up the good work and feel free to ask for advice whenever you need it. Regards.--Húsönd 16:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, I was pretty inexperienced back when I was arguing with MIB on a regular basis, and I have decided to exactly what you said, just ignore a stubborn user. I do not believe in letting admins get away with whatever they want just because they are admins though. I am also gonna start looking through the recent changes which I have been waying up doing recently. Cheers for the review †he Bread 02:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hello there, The Bread. Again, essjay's tool is down, so some of my numbers may be off, but hopefully not much.

  • It is good to see you use summaries so often, although some may not be "novice friendly", like M Quotes Rp W/ References. I am guilty there, as I like using regexp patterns when replacing ;-) I don't like these "dammit", though, as nobody likes a "dammit" appearing in their watchlist ;-) Since you did not state you are wanting to be an administrator, and reviewing the work you do at GA (where I would will try to participate after getting 5 GA!), you could also do that work at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. You obviously know enough about style guides to participate there. Instead of suggesting improving an article to featured status, I believe you could instead help articles to retain their featured status at Wikipedia:Featured article review. On the contrary, if you want to become administrator, you should follow Husond's advice and begin participating in XFD discussions more regularly, recent changes and new pages patrolling, and reporting vandals to the administrators. Personally, I think these tasks may not fit you, as I already said, you are good examining articles.
  • Now, for a cold statistical review, around 21% in article talk pages. This is understandable, as you mainly work with articles, either polishing or analyzing them to award a GA status. Around 6% of your total edits are in user talk pages, which can be considered low for a vandal fighter, but not for you.
  • Closing this comment, every wikipedian decides how to spend his or her time here. It is clear that you are confortable spending more time with articles than with users, and because of that you have obtained a good knowledge about style guides. Now, you can either continue this way, add new related tasks (participating in FAC and FAR), add somewhat-related tasks (participating in XFDs, as you will be able to apply or learn about notability concepts) or try a new path (which could very well be vandal fighting). Note that, in this last case, you will find yourself in situations like the one you have described in question 2 very, very often, and unless you are able to keep a really cool behaviour, you should do it with moderation, maybe 10 or 15 minutes per day until you feel comfortable. While you may be used to thanks or good faithed questions (depending on whether you have passed or not a GA candidate), and civil conversations in talk pages, fighting vandals will attract them to your user and talk pages, and articles related to you. The fact that you work in MGS pages (which usually attract a number of fans) may prepare you for discussing with "extremists", but the first time you see your user or talk page with a big penis image may shock you nevertheless :-) Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 04:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Cheers, I am aware of the fact that I will (and do) come into contact with "extremeists" at the MGS pages and usually just keep away from them as It is usually easier to revert their POV edits and they are easy to identify (Their username will be very similar to a characters' name). I am intending to do some vandal fighting in the future, but will continue to focus on the sort of work I do now, as I do have moments where can't remain 100% civil. "Dammit" appears often as my edit summary as I make a lot of mistakes in my editing, but I will drop it since it isn't really appropriate, again thanks †he Bread 02:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• View this user's edit count using a PHP version of Interiot's tool.

Questions

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

   Mainly my work on getting Rocky to GA standard in recent weeks and also my contributions for Wikiproject Blackadder in creating (most of the) forth series of Blackadder articles and the first series of Blackadder articles as it allowed us to complete our first goal, other than those two major ones I also spend most of my time cruising round the Metal Gear articles and have recently been adding info to the character lists

2. 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?

   Ha ha ha, This is a good question. I admit that I have been in more than one discussion that got a bit out of hand, It was over the picture of Solid Snake on the Solid Snake page, I wanted Old Snake and pretty stubbornly refused to use another picture thanscripts of that arguement can be found here and here. My second one was at List of recurring Metal Gear characters over whether Gray Fox should have his own article, this was a curiopus one, despite have an overwhelming majority in favour of Gray Fox being a standalone the opposing user refused to listen to our well thought out and organised (initially) arguement using various WP guidelines and insited we listen to his own interpretation of WP:FICT and in the end went running to the CVG project to find someone else who agreed with him. I claim to have one that arguement despite the opposing user ignoring us and merging Gray Fox into a list. Recently I had an arguement over a user removing an anon's comments form the talk Solid Snake page, I took the high road and sought a thrid party to resolve the dispute wich resulted in the anon's comments staying. All three of my arguments were with the same user A Man In Black (talk · contribs)