Wikipedia:Editor review/Magnus animum2

Steptrip[edit]

Steptrip (talk · contribs) I have not been very active for 4 months after I created my account, but now I am on wikipedia daily, and will respond quickly to any questions on my talk page. My areas of expertise are RC patrolling, userpage design (which I really need to step away from, pardon the pun), WikiProjects, and any technical queries (although I know no programming languages). ~Step trip 02:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Please cut your signature length in half, and try to avoid editing userspace (i.e. signature pages). Concentrate on your good work so far in the encyclopedia. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 01:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delving into the encyclopedia itself is the best direct experience you can get. When other editors start to the get the better of you, begin to read policies. But until then, pick your favorite subjects, and get to work. The Transhumanist 02:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please shorten your signature per WP:SIG. It shouldn't be more than about 2 or 3 lines. Yours is 6. Also, as Majorly said, try to spend more time on the encyclopedia, not signing autograph books or trying to build yours up. Keep working hard. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shortened sig to 3 lines (excluding timestamp). I also do some anti-vandalism work, but I am still using my sandbox instead of WP:SAND (that is probably why my userspace count is so high), and I have not signed many autograph books / requested for users to sign mine is some time now. ~Step trip
Well, you are quite a good editor, you do great work on MOTD and a nice person. The only drawback that I know of so far is your sig, but I think that's OK now. --The preceding comment was signed by Us e r:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 09:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great vandal-fighting work. Just a comment: you need to make sure that you always warn users after reverting their vandalism so that they know that it is unacceptable. There are a number of tools available for fighting vandalism as well, such as VandalProof if you use Windows and VandalSniper if you use Linux. —METS501 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Steptrip! As per your request I'll submit my review:

Article-space/Main-space: It seems you are actively building up some mainspace edits through helpful copyediting! Wikipedia never cannot have enough copyeditors, so what you're doing does certainly help. Also, your regular vandal-fighting is quite helpful as well.

Wikipedia-space: I see that you are utilizing Wikipedia-space, which is a good thing. However, I only found one AfD on your record, which you created, but I have never seen any edits participating in AfD discussion. AfD's help sift through Wikipedia's content and help provide necessary decisions as to what is appropriate to keep and what is not. You could also get involved in some policy discussion. This is also fundamental to building Wikipedia.

Edit summary usage: Your edit summary usage is on the strong side: 83% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. But, major edits are something you definitely should leave 90-100% edit summaries. Major changes to article structure and content are hard to sift through but with a descriptive edit summary, editors are not surprised to come back and find an article drastically different than they left it before.

Signature: Your signature is much more compensated now, thanks for fixing that. I don't think there's much else to gripe about that.

Civility: I am very happy to see that there were no major problems on your record in regards to following WP:CIVIL. You always have approached other users politely and thoughtfully. It also seems that you have not fallen into too many edit wars with other editors which is something that one rather wants to avoid than get into.

Overall: I think you are editing very constructively and all that is needed is to keep growing from here. Keep up the good work.

¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, here's a quick review. I don't think you've yet found the right balance between article writing, administrative work (i.e. vandal fighting), and social interaction. Basically, you've only written articles about things you know well. See if there's something you don't know as well, but you can learn about it easily by consulting a book or a website. Then cite your reference when you add the information. This is how Wikipedia continues to grow.

I want you to ask yourself the following question: what can you do for Wikipedia that wouldn't get done without you? Personally, I feel guilty sometimes for wasting my talents on RC patrol and New Pages Patrol, which any teenager can do, as opposed to cleanup, categorization, and deletion work, which require a degree of sophistication. Clearly you have the sophistication to help with requests at the help desk, for example (e.g. if someone wants to enhance their signature or place a colored background on their userpage). See if you can help with that, and with article writing, instead of sinking all your efforts into the never-ending game of cops and robbers. YechielMan 01:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of all that is holy, fix that userpage. Blinking text should never be used, the distractions are endless, and I honestly was trying to remember if you could have an LSD flashback without ever using LSD. Also, the main space (you know, the encyclopedia part of the encyclopedia) is, well, crying for a little of your love. -M^ask? 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a high-ish mainspace count, and I believe that your statement about blinking text is a personal opinion, unless you can direct me to a policy which explicitly states that blinking text should not be used. ~Step trip 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another user has already complained here, and m:Don't be a dick pretty well covers it. -M^ask? 23:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the blinking text before your comment about it, so I don't see why you're prosecuting me about something I have fixed. By the way, you may want to read the last sentence in that link you gave me. ~Step trip 15:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one note, your transclusion/substitution prevention is not allowed. By the terms of the GFDL, which you liscensed the page under, people are allowed to take, edit and use what you write here in anyway they want so long as they give the same rights to other users. people may want to substitute your page to a subpage to copy out chunks of code they like. -M^ask? 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My method is not meant to discourage transclusion, it is to discourage impersonation, and if the user in question wanted code, he / she should go to the subpages on which the real code is. ~Step trip 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, really, the GFDL does not allow additional restrictions, if someone wants to sub that code and work on it, they're allowed. Please leave the code out, and understand the language and values behind the GFDL. -M^ask? 23:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... looking at your contributions, edit count, and your answers to the questions below, I see you've started reverting vandalism (recently I believe, since you have 600 edits to mainspace, with most of these being the last couple of months). You currently have more edits to userspace than to mainspace; try to balance that out more. A few suggestions? Don't update your status too often (I just have mine in case I'm not going to be here for a few days; I usually have it on "inandout"), and don't sign signature pages (as Majorly said).

You should also try to get involved in more XfD deletion discussions (I find AfD boring, but MfD is alright) :). Another great (and interesting) way to participate in wiki-space, IMHO, is in FPC.

Something else you might want to try is one of the dispute resolution processes. I was in MEDCAB, and I learned much about policy because of two cases I took (if you join, make sure you don't take a hard case; I got frustrated with my second one, because it never got anywhere; it closed after a month, exactly where it started).

Also, you might try to write an article on something that interests you, and maybe even try to get it to GA or FA.

One final thing... always enjoy working here on Wikipedia. Sincerely (too much perhaps) :), · AO ^Talk 17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

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

Your signature is still broken. To fix it, follow these steps:
1. Follow this link.
2. Remove the text in the "Signature:" field.
3. Click the "Save" button at the bottom of the page.

Thanks – Qxz 02:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humbly requesting the removal of blinking text from your user page; it's quite distracting. Then again, perhaps that's the point. Jouster (whisper) 06:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason I have the blinking text is to get my point across. ~Step trip 22:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps you could turn off <blink> when the user is, in fact, using Firefox? Jouster (whisper) 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There would be no point in my having the code, as <span style="text-decoration:blink;"> only works in Firefox (it does not work in IE, Opera, or Safari), so if I did that (which I have no idea how to do so), no browser would display blinking text. ~Step trip 21:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I am pleased with all of the articles that I have come across, as I have reverted about ½ of them due to vandalism. I am very pleased with the AJMS article, as I mainly created an account to start that page, and look how far that I have come! I have also established myself as a frequent viditor to WP:MOTD/N, and have made some helpful minor edits to The Suite Life.
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 was once bothered by an anon. vandal whom I had reverted and decided to vandalise my userpage as retaliation, I was not aware of the problem until a message was posted on my talk page. However, I was glad that when I returned to the vandal's talk page there was a block notice on their page (all of this happened in a 10 minute time span).

This editor nominated an article about a first class cricketer for AfD despite clear sources being given and Wikipedia's established policy of holding first class cricketers to be notable people. The nomination was speedily withdrawn by another editor because notability had been established. I appreciate the zeal but I trust further cricketers won't receive the same treatment. Nick mallory 16:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeal[edit]

I can second the above comment. Though the enthusiasm is good yuo need to check criteria. I note you stuck a speedy delete tag on a band article I created and while I concede that a debate is warranted it certainly doesn't qualify as a speedy delete. A more constructive process may be an expand tag or fact in the first instance.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted... ~Step trip 17:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]