Wikipedia:Editor review/Daniel.Bryant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] User:Daniel.Bryant

Daniel.Bryant (talk • contribs)

Firstly, thanks for viewing this review, and further thanks if you take the time to write anything - it is much appreciated.

Well, I've been here for a total of fivefour months now, however have only been editing "actively" for three. I've managed to accumulate close to 6500 edits, which I have been told is most certainly not "normal" by numerous users on #wikipedia. Mainly, I edit articles related to the A-League and the Australian Football League, however this is certainly not binding by any stretch of the imagination.

The main reason for this editor review is I am aiming to apply for adminship in June 2007, as this will mark one year since a major misjudgement I made, which culminated in my failed RfA of the same month. I'm hoping that I can improve my editing to a level where I will be able to achieve this status in nine months time (from Sep. 06), so I can help improve Wikipedia by assisting with the numerous Administrator backlogs and other janitorial tasks which require "the mop". If I can get some constructive feedback now, this should help me achieve this better style of editing.

Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hey, you. :) You're doing - as you may have guessed - insanely well. 6,500+ edits in such a short time can only be described as a Herculean effort, and your involvement in Esperanza and other activities has been very good to see (oh, and thanks for the help with my userpage ;) ). Aiming for a one-year break since the mistakes of your RfA strikes me as very mature, and I imagine by that time you'll be in an extremely strong position to run again. In the meantime, try to increase your involvement in the Talk space to meet many users' standards (aim for them to equal perhaps 20%+ of your Mainspace edits), which should demonstrate your ability to actually work to create the encyclopedia. Hang in there, and I'll be looking forward to seeeing you run again in the future. Good luck! :) Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 21:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • FiveFour months! Daniel, you are definitely one of the most dilligent, friendly and relable editors I know. You have helped me more than I can say and you are an exelent example of a great editor. Keep up the good work! Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 09:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You are among a handful of editors that I regard as role models. You are helpful, friendly, and a valued contributor. My only (and usual) advice would be fight more vandalism. WP:RCP really could use more human patrollers. Best regards. --Húsönd 00:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see you failing your next RfA. You're a very helpful editor. Some more meaty mainspace edits/new articles would bolster Question #2 on the RfA nom. Is there a Wikipedia: Wikiproject Australian football? If not, you could start it and maintain it if there was enough interest? As you work a lot on vandalism, perhaps you could soon ask to clerk on WP:RCU? We could also use a clerk on DYK to help find free use pictures, ping admins for updates that are being forgotten, and fix spelling and links on noms. Just some thoughts to broaden your experience. -- Samir धर्म 01:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I am very impressed. The key for an Admin is not to avoid conflict, but to manage it well, and in the spirit of the Wikipedia, but also not to be wasteful of other users' time. This is what Adminiship is about, not creating articles, as some have it - these are two different qualifications. All very nice! Ebbinghaus 11:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems nice & friendly, athough I don't know him much. Maybe someone a newbie could look up to? Thanks. Spawn Man 06:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Doing a great job and in a dizzying number of areas! Keep raising that edit summary percentage since some folks get pretty hung up on that at RFA. Of course, most important is to continue keeping a level head and not taking it all too seriously. Keep it up. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A Broncos supporter will get a support vote from me in any RfA! Seriously, I don't know what to say without repeating what others have said above me. I've never had any direct contact with you, but as far as I can see, you're one of those users who finish tasks in one hour what I would manage to do in 3... and that can only be a good thing. You're an exemplary user; I'd gladly nominate you for adminship, except you want to take it easy after your last RfA. Perfectly understandable, and very mature of you too, if I can say that without sounding condescending. I think the main problem with your last RfA was that it came too soon after 'the incident'. I checked all the diffs I could find, but it didn't seem that serious to me, to tell the truth. I would probably have voted 'neutral' myself, but there you go.
To risk sounding all gushy, you're one of the users around here that I really do look upto... your signature has come to mean civility and sensibility whenever I see it on talkpages. I think your next RfA will be a resounding success, and you'll make a fine admin when the time comes. Go Aussie cabal! :) Take care, — riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 02:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Daniel, I became active only after your prior RfA, which I didn't know about until I just looked it up. It is very clear to me that you have learned from the incident there and won't make that type of mistake again. As for your current merits, from everything I can see you are doing very well. I don't know enough about Australian football to evaluate those articles, but I frequently see you on the administrative-type pages in WP space, where you are consistently helpful. I foresee adminship in your future if you want it, and I am not sure you will have to wait as long as June 2007, though I agree that waiting a few months longer is much better than trying too soon. Another comment is that while archiving your talk page frequently is fine (I have just set mine up to archive after waiting much too long), I think you should wait a little bit longer before sending current conversations to archive. I remember once returning to your page to respond to a comment you'd written a day or two before and being surprised to find the thread already archived. The customary waiting time to make sure a thread is closed seems to be 5 to 7 days. Finally, with regard to edit summaries, if you sometimes forget to include them, you may not know that you can adjust your Preferences so that you will automatically be prompted to include a summary if you forget to include it, and I suggest you might want to do that as summaries are important both to some RfA !voters and, more important, to RC patrollers. I hope these comments are helpful; if you have any questions, ask on my talk. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • <whistles in awe> First things first, you are amazing. To answer Samir's question, there is WP:AFL, which would benefit very much from your membership. Also, you may want to cut down on the User talk edits a bit, having too many of those may lead people to think you are one of the many editors who use Wikipedia as a chatroom, only editing pages just enough to look like you are contributing.  Jorcoga  07:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Statistics for: Daniel.Bryant
(Permissions: N/A)
- Total: 6461 -
Main: 1956
Talk: 262
User: 933
User talk: 1995
Wikipedia: 619
Wikipedia talk: 94
Image: 112
Template: 241
Template talk: 25
Category: 3
Category talk: 2
Portal: 217
Portal talk: 2
-------------------
Total edits: 6461
w/ edit summary: 6050 (93.63%*)
w/ manual edit summary: 5603 (86.72%*)
Minor edits: 936 (14.48%*)
First known edit: May 20, 2006
-------------------
* - percentages are rounded down to the nearest hundredth.
-------------------

Questions

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

My two good articles are probably the answer to this question:
  • 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies - this was my first real edit project. With the help of Errant (Tmorton166), MyNameIsNotBob, NThurston and Mareklug, this article was rescued from the depths of Articles for Deletion. It was promoted to Good Article status after months of hard work on August 13, 2006.
  • July 2006 Java earthquake - Wrote a large armount (75%+) of the article, mainly while it was still "in the news". It was classified as a Good Article on 29 August, 2006.
As well as this, my current edit project is the Central Coast Mariners FC article.

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?

Yes, I have. However, as the intro to this editor review states, my aim is to move on, and suggestions given in this Editor Review will only help this. Hence, I will not go any deeper. However, to answer the second part of the question, I have realised the benefits of reaching a comprimise in situations of conflict, and this has helped me greatly since July '06. I put this into practice to its' fullest extent very recently when involved in a dispute over a template, and I was gald to see that the situation was resolved peacefully and a comprimise which suited both parties reached.

3. What do you find to be the most important mental attribute in vandal fighting? I.E. What mental or spiritual trait do you think you need to possess to effectively fight vandals? I'm specifically looking for the MOST IMPORTANT one. What most affects your ability to edit effectively? There is no right or wrong answer to these questions. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 12:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Persistance and determination. It is harmful to Wikipedia when someone gives up fighting vandalism because the vandalism has overcome the user, as this is what the vandals want. Although a users' vandal-fighting must cease eventually, whether temporary or permanently, if these two attributes were in a shorter supply than they are currently, Wikipedia might have been over-run by now.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/i/Wikipedia%7EEditor_review_Daniel.Bryant_9af0.html"