Wikipedia:Editor review/ST47

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:ST47

ST47 (talk • contribs) Well, I was considering an RfA in a week or two, so we'll do this. I've been active since early August, though Guild Wars Nightfall went live last friday so I haven't been greatly active since then. I do the whole RC patrol, VP2, IRC dealie, and I run a bot. It does stuff for cookies. I have 6383 edits, 1924 user talk, most of which are vandalism warnings. Edits by month:

2006/8 2533
2006/9 2548
2006/10 1292 (down because of bot/schoolwork, I would imagine) ST47Talk 19:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hello ST47, how goes? So, you want to have a RFA soon? I am just in time to chime in then :-)
    • First of all, I notice you have had three busy months. It appears that your average per month would be 2500 edits, if October was an exception. That is a pretty high amount, and may stress you if you don't take breaks. Remember, it is not the number, but the quality. And let me tell you, I am kind of impressed with your vandal fighting. Almost 100 edits in AIV is a pretty high number. You have reported plenty of vandals, so that is a good point.
    • Also, I notice you use VP2 to post warnings. Can you configure it? I don't think reversion or warnings should be minor edits.
    • Around 180 edits in AFDs in the last 5000 edits, that is not too bad, but not too excellent for someone wanting to become an administrator. I see you have some experience with categories for discussion as well, but none with redirects nor templates, and insignificant with copyright issues. As for AFDs themselves, it is good to see you can change opinions like in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduism in Azerbaijan. I don't really like comments like another easy delete, just because I had to join in and yeah, seems like vandalism. Remember, you may be closing discussions, deleting articles, and those comments don't really add credibility to a closing statement. Also, remember that some discussions are bound to bring some new users, thus try to make your statements as clear as possible. Something like Strong delete per nn, pn, especially as the first and only opinion, is pretty confusing for such users. And although Wikipedia:Listcruft is just an essay, it can help you understand why Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unsolved problems in Egyptology is not listcruft.
    • Personally, I don't like automated revertions. In example, this is a good faithed edit (user only edit, no warnings in talk page, edit is somewhat constructive if misplaced), however the reversion summary does not inform why his edit was reverted. This may discourage new users. Note that it is not something against you at all, just against these tools that are good for editors but not for those being reverted in determined situations.
    • This edit, considering it is the user's first edit and no warnings in his user talk page, appears to be a simple test. Using {{test2}} appears to be a little too much in this situation.
    • Do you think enough time has passed since your last RFA? Usually people is expected to wait two months or more, although most times that means "three months at least". Also, you did not mention it here, don't forget to mention it in your next one.
    • Finally, there is still one point in your failed RFA you have not addressed. This is an encyclopedia, and editors, including administrators, are expected to expand it. Editing will give you experience about the different manual of styles, and will let you appreciate when an article can be saved by rearranging and fixing some headings. Remember, that an article has a bad layout does not mean it should be deleted, and being able to explain others about this fact with examples.
    I believe you are heading the right way, but need some more experience yet. The fact that you haven't written or expanded an article to say "I am proud of this" may be the point where others will reject your nomination. If I were you, I would wait a couple of months more, spending some time at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, Wikipedia:Requests for feedback or Wikipedia:Peer review. That will give you some insight about how to write articles. Then, you may be able to write or expand an article, maybe taking it to good article status. Just then I would present for a new nomination. Of course, this is just my advice :-) Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 15:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Like I said last time, mostly just the vandal stuff.
  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?
    Nope, if it did I'd probably just get off the computer or go stab some skale.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/i/Wikipedia%7EEditor_review_ST47_7285.html"