Wikipedia:Editor review/Metros232

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Metros232

Metros232 (talk · contribs) I'm coming up on ten months of contributions to Wikipedia, have amassed over 8,000 edits, and would like to see how I'm doing in the minds of others. Metros232 13:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Further comment: This isn't necessarily a "Well, what's it going to take to get me to be an Admin?" review, however, I would not object to such a review if anyone feels to offer it in that regard. Metros232 13:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hello, Metros232. You are a bit overzealous in your efforts as noted by all the removals. In your quest for accuracy you may be violating the tenants of Wikipedia. It appears that you are a person who feels disenfranchised and is manifesting your frustration in this vehicle. I suggest you reread the tenants and try to get a way from the computer for one hour each day. Interacting with real people may improve your interpersonal skills and give you a new perspective.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Birktek (talk • contribs)
    • See the user's talk page. Birktek is upset that I keep removing a "notable" alumni from University of Mary Washington's article. With 63 Google hits, 9 if you include the company he works for, I'm not seeing how it's a notable alumni. Metros232 18:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello, Metros232. Here are some thoughts about your last 2,500 contributions (which is my review limit).
    • Around 360 edits have been done in user talk pages, a good number. Most of your talks have been vandal warnings, which fits your patroller profile.
    • Just over 60 edits have been done in article talk pages. A low amount. While you have mentioned two articles in which you have worked, the low amount of article talk pages makes me think you work in articles that have either few points of view (thus no discussion is generated in talk pages) or few active editors (thus there is no feedback about how to improve the article). Most of your interaction has been with vandals, however you should also interact with other users, those who are willing to improve Wikipedia. I notice there has been some discussion with Xampt, but that is an exceptional exchange that was kept in user talk pages. Wikification is extremely needed (I usually tag 10 or so articles per day with the {{wikify}} tag), so your work there is very welcomed. The improvement you have done to Hood College is pretty good, however I suggest trying to get the article to Good article status, which will give you some training in Wikipedia style guides. Working in featured article candidates is much harder, as there is a lot more critics to address than in a good article candidate, and the fact that you are working with others can be considered a good beginning. Coordinating efforts in article talk pages will give you the experience you need about cooperation.
    • A suggestion: When uploading logs like Image:NCAAVolleyballLogo-1-.gif and Image:FBLAColorLogo2.jpg, please consider adding a fair use rationale, as administrators are expected to do that (since they will be probably deleting images due lack of fair use rationale). I know it has been a good 6-12 months since you have uploaded them, but it is never too late (this advice applies to me as well, I know, so feel free to dismiss ;-)).
    • Now, you have asked to give an opinion about a possible request for adminship. In the last 2,500 edits, you have done around 300 in Wikipedia namespace, which may be considered low for some. Out of them, 10 have been reports to AIV, one a contribution to a RFA, and around 75 in different deletion discussions. The amount of RFA interaction is low, you should consider participating there to see what others ask from candidates, and see if you fit their requirements. Regarding AFDs, you seem to have a good common sense. Out of your last nominations, only three have been contested. I am a bit worried about the fact that sometimes you end the nomination with your "vote". Since you are nominating the article, it is supposed you think it is non notable in its own unless you state otherwise (like "No opinion from me"). I find voting in AFDs you post much like voting for yourself in a RFA nomination. However, this is a personal opinion.
    Overall, you are a good vandal fighter, and your previous experience in dealing with them will be useful if you decide to request adminship. However, I would like to see more article talk edits and RFAs, and even more interaction in AFDs. There are around 70-100 new AFD every day, and the fact that I had to go back to one month to find 10 AFDs discussions may rise some concerns. The more you participate in these discussions, the easier others will be able to check your criteria when nominating dealing with them. I am guessing your adminship nomination will state that you will deal with vandalism backlogs as you, right now, lack experience in deletion criteria. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 20:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    You're a good editor, with RC patrolling, and the number of user talk is a good amount. Nicely laid out userpage too. A good editor. --SunStar Net 13:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    There is no one article with which I am particularly pleased. If I were asked to name one, I'd say Hood College or Rutgers University. The first is an article I took from [1] to [2]. The second is an article that a few people have been trying to get to good and eventually featured status. I've been working on the minor parts of it (some wording choices, citations, etc.) Overall, I am most pleased by my work on WP:WIKIFY cleaning up articles.
  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?
    I try to avoid controversy (the best way to end a fight is to have never been in one at all) but I haven't been able to 100%. I think in the occasions I have been involved in conflict, I've been able to step back and assess the situation. Usually I call in for support because I think that situations need outside opinions. For example, there's a discussion at Talk:Platte Canyon High School shooting about the inclusion of an external link. Rather than just making the debate me and the other user (which would never solve anything since it would just be "Well I think it belongs" and "Well I think it doesn't") I posted a request for a review of the discussion at WP:EL to get opinions from those who are working to form the External Link policy. Usually I find that more productive than simply going back and forth with the same views being expressed, just in different words.