Wikipedia:Editor review/RyRy5 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] RyRy5

RyRy5 (talk · contribs) Hello. I am RyRy5. My main goal here is to help create and protect Wikipedia. Well, editing here at wikipedia is a hobby for me, not a job. I am mostly active all week, but not as much on weekdays. I am a person who does not get frustrated and always has a cool head.

I have been recently had an editor review, but I believe I have changed since then. That is why I am doing this again and to see how much more I can improve. I have been reviewed in a way before but not at Editor review. You can visit here, here ,here,here, here , andhere to see other positive opinions about me. I will later post other negative diffs (diffs that I have had some problems in my editing) in a while as I have to dig some up.RyRy5 (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

  • This is fairly ridiculous. There's already Wikipedia:Editor review/RyRy5 which has been active fairly recently. What makes you say that wasn't a review? This second review demonstrates what I see as the problem all along- you appear to be going through the motions for their own sake, rather than because you actually want some useful end result. You say you have changed "since then" but you're talking about things from only a couple weeks ago. You say your goal is to create and protect Wikipedia, but you are acting like your goal is to draw as much attention to yourself as possible. Friday (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Please remember to remain civil. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 19:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid I don't see the incivility. Is it not better that User:Friday is being forthright, rather than being mealy-mouthed and meaningless? EJF (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review by EJF (talk · contribs)
  • Hello RyRy5, and thanks for submitting an editor review! This is my first review so bear with me! I am somewhat puzzled that you are submitting another editor review so soon after the other one; it would probably have been best to wait another month or so, given that you were reviewed as recently as two weeks ago. I notice that you have only put diffs of positive opinions of yourself above; that is not a large problem, but makes it seem as though you are very keen on praise rather than constructive criticism. It's good to see that you are editing your userspace less and are involving yourself in different activities. It's all right to have fun like this sometimes, but spending too much time doing things like that may make others question your maturity. I don't mean to sound nasty, but you will also have to work on your communication skills if you wish to become an administrator. Comments such as Jimbo can band user's [sic] do not show the language capabilities needed for a admin I'm afraid. I note that your rollback rights have been removed again after this reversion. Please be very careful when reverting edits, as reinserting an egregious BLP violation like this can cause great harm to the subject of the article. Take your reverting at a much slower pace, and read carefully each diff before you revert. Vandalism reversion is not a race and you should not become a victim of editcountitis. It won't matter whether you have 3,000 or 30,000 or even 300,000 edits at RfA if you decide to go there in the future - it is the quality of the editing that counts. Please don't feel the need to do this every few hours also. Also, I notice a large amount of incorrect speedy deletion tags in your contributions. I would advise you to thoroughly read the speedy deletion policy. These tags[1][2] [3]show a lack of understanding of the policy, perhaps you can work on this with your adopter? But don't be downhearted, many editors make the same mistakes when starting out at speedy-tagging.
    I notice the most recent edits you are making (as I write this review) are asking other editors to help you with a DYK; that's very positive, and I hope you can write many more articles. I'm sure you will find it a nice feeling to have a part of an article which you have worked on to be shown on the Main Page. I see you have been adopted by Steve Crossin; that's good, he's a great guy and I'm sure he will help lead you in the right way. About adminship - you need to evaluate why you want it and what value you and the encyclopaedia would receive from it. You must want to become a sysop for the right reasons - to help with backlogs and disputes, allowing the encyclopedia to function effectively. It isn't a badge or a reward for "doing well". You will receive abuse and even perhaps threats of violence; please be aware that it is not a goal to be achieved, but rather a service that some choose to endure, while others do not. Admins have a high burnout and retirement rate due to stress; you may consider that at your young age it may be more enjoyable and beneficial to just keep editing, away from the sinister elements which you may encounter if you become a sysop. Sorry, if my review sounds a little harsh, but I have tried to be as honest as possible. Notwithstanding the above, I believe you are becoming a good editor. Keep up the article writing and if you're more careful with your tagging and reversion, I can see you being a great editor. I see that the legend known as Keeper76 has reviewed you here with some wise advice and I agree with his points. In the Wikipedia-space I feel you need to expand slightly on your comments at AfD and it is frowned upon to "quickfire vote" as seen here:# 17:19, 25 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura J. Dahl‎ (→Laura J. Dahl: delete) # 17:18, 25 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel V. Jones‎ (→Daniel V. Jones: delete) # 17:16, 25 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debris (album)‎ (→Debris (album): delete) # 17:15, 25 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James V. Downton‎ (→James V. Downton: delete) It is generally accepted that it takes longer than one or two minutes to search for sources and to check notability of the subject. Also, avoid "delete" closures of AfDs such as this as you are not an admin and cannot delete pages. You may find it useful to carefully read this essay which explains when non-admins should and should not close AfDs. It would be best at this stage to continue commenting rather than closing AfDs, as making a coherent, plausible comment actually involves more judgement than a simple "keep" closure. I do note that your reports at AIV have been very good. All in all, you are a kind, civil user and I hope you will continue to flourish! Best regards and happy editing, EJF (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from iMatthew My only concern that other users have addressed before is the lack of mainspace edits and the overload of userspace. I'm sure you know by now, that Wikipedia is not a MySpace, rather an encyclopedia. You're writing it getting better. I saw the way it was a little while ago, when you were recieving quite a bit of criticism from other users concerning your writing, but it's getting better! iMatthew 2008 10:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Basketball110 (talk · contribs)

You are very enthusiastic about Wikipedia. Beware of Wikipediholism. Overall, you need more mainspace edits, but recently, you've really improved. You've gotten a DYK (something I have yet to achieve), and you've nominated and improved other articles. You are receiving a lot of critism from other editors (mostly admins, some of which believe that you a problematic little kid), but you are learning from that, and not dropping the grapes from the vine. You have a lot to learn, though. I haven't yet seen you canvass, which is a very good thing. You get things done, and users will notice that, and if you don't know how to do it, you find out, and get right to it. Back to the little kid thing... since I first met you, you have matured progressively. Some agists don't agree with me. I noticed the WP:AN (I believe it was) post about your rollback use. As Steve Crossin noted, you are having trouble identifying vandalism. Perhaps a skim through WP:VANDALISM would help, but I'm sure you've done that. Not "just chatting" with users will help your edit counts (I found that out the hard way), furthermore... but don't continue the editcountitis. I know you participate at SP:RC and WP:AFD, but perhaps you should widen your edit range. If you find a red link that needs to be filled, and you can find a suitable citation, you shouldn't stand around and wait for the grass to grow... you should create it. Be bold. Some pages really need creating, due to minor current events. Some pages will be deleted, but only if they aren't notable. I'm sure you can differentiate between the notable and non-notable. You get along with people very well. Continue to do so, and you will go far. Ryan, don't ever let anyone stuff you in a coffin and make you push up daisies unless you want to. Also, never loose your cool or mind. Good luck, live long and proper... Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 03:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Ryan (talk · contribs)

While I can't really say anything that someone here hasn't already said, I can offer a few tips while helped get started off.

  • Be as bold as you can be! Even if you make a mistake, it can be fixed, and if anyone goes after you for it, just keep your cool like usual.
  • Edit the encyclopedia, and try to have more mainspace contribs than user talk (I'm working on that myself!)
  • Be sure about your edits. Be sure to make sure your edits are what you want them to be, and when working with code, always use the Preview button first.
Okay! I hope this helps. Good luck, RyRy. :) -[[Ryan]] (me) (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review by RC-0722 (talk · contribs)

Hmm, my only concern is your recent rollback saga. Other than that, keep up with the good work. Just be careful with the rollback button. RC-0722 247.5/1 04:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

dihydrogen monoxide

Hey there, thanks for asking for comments. Look, the biggest thing I'd like to suggest is that you get rid of all the edit counting userboxes on your userpage, and stop clicking on edit count links. See how life works if you can completely ignore your edit count. It's a really interesting experience.

Another suggestion is to simplify things. If I recall, you at some stage requested bot permissions, and have been doing all sorts of bot stuff (as have some of your friends)...I'd suggest that if you really need a bot, go to BOTREQ. Reason for this suggestion is that some of you guys don't see to be that great at bot stuff, and when some people are already frustrated by you (ref. your block log) these mistakes won't really help things.

To positives, I certainly haven't been hearing your name as often, which is good. It means you're at ANI less! :) I'd suggest you keep up the DYK work, you're a lot better at it than me, it seems. Before you (or any of your friends, since you're one of the more mature ones there) consider going for a GA, please ask someone more experienced to take a look first (I'm happy to; so are these guys), simply because there were a few issues a while back with some GA stuff there. But keep up the article work, your improvement is great!

Hope this helps. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

PS; Oh, and please consider if participating in the award center is really a good idea. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Stormtracker94 (talk · contribs)

I've seen you around, and you have done pretty good work so far. You have made great contributions to the Boston Red Sox Wikiprojcet, and I like the work with DYK. I'd also consider attempting a GA or FA article, or even an FL. The only thing that I'm fairly concerned with is the rollback incidents, so I would adivse you to learn the policy of that better and then try again. Hopefully, you will get to RFA by next winter or so, and I would be glad to nominate you then if you improve on the points made. Otherwise keep up the good work! STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 16:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Review by Malinaccier (talk · contribs)

The thing that pops out to me at the moment is a comment I remember you making to Keeper about not using Rollback alot. Going through your contribs, however, you appear to be using it in a moderate amount. Don't be afraid to be bold in the way you edit. I would reccomend against an RFA, because of recent problems with rollback, etc. You should probably wait 3 months or more before accepting a nomination. This would show your maturity to !voters along with patience. Good luck, Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I have a few main areas of work here on Wikipedia. I am starting to write more articles, mostly baseball-related articles, so I may help out at WP:MLB; that is probably where I'm most active. You can visit this link to see all the articles I have created. I new page patrol and revert vandalism, and try to make the appropriate actions there. I also use my patrol page which does lend me a hand sometimes. I vote at the WP:AFD on occasions. I do copy-edit and wikify on pretty much any article as well. My best article I created I think is baseball uniform, my current DYK. Altogether, I have 3 DYK's.
  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 them, but I have been a few. I can only think of the deletion of my adoption program. I see what I was doing wrong, teaching my adoptees some wrong info, so I actually decided to delete it at the end. Now, I am the adoptee. Many people have told me to become the adoptee so I decided to do that. I plan to learn a lot more about wikipedia so I can teach my own adoptees a lot better in the future. I have also lost rollback twice because of my reverts. The first time I lost it was an accidental click which rolled back the edit. The second, I used rollback on non-vandalism to remove an external link on an article because I got wrong info that ESPN is not a prospect site. But I didn't warn the IP. So I used rollback when I could have just easily removed it with undo. When I get rollback again in the future, I plan to use rollback only on vandalism. If I don't know of an edit is vandalism, I will either undo it with a good explaination or just leave the edit alone. I always have a cool head so I rarely get stressed out here at wikipedia.
  3. If you could go back a few months to the day you first logged in, what would you change about what you have done here at Wikipedia?
    It really depends if I know the policies already or if I know nothing about them. What I would change is first not editing my userpage until I have a decent amount of mainspace edits as I have over 1500+ userspace edits to this day. I've accoplished passing my mainspace edits (2450+) over my userspace edits which is a good thing. Back to the topic. I would also like to learn how rollback works and it's positive and negative works. I lost rollback twice so if I would go back a few months and read the rollback policies and rules first, I would have never got it revoked. I currently have rollback and since I got it back, I only used it three times due to the danger of a block if I ever misused it again. I am trying my best to not misuse it and to only use it on obvious vandalism. I would also would like to have never joined the cabals and being an adopter myself as that was what really started all the criticisms I recieved about a month or two ago. Other than what I just mentioned, I am pretty proud of my wikilife now. I have met many trusted users, I have 2 DYKs (One passed today and is currently on the mainpage) and my mainspace and reverting.