Wikipedia:Editor review/Stormtracker94
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Stormtracker94
Stormtracker94 (talk ยท contribs)
Hey everyone. I've been editing since July and have since then wanted to check up on my progress. I have already 1,200+ edits and hope to apply for adminship in January or Febuary.
Reviews
- You seem to be making a good start in contributing to Wikipedia. It's obvious that you've put a lot of time and effort into the articles you've chosen to work on. :) There are a few areas in which you might want to focus some more attention, particularly if you hope to eventually apply for adminship. First of all, you seem to be inconsistent in your use of edit summaries. As the recommendation goes, these should always be filled in. You can go into "user preferences" under Edit to have Wikipedia remind you if you're submitting a blank edit summary. I personally have found this useful. :) There may be a few policies you need to better familiarize yourself with. For example, on September 16th, you moved 2007 in ice hockey to 2007 in Ice Hockey, which suggests you may need to review Wikipedia's naming conventions. Looking at a few recent articles you've created, you don't seem to be familiar with categorization or the manual of style for headings as regards capitalization. The article you created on The Third Shift, which is very well constructed aside from the above concerns, suggests you might want to review the policy on notability and how to establish that through the use of multiple sources. All evidence suggests you pick up on these kinds of things very quickly, and I'm sure that you'll easily master them. :)
- There are a few things you've done in regards to interactions with other editors that confuse me. I found it curious that you placed {{Indefblockeduser}} on the userpage of User:Magictito on September 19th, 10 days after the activity which led to the user being blocked. I presume that you were unaware that the block had been lifted, which suggests that you did not check the user's block log before placing the template. I'm also confused by your issuance of two warnings to user Wikophile on September 9th for allegedly vandalizing the page Xbox 360 defenition, when a look at the page history indicates that Wikophile has never edited that article. Proper interaction with other editors is crucial in an administrator, and vandalism warnings should be placed with the utmost care.
- If you are truly interested in becoming an administrator, I suggest you read over the administrators' reading list. Good luck, and happy editing. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- About the 360 definition thing: Wikophile created the article twice, so I warned him twice for repeat vandalism. Is this right or wrong to do? Stormtracker94 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm unsure what you mean by creating the article twice. Do you mean recreating following speedy deletion? As an administrator, I have access to Wikophile's deleted contributions log, and I don't see any reference to that article in it. User:Ruizex, on the other hand, created the current article and another with a similar name minutes before--Xbox 360 defenition and Xbox 360 definition--on September 9th. Is it possible that you got the editors confused somehow? In any event, vandalism warnings are not generally given for page creation. There is a special template at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for people who create blatantly inappropriate pages. (It starts at {{subst:uw-create1}} and escalates.) That template is not often used. Most of the time, when we find a page that is clearly not appropriate, we nominate it for deletion through speedy deletion. After a speedy deletion notice is placed (the policy has templates according to the criteria), you can copy the warning from it and place it on the user's page. --Moonriddengirl 20:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I probally got the editors confused. Stormtracker94 19:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm unsure what you mean by creating the article twice. Do you mean recreating following speedy deletion? As an administrator, I have access to Wikophile's deleted contributions log, and I don't see any reference to that article in it. User:Ruizex, on the other hand, created the current article and another with a similar name minutes before--Xbox 360 defenition and Xbox 360 definition--on September 9th. Is it possible that you got the editors confused somehow? In any event, vandalism warnings are not generally given for page creation. There is a special template at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for people who create blatantly inappropriate pages. (It starts at {{subst:uw-create1}} and escalates.) That template is not often used. Most of the time, when we find a page that is clearly not appropriate, we nominate it for deletion through speedy deletion. After a speedy deletion notice is placed (the policy has templates according to the criteria), you can copy the warning from it and place it on the user's page. --Moonriddengirl 20:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- About the 360 definition thing: Wikophile created the article twice, so I warned him twice for repeat vandalism. Is this right or wrong to do? Stormtracker94 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments
- View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- I think that mostly contributing to baseball and sports articles is my biggest contribution. These are my best edits because I can find lots of research on them, and I just love the game. I have created 14 baseball atricles and hope to contribute more in the near futute.
- 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?
- No, but if I had, I would tell an admin about the conflict or just stay away from that particular user or article for a while, than report it if it continues.
