Wikipedia:Editor review/TeckWiz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:TeckWiz

TeckWiz (talk · contribs) Hey. I'm 12 years old, and had my 1,000th edit today. I would consider becoming an admin in the future and would like a peer review.TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 19:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Egads, you're twelve? Congratulations on making it incredibly hard to know that, short of.. uh, reading your signature. :) Unfortunately, since you're so young, I recommend that you push yourself much further before you consider running for adminship; many users will oppose on the basis on age, so you need to meet much higher standards to succeed. With that in mind:
  1. I suggest you join a WikiProject and start to work on making major contributions to a few articles that interest you: you should also discuss these on the Talk pages, which will boost both your Article and Talk space counts quite nicely.
  2. Try to get more involved in AfD debates (I seen you've been to them before), and even voice your opinion at ongoing requests for adminship to see what kind of editors gain peoples' support.
You're doing amazingly well for someone your age - I work at an after school care centre, taking care of people roughly your age, and I certainly would not believe that they could be as active at Wikipedia as you, so congratulations! :) Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 07:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Wow! I am (kinda) older than you and I have about half your edit count! Keep up the good work! --Bezking Talk • Contribs 02:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


Comments

Statistics for: TeckWiz
(Permissions: N/A)
- Total: 1006 -
Main: 639
Talk: 118
User: 94
User talk: 72
Wikipedia: 65
Wikipedia talk: 1
Image talk: 2
MediaWiki talk: 1
Template: 12
Template talk: 2
-------------------
Total edits: 1006
w/ edit summary: 970 (96.42%*)
w/ manual edit summary: 939 (93.33%*)
Minor edits: 522 (51.88%*)
First known edit: Feb 25, 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?
    I'm proud of my major additions to The Bellmores, New York and my contributions to all The Amazing Race and Survivor 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 have been in one or two conflicts, which I have delt with on the talk page of the conflicting article.

[edit] Second time

TeckWiz (talk · contribs) Hey. I'm 12 years old, and have passed my 2,000th. I requested a peer review back in September, and only recieved one opinion. I have relisted my name for more opinions of my work. Since my last request, I have made 1,000 more edits, started to participate more in AFD and RFA, and sadly, had a failed RFA. Thanks for taking your time to voice (or should I say write) your opinion on me. TeckWizTalkContribs@ 17:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviews You are doing very, very nice so far especially for your youthful age (I am 14). I would recomend to basically continue what you are doing and make sure you contribute to the wiki-space. Cheers! — Seadog 23:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments Umm...TeckWiz,your spelling is wrong, its Es'P'eranza, check above, but I'm not here to criticize you. Well.....,CONGRATS!!!! You got 1500 edits even though you are so young! I'm 14, and I'm just nearing my 200th edit...anyway, congratulations again and don't give up editing!! Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 13:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • This editor does a superior job vandal-fighting, which has been his greatest area of contribution to this point. He has been advised in the past that he should now seek to branch out to contributing in other projectspace areas as well as increase his mainspace work, and I see he is starting to do that. His dedication, attention to detail, and civility are exemplary and as long as he paces himself, I predict a long and happy wiki-career for him. That includes a successful second RfA in a few months (but there's no reason to rush it, I'm told that adminship just means more chores). Newyorkbrad 02:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I'm proud of my major additions to The Bellmores, New York and my contributions to all The Amazing Race and Survivor articles. I'm proud of the articles I've created: Survivor: Cook Islands, Survivor 14, Survivor 15, and The Amazing Race 12
  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 have been in two or three arguments, like if something belongs on a page, but nothing major. They have all been resolved.

Comments

  • You removal of the results of The Amazing Race 11 elimination were completely unnecessary as those were the results from the show as it had just finished in the eastern time zone and the information was posted.Xtreme racer 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I know that was the result. I'm in the Eastern time zone, and I didn't remove the results. You added that Rob and Amber were the fourth team to arrive at the villa at the leg of 4. This is inferred and unneeded, as stated in my edit summary. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 01:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is getting clichè, but you are an amazing editor considering your age! My only piece of advice is to join a Wikiproject or team up with some other users to create a totally new article. Keep on doing what you do! --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book, review me!) 00:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in WP:UW. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 00:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third time

TeckWiz (talk · contribs) Hey. I'm 12 years old, and nearing 5,000 edits. I would consider becoming an admin in the future, and want to know what you guys think of me. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 01:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Your edits are good. Sometimes (eg [1]) I think you're a bit injudicious with TW. Also, you've used some awkward language here [2] [3] [4] [5]. Still, I think you're administrator material and I have thought of nominating you myself - but I'm trying to give enough time for the first RfA to cool off. - Richard Cavell 00:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Whats wrong with 4 and 5? --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 00:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
"Striked" should be "struck". "Your not active enough" should be "You're not active enough". - Richard Cavell 00:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh :) My grammar is a lot better when I'm not typing at about 64 words a minute :) (according to a typing test) --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 00:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Richard, should it be "struck" or "stricken"? :) Newyorkbrad 00:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Oxford English dictionary says that "stricken" is North American; "Struck" is Queen's English. See [6]. :) - Richard Cavell 00:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. He struck the match, but I think the vote was stricken. Americans don't say "He stricken the match", though. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 00:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Consider my comment striked struck stricken crossed out. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
"Stricken" is a past participle. "Struck" is a past simple and, in North America, a past participle in place of "stricken". "He struck the match" is the only correct way to say it in all English-speaking countries, but a vote may be struck or stricken depending on where you live. - Richard Cavell 01:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm a little concerned with how many people you have adopted. You are involved within the Wikipedia Community a fair amount which is good; however are you sure you have time for all of them? Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 03:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Many haven't been active in months. I think the last question I got from an adoptee was about 3 days ago, and the last one before that was 2 weeks ago. Like I said, barely any of them are active, in fact, I may adopt more :) --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. I would recommend removing some of them if they have been inactive for months because they really aren't contributing to the project and their is really no point in leaving users who have been inactive for long periods of time up(That was a run-on sentence). Everything else looks fairly good. Thanks! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 03:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

Alfred Brown

This editor nominated the article on first class cricketer Alfred Brown for deletion, despite the article being clearly referenced to Cricinfo and Cricket archive and categorised as a Yorkshire Cricketer. First class cricketers are by definition notable people - WP:BIO says "competitors who have played in a fully professional league" are by definition considered sufficiently notable for an article. This article should not have been flagged. I see that the author is 12 years old and an American so I don't hold his lack of cricket knowledge against him. Nevertheless this article should not be flagged for deletion as it clearly meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Nick mallory 03:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory

I have replied on the AFD. Also, as you said, since I'm not that knowledgeable about cricket, I AFD'd it, and asked you about all the other cricket pages you created, instead of speedying them all. Thanks for commenting! --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello TeckWiz. I can tell that you're not familiar with cricket, otherwise you wouldn't have flagged this article for deletion, nor would you have questioned the validity of all the articles about Yorkshire County Cricketers I've written recently. Once again Wikipedia's criteria clearly state that all first class cricketers are notable people by definition and are worthy of inclusion. Please check up on a subject before you deem it not notable. The fact that you personally don't know about something does not mean that it's not important. Nick mallory 03:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory

Like I said, please see the comment on the AFD. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean this comment in reply to my pointing out Wikipedia's criteria for notability to you? "However, many articles you've created are on people from the 18 and 1900's. That part is probably meant for people that played under 50 years ago, or who are really notable (ex. Babe Ruth). In other words: is anyone likely to search for some guy from the 1800's. And if they do, is a 3 sentence article going to help?" I find an argument that suggests sportsmen who played more than fifty years ago are irrelevant to be a little bizarre to say the least, seeing that this is an encyclopedia. The '1900's aren't actually that long ago, indeed some of us still remember them. I'm not sure what Babe Ruth has to do with cricket either. Even a three sentence article gives the salient facts about these people and gives links to more complete statistics. Most of the articles are rather longer than that in actual fact. I don't have a problem with you being a keen editor, I did have a problem with spending rather a lot of time on this discussion with you when I could have been writing new material. It's an editor's job to enforce the rules, not interpret them in this rather sweeping way. Anyway, I appreciate your youthful zeal. Good luck with your future endeavours. Nick mallory 11:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory.