Wikipedia:Editor review/Teh tennisman 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Teh tennisman

Teh tennisman (talk · contribs) I want to run for adminship sometime next year, in all likelyhood, and wonder what people think of me since my last review. I'd still like more feedback. Please, people! --tennisman sign here! 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Reviews

  • Overall I would say a very good job. For whatever reason the edit count thing doesn't work for you, but I can see you've been fairly involved, especially in Wikipedia space and affairs. If admin is your goal, I would say pick an article you like (it's helpful if it has a strong editor base behind it too) and try and get it up to Good or Featured Article status. However, I would note that being an admin isn't that amazing, and you have to ask yourself, "do i need to be an admin?" Either way, I hope you'll continue contributing. David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't really seem to be too active with Wikipedia. You have an average of about 140 edits/month which is about 5 edits/day (and 100 of those are on your own userpage). You have been consistent for the past few months but early on you weren't so. You should definitely be consistent for the next few more months before applying for RFA. Also, you don't have a lot of edits to talk space, which folks at RFA like to see. Try to get more involved with the WikiProjects you're a part of and help out with tasks they may have. You can find other tasks to do on other WikiProjects (or invent your own task), without actually joining the project, if you need some ideas of what to do. --MECU≈talk 16:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overall, you are doing fine. However, it seems that you need much more activity (although more recently, you have) than about 140 edits/month. Your highest is only 406/month, which would be almost OK if that was done consistently (500-1000/month is better). If you can do that for the next 4-6 months or so, you should be fine. Also, mainspace edits is slightly lacking, which you might want to work on. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 04:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey there. I have been discussing with some users that, lately, many who are requesting reviews here have adminitis. In other words, they are more worried about becoming admins than editing. Even some recent comments at the RFA page that shows some editors dismissing it (Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?) because they consider it is not necessary to be a good admin. However, that question has been there for quite a lot of time (September 2005 at least), and nobody complained. An administrator should know how to edit, how to improve an article, polish, reference and expand it at least to make it a good article. I still think you are focusing a lot in your user page and not in the main space. With 357 edits in your user page and 371 edits in the main space, it is clear you spend as much time in your user page as in the main space. I will tell you what I said in your prior review: In order to become an administrator, you need to first become a good editor. According to the latest statistics, you have made 12 edits at here, but your maximum amount of edits done in articles is 11 at Robert T. Longway Planetarium and List of minor Star Wars Jedi masters. I can recognize a WikiGnome, being one, and I see you are one: you edit articles here and there, but don't like spending a lot of time in a single article. However, to present yourself at the RFA, you need to answer those three questions. What are you going to put as an answer to the second one? Try spending more time editing articles, or doing patrolling. I notice you are giving opinions at RFAs, however you should spend more time reviewing them. Most of your opinions there are one or two line long, always quoting what someone else has already said, and never with your own opinion. The AFD I checked (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fat Darrell, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaizen Denki Incorporated, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four State Area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab Public Opinion Regarding the United States) demonstrate that you have been mostly supporting third opinions since time ago. You have a similar conduct in other areas too. So, my suggestion is, take risks! Expand articles! Rewrite them if necessary! Give opinions, even if someone else tells you later that it is wrong. Discuss with others about changes that you consider necessary but may be too conflicting. Remember, once you are an administrator, you will have to take decisions, some controversial ones too, in example keeping an article when everyone else states it should be deleted, or deleting one when everyone wants to keep it, discussing with new users that are creating articles that are not suitable for Wikipedia, block users and vandalism, etc. You need to begin to think for yourself. And work with articles. As I stated in the talk page of the RFAs, this place, with 0.03% of editors, would be gone in a week. This place, with 0.03% administrators is running fine enough. If you want to become an administrator in the future, focus on articles now. Yesterday, today and tomorrow. If you reach your RFA with as many user edits as main space edits, or say in that second question that you are most proud of your user page, I really doubt someone will take you seriously. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Don't worry about adminship, it will come someday. If your aim at Wikipedia is to write articles, everything will go fine. If you aim at adminship, you will find that the path there is harder than expected. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 00:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I believe that every edit is a meaningful edit. However, I think that some of my vandal fighting, such as a number of things that have ended up at BJAODN, is pretty good. More seriously, I have taken a couple of pages from nearly meaningless-ness to fairly legible 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 had few issues with conflicts; I have had a pair of small disagreements that have been able tobe solved using talk pages and email. The first was one in which I continually reverted edits that sounded as though they were making John Lennon a fan page. I resolved that one by talking to the person who was making the edits and I believe without much trouble. The second was one where I continually listed "Years in Poetry" years for speedy as they had no content. However, what I did not realize was that they were to be expanded later. That conflict was solved by the creator telling me what I had done wrong, and my acknowledging of that. In conclusion, I believe that any issues I have in the future can be solved by being civil and talking to the person with whom I have a conflict.