Wikipedia:Editor review/Thehelpfulone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Thehelpfulone

Thehelpfulone (talk · contribs) I have been on Wikipedia for only a couple of months now, but would like to know how to better myself as an editor and as a general Wikipedian. It is far too early to go for an RFA, but I would like to become an admin, so am requesting this review to see how I can become better just as an editor. The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) 21:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Awarded to Thehelpfulone in recognition of his excellent edits. :) Rt. 18:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Awarded to Thehelpfulone in recognition of his excellent edits. :) Rt. 18:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Review by Rudget (talk · contribs) - What a great wikipedian! You're helping out in the right areas, you've got support in most areas and you work (where I see you) at the help desk is fantastic. However, there is one thing I'd like to take note of, that being you're handling of vandals, like you did here isn't really that great. Believe me, if you ever have an RFA this is the sort of stuff that starts worrying (!)voters. But apart from that, you're doing fine. And as this is my first ever review of an editor, I will now insert a rather appropriate picture. :) Rt. 18:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, Rudget. I think that was because I was a little angry with the user for the edits, I won't do anything like that again! The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) (Review Me!) 23:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Review by user:Kww - Too quick to proceed to extremely heavy warnings, as seen [here.Kww (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review, I am afraid that I had mistaken a level 3 warning a month ago for one on this month, therefore I put a level 4, final warning on. I will look at that again, and am going to remove the warning from the page. The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) (Review Me!) 16:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pulling the warning. Please don't miss the other important point, though: the edit in question was not vandalism. She had removed a small table from the article and the table contained only unsourced information. There may have been better ways for her to deal with it, but it's hard to call that vandalism. Putting it back, and maybe adding a "citations" tag, is a more appropriate way to deal with such an edit when you disagree with it.Kww (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Review by User:Rspeer - I have found several of your username reports to be bad ideas; they seem to accomplish no purpose except to turn away new contributors for not meeting the dress code. You reported (as in, recommended blocking) User:Ansarhussain and User:Ramamurty.buddhavarapu, and your recent statement "it is obvious advertising for the website www.midday.com, so it should be blocked indef, even before there are any edits." is directly contrary to the username policy. Please think about making Wikipedia a more welcoming place instead of turning away users for spurious reasons. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review, Rspeer, I am going to start looking up on the username policy in more detail, so that I can get my reports correct, the first 2 usernames you mentioned, User:Ansarhussain and User:Ramamurty.buddhavarapu, were reported before I had a proper look at the username policy, I think I was doing it on how I felt, rather than according to the policy, which I am now going to follow. Anyways, thanks for the review, and hopefully you can write another review, if I have improved! The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) (Review Me!) 19:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay. I understand that with all the debate around the username policy, it can be hard to follow. But applying intuition about "would this be good for Wikipedia" can work just as well. If you had some reason you felt Ansarhussain and Ramamurty.buddhavarapu needed to be blocked, I would understand, but I can't figure it out at all. Why did you feel that way? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Rspeer, sorry for the late reply, I would have appeared to missed your reply. I thought than Ansarhussain was similar to Ansar Al-Hussain and that Ramamurty.buddhavarapu was just completely random. I hope this answers your queries... -- The Helpful One (Talk) (Contribs) (Review) 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Review by delldot:

  • Great work rving v!
  • I noticed you got a note from this guy, who you had left a note for. It was a newbie who seemed to be asking for help, but I didn't see a response from you. Did I miss it? If not, why didn't you help them? That message seems not to be on my talk page, so I am not sure if you link is incorrect?
Here's the original post. delldot talk 12:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I requested speedy deletion of this article, as he had left a message on my talk page, though I think I forgot to notify him that it had been deleted! The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) (Review Me!) 17:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • In another instance, I didn't see a response to Tonian when they came to you with a complaint. Did I miss it? If you're not responding to these, I'd argue that you should, especially if it's potentially a good faith user who you've offended by calling a good edit vandalism. In those cases I bend over backward to apologize and encourage them to continue editing, or give them whatever help they need to improve the edits. You really shouldn't be ignoring good faith posts, especially from newbies who need help or explanation. I was trying to figure this one out, then I remembered, I saw his message and understood what he meant, so I stopped, I think I forgot to put an apology on his talk page!
  • I've also noticed that some of your replies to complaints can be kind of curt, though I'm sure you're not meaning to be unfriendly (e.g. here and here). Remember that it's just text, so we don't have any of the voice and face cues to show you're being friendly. Thus I'd recommend starting with a greeting, possibly complimenting them on or thanking them for something (heh, hope this doesn't sound insincere...). I usually do leave a message, with a nice greeting, I think I will be a bit more careful, I think it was because I was in a hurry!
Ah, I see, I do that too. Thanks for the explanation :) delldot talk 12:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like you apologize and agree to work on something when someone comes to you with a complaint (e.g. Cathaldempsey, which is a great quality!
  • Like some of the folks who've commented here, I think you can be a little trigger happy at times. Like with reporting usernames for blocking, maybe consider leaving a polite note to welcome the user and discuss the username issue you have with them. Another example is your speedy tag on Resiana Zelin. Also, here, I would have gone for semiprotection - we should avoid protecting more than necessary, right? For this I think I thought that it was a user, therefore to stop a user from editing the page, full protection would be required, I didn't notice that it was an IP!
  • I think you're wise to wait on RfA.
  • Overall, I think you're making a great contribution, but should be more careful. I saw no incivility, and aside from the minor points of failing to respond to some posts and not being sure to come off as friendly, it looks like your interaction with other users is great. delldot talk 06:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations! delldot talk 12:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Review by User:MKoltnow --I just wanted to say that I think you're still too quick to make submissions to WP:UAA. You nominated Xxxallyballyxxx (talk · contribs) for username block as profane, and previously nominated Joan de arc1412 (talk · contribs) for being the name of a living or recently-deceased person. I don't think you're taking much care in specifying reasons for an immediate block of a username. The latter was blocked briefly before being unblocked as not a vio. You even scolded me for putting a uw-uaa on your talk page, yet the damage was done. That user might not return. I think that nominating non-blatant usernames is careless at best, and WP:BITEy at worst. I don't want this to seem like piling-on, but I continue to see some of the same editing style. MKoltnow 20:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi MKoltnow, Thanks for your review. I thought that I had looked over the username policy, but obviously not well enough. I wil have another look at it, if possible could you provide me with the change username template please, so that I can advise users to get their usernames changed? Thanks! -- The Helpful One (Talk) (Contribs) (Review) 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Review by Kathleenslamon01 -- Thank you Helpful one for all your great comments!Kathleenslamon01 (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Review by Pensil Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pensil (talk • contribs)

Review by MindstormsKid Well, I haven't known Thehelpfulone for very long, but I will say he seems like a nice guy. I will say, however, that after reading the other reviews, I think maybe Thehelpfulone should take a break from reporting username policy violations. Otherwise, He seems like a good editor. P.S. As probably most editor would tell you, I would wait about a year to try for RFA.
≈ MindstormsKid 18:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi MSK, thanks for your review. Yes, I probably would take a break from the UAA reports, unless they are obvious. Also, regarding an RFA I don't think that I am going to go for one until I get some more article writing done... so maybe a few months .. or as you said.. a year! :) --The Helpful One (Review) 17:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Review by Reallysmartgrammarwiz As a new wikipedia user I have had a lot of questions. Few users stopped to answer them for me, The HelpfulOne did after all his name is The HelpfulOne. I don't know enough about the workings of Wikipedia t say weather or not the above claims are true but I will say that if he is not anything else, TheHelpfulOne is very helpful;) Smart Guy (talk) (Sign) 14:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Reallysmartgrammarwiz, thanks for your review! --The Helpful One (Review) 17:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Review by Britishrailclass91 I think that you are always on the ball and good at what you do. I notice that you notify users quickly if they have made a mistake and I value that in wikipedians. All in all, I think you are very capable. (Sorry it's such a short review)Britishrailclass91 (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Britishrailclass91! Thanks for your review - Size Doesn't matter - I'm thinking of the saying: "Short and Sweet" :D. The Helpful One (Review) 16:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


Review by Editorofthewiki This user seems to be a fine all around user, though I would suggest contributing to the mainspace more beside vandalism reverting. Try to work on a DYK? Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 19:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Review by JoeC 4321 (talk · contribs) - Just clicked on the link on the users signature to find this page. I wanted to say that this users was very helpful. JoeC 4321 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Well, for those of you that see me around Wikipedia, especially on the IRC channels will know I do a lot of vandal whacking, reverting all types of vandalism. I have recently been approved with rollback the log for this is here. I have reported users 213 times to WP:AIV. I also help out with looking a inappropriate usernames, so far I have reported 125 user names to WP:UAA. I help out at the Wikipedia:Help Desk, answering questions for all the new users, so that they can become better Wikipedians and editors. For the Wikipedia:Help Desk I have created a new template answer, which is about page or 'hit' counters, you can see this here. I also do New Page and Recent Changes patrol, using Twinkle to help me tag articles for speedy deletion, revert vandalism and warn users. As I am part of the Welcoming Committee I also try to welcome all the new users, depending on what they have done, for example if they have vandalised a bit, I would use the welcoming template that includes information about vandalism. Some more updates are that I have started to help out at WP:RENAME and I have helped out quite a bit now at WP:ACC but only admins can see all of my contributions, as the page gets deleted and restored to clear page history. Also, I report pages that need protection at WP:RPP so far I have reported 49 times. --The Helpful One (Review) 10:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  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?
    Not really, so I don't exactly know what to do, but I would probably do something along this lines of:
1) If the edit is a mistake, I would revert it.
2) If somebody is making conflicts, and making possible mistakes, I would leave a message on their talk page, so that I can discuss the problem.
3) If we can settle it, then the edit conflict or 'war' is over.
4) If not, I would seek advice from another user, before reporting the user to WP:AIV