Wikipedia:Editor review/TomasBat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] TomasBat

TomasBat (talk · contribs) I have been in Wikipedia from around November 2006 and have made over 4000 edits. I make it a habit to welcome new users and hand out random smileys, from time to time, as well as to do some recent changes patrolling. I am requesting this review both for checking how am I going on Wikipedia in general and becuase I wish to become an administrator, so I can help in clearing backlogs at WP:AfD, as well as block/unblock vandals. TomasBat (@)(Sign) 20:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

I reviewed a number of your contributions across various namespaces. Here's what I found:

  1. First of all, you made four spelling mistakes in this editor review request. It's a small problem, especially if English is your second language (as I suspect), but you need to make 100% sure not to put spelling mistakes into articles. One idea is to run the text through a spell checker, and if it passes, then put it in the article.
  2. You seem obsessed with your userpage. Again, not a real problem, but it can't go on forever. At a certain point you need to "grow out of it" and focus your edits elsewhere. (Right now 300 of your 1250 edits are to your userpage.) I'm particularly mystified why you kept "This user has 100 edits" after you added "This user has 200 edits," and so forth.
  3. Your article writing efforts on "Age of Empires" are admirable. You communicate well with the other folks on the talk page, and you add insight (and images) based on your experience with the game. Based on your edit history, it looks like you've edited articles on other massively multiplayer online games.
  4. Articles for Creation is a great place to help new users while preserving the integrity of Wikipedia's concept. You should continue doing that if you find it enjoyable.
  5. What I tell many review subjects is to "branch out" and try working on articles outside your primary area of interest. I see you've signed up for some Wikiprojects (or if you haven't, you should). See where that leads you.
  6. It's too early for you to be contemplating adminship. As a general guideline, I tell people to get to 4000 edits or six consecutive months of elevated activity (>250 edits), whichever comes first. That means that an RFA in June might be reasonable if you continue at your current pace. You will also need to learn more about what adminship is about, and you will need to establish how the tools will help you maintain Wikipedia (e.g. anti-vandalism).

I wish you good luck. YechielMan 03:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with everything YechielMan has said above me, and would advise you to get more edits in projectspace before you go for an RfA - perhaps more participation in XfDs would help. (Consider participating not just in AfDs, but in the more obscure WP:CFD and WP:RFD too; some experience there often looks good.) Also, one serious point. Remove the fake "You have new messages" bar from your userpage. Now. It's one of the most annoying things a Wikipedian can possibly have on their page. Walton Need some help? 09:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Auctually yes, I am pleased with the Civilizations and Main Bonuses table which I inserted to article Age of Empires III (Since a previouse table on the civilizations had already been inserted but was deleted due to excess of information, so a less informative and basic table on the civilizations fit for ocassional readers was lacking until I inserted it.), with my contributions in general to Age of Empires III, which helped the article become a GA (Good Article), and with all the articles which I created.
  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 some conflicts, but stress wasn´t that much of a problem... Anyways, a solution was found that would satisfy both sides in most of the conflicts in which I have been.