Wikipedia:Editor review/WikiMan53

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] WikiMan53

WikiMan53 (talk · contribs) Hi. I've been at Wikipedia for a while now and not all my edits have been good. I have been caught up in a lot of mishaps with MFDs and especially autograph books. I know realize that it is Wikipedia the free encyclopedia not AIM. I recently downloaded VP and have doing some vandal reverting. I have been trying to contribute to the encyclopedia and be a better Wikipedian. I even have a shorter signiture that I made myself without my SigIdeas subpage! WikiMan53 t/s 14:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • WikiMan53 doesn't put enough thought into what he does. He has warnings on his page for retaliatory mfds, and I've found examples of this in questions 3-5 below. Apparently he's on unofficial probation right now, as his talk page indicates. He needs to more thoroughly think about what he does, and analyze things before he puts his fingers to the keyboard. Nardman1 15:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You really should begin to make contributions. They don't necessarily have to be article writing; AfD or similar stuff works too. But your edits are nearly all either to the Sandbox or various user pages, which isn't really the point of Wikipedia. -Amarkov moo! 23:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I may add some more content, later. However, welcoming users who haven't yet edited an article with VP is kind of irrelevant. Some of these usernames could be sleeper accounts or tester accounts, which are used for vandalism. Adminship isn't all about reverting vandalism. Real96 11:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, some of your contributions are to autograph books. Since Wikipedia isn't a social site, this may be frowned upon. In addition, when you make comments concerning other editor's reviews like you did with mine, please check the page's history. I know that you reverted the comment later, but in the future, check policy first to see if the editor was acting upon good faith. Real96 12:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have just one comment to make. The signature you typically use is very bright. Some people like myself are somewhat color blind, & have a problem seeing the bright yellow color. See Wikipedia:Signatures. --Random Say it here! 02:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, here goes my review. Now, you seem to be experimenting several problems towards the wikiepdian community due to your inexperience here, especially with users who have been here for quite some time right now. Now, this also happened to me and still happens to me nowadays, that reception of statements from more experienced editors concerning your editing and your usefulness which end up eventually being negative. Well, I suggest several things to you in order to get along better here on Wikipedia and in order to, henceforth, improve your editing:
    • Start contributing some more. Intend to find articles on which you have some knowledge and start improving them the best you can; in case you don´t find any articles to improve, then I suggest you leave a message to suggest bot, an automated bot that suggests articles in which you might be interested in editing. Also, consider joining wikiprojects based on your interests in order to edit more on the mainspace. Also, if you have nothing to do, then you can always help dealing with technical aspects, such as welcoming new users (I see you´ve done some of that already, well done!), and helping in clearing backlogs.
    • Participate in more discussions, state your point of view on talk pages, even if it´s minor, but make sure you are sure of what you say, and always intend to stay out of conflicts.
    • Read the official policies and guidelines, even though you may find them boring, in order to understand more about how things are to be done here on Wikipedia
    • You can also consider being a minorist; you can make minor edits such as boldfacing, adding infoboxes, adding stub templates, categorizing, adding ""s, etc. Minorism is a simple task that anyone can do; so if you feel you cannot really contribute to anything, then consider this open task.
    • Consider requesting for adoption; that way a more experienced editor, familiar with the official guidleines and policies, could aid you on your doubts and guide you on your editing.

Well, that´s pretty much it. I believed you started out not very well, but don´t worry, it also happened to me once I created an account on the Spanish Wikipedia, I sort of messed myself up at the very start. So, intend to stay out of conlicts and start contributing some more; but be carfull with this, start out slowly and secure, one step at a time, analyzing the situation before taking action... And before you know it, you´ll become an active contributor to the encyclopedia! Also, continue being humble and willing to learn, as well as kind to others, since these are important values for fulfilling any type of task. I wish you the best of luck... ♠Tom@sBat 03:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

User is now indefblocked. Sean William 02:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Well, up intil a couple weeks ago I wasn't proud. I had been deleting valid redlinks, warning people inaccuratly, and just editing autograph pages, talk and userpages. But recently I have started using VandalProof and have been doing good in monitoring and reverted vandalism and then reporting them to AIV. I was even praised here for my work.
  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?
    Of course! Didn't you see Q1? :) I had been in many editing wars with autograph books. I loved those. I even spammed about 6 pages asking for signitures. (If you are one of those I spammed, I'm sorry.) Then I very stupidly put Cremepuff222's autograph book up for an MFD. See? I made mistakes, we all do. I am just trying to do better.
  3. Why did you delete a link to a school site for "security reasons" [1]?
    That was my mistake sorry.
  4. Why did you start a sockpuppet case consisted entirely of already blocked socks here without giving any context to the report? Specifically, you should have linked to the first case, the checkuser, and linked to the "evidence" you presented, which instead is some text telling me to go somewhere else (hint, link it).
    Because I didn't realize they were blocked considering they were on the suspected socks and not the confirmed.
  5. Why did you warn an an ip user on 8 April who made his last edit on 2 February[2], given that the same person who reads the message months later probably won't be the same one who vandalized, and given the fact that this person was already blocked on 2 February for those same edits?
    I was new to VP. I didn't mean to warn him, I meant to just make sure he doesn't do it again by watching him.