Wikipedia:Editor review/1234r00t

1234r00t
I'd like to be reviewed as I am relatively new. I'd like to know what people think of my contributions to the site.  Mr. R00t   Talk  20:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My primary contribs to Wikipedia are my vandal fighting with Igloo. I'm not particularly pleased with anything I've done though. I feel that there really is a lot here that I a)either don't know how to do or b)just don't. These include writing articles and participating in more Afds. I also have worked as a (unsuccessful) mediator on CPIM.
 * 1) Have you been in any disputes 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?
 * No editing disputes though I have tried my hand at the Mediation Cabal a bit.
 * No editing disputes though I have tried my hand at the Mediation Cabal a bit.

 Reviews 

Well just by looking at your contributions I can see that you have done some vandal fighting, and also some useful contributions to articles on wikipedia, however you should try and be nice to new people, and even though I fully back the fact that IP editors should register, it doesn't mean they can be treated like crap, although I do see where you are coming from, and still find it pretty funny.

Anyway in conclusion I think that your edits on wikipedia have been of a decent nature, and most probably better than mine. It's Me (Speak to me) What have you done? 07:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick review: You're a pretty impressive user by sheer 'tribs, for being so new. However, you are a very forthright and blunt person. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but makes you, well, not the best person to be doing mediating of any sort, or much helping of new people, unless you learn to tone down your opinions and focus on other people a bit. Even if you hadn't stated that you were a minor, that would have been my assumption based on having looked through your contribs and observed the way you interact with other people. It's a subtle thing, the "clue" that everyone talks about, and hard to describe. Just... be a little more tactful, a little more careful with what you say and do, I guess. Some things just don't need to be said. (Like your IQ being 198, for example. It just gives the vibe that you're arrogant- IQ doesn't mean much, contrary to popular belief.) Further steps I would recommend- if you don't already use Huggle, use that instead of Igloo (if you run Windows)- it's a lot better. Article writing- join a couple of wikiprojects, and do some collaboration perhaps? Get stuck into something you're interested in. If you can't think of anything, even participating in New Page patrol with Twinkle, checking out WP:Requested articles or reviewing these requests here is a good way to start. If you don't feel confident writing articles, why not copyedit? The WP:GOCE's got a drive running which you might be interested in. In general, watch your step and slow down a little (except in reverting vandalism) and you'll do great. Remember that in the end we're all here to build an encyclopedia (I know it sounds stupid, but I forget it at times too) and each edit you save should contribute to that. If you have questions about this review, feel free to ask. so  nia ♫♪ 10:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sonia: I realize now that my personality is not best suited to mediating. I'm probably going to stop that. As for me being arrogant: is being arrogant a bad thing? :) (I'll remove that IQ comment). I think that my bluntness is really not much of a bad thing while I fight vandalism. But it makes it slightly difficult to respond calmly to problems. I would definitely want to get that under control before any move at RfA. Thank you to both of you.  Mr. R00t    Talk  17:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, bluntness is a great thing when fighting vandalism. :) One more thing that I just spotted: don't comment in archives. (And don't think about RfA just yet, it will come if you need it, when you are ready. Otherwise, as I said, we're just here to build the encyclopedia in the ways we do best.) Cheers, so  nia ♫♪ 23:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * With that archive; that was an accident. As for RfA there's no chance I'm going there for a long time (and succeeding anyways). Great work on HJ's stupid flag!  Mr. R00t    Talk  00:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had the same problem too when I was starting out, so no big deal. But in the two and a half months you've been here, fighting vandals and such, you seem like an improvement over before. :| TelCo  NaSp   Ve :|   01:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC) By the way, Sonia, we just talked about that archive over on SimpleWiki.
 * Another quick review: Great vandalism work but I'll just point out a couple of things that could be improved on. Try to focus more on working on articles rather than editing your userspace. Quite a large percentage of your edits is to userspace, and a very large percentage is to user talk space. Looking at some of your recent contributions, those user talk edits don't seem to be much related to articles. This edit indicates that you might have slightly the wrong idea about what we're here for. (ie. not "beefing up" edit stats). I know this has been mentioned above, but: "I probably understand things better than you do since my IQ is tested at 198." Seriously? That statement, apart from being impossible to prove and pretty much irrelevant, is just going to get people's backs up. If someone goes to your talkpage to start a serious discussion, they probably don't want to be told that you understand things better than they. It's not just arrogant, it comes across as immature. I don't mean to sound harsh, but I presume you put that statement there because you think it will help in some way, but it really won't. Basically, I would say keep up the good work on vandalism, try moving into content editing, use edit summaries a bit more often, and perhaps consider that things like declining requests for undeletion may not be the best use of your time. I think admins have those kinds of areas covered. And slow down a bit, messages currently on your talkpage (one from me, one from Fetchcomms) would suggest that you might benefit from not reacting too quickly without thinking things through. I know most of this is negative, and I'm sorry about that, but those are the things that tend to get noticed!


 * By the way this review isn't listed at Editor review, you need to add it there. Likewise, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:76.175.144.175 isn't listed at Miscellany for deletion; you also need to add the discussion to that page. Instructions are on that page.-- Beloved Freak  23:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the comment about IQ with no intention of putting it back. I wonder why Twinkle didn't list IP one. I'll get all of those done. Thanks for the review even if it is negative!  Mr. R00t    Talk  16:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean it to come across as all negative, I guess it's just that those are the things that draw one's attention to new users. I see you've been helping other editors out with their user pages and user talkpages, so that's great. It's also good that you're open to suggestions about your editing.-- Beloved Freak  17:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)