Wikipedia:Editor review/Buffbills7701

Buffbills7701*
Hey, I'm Buffbills7701, and I just wanted to see what other users thought of me. buffbills7701 20:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I mainly fight vandalism, but sometimes I review AFCs as well. As for the ones that I'm pleased with, my favorite is Taysom Hill, the first "article" I've created.
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * I have once, and I responded by trying to be as calm and reasonable as I could. If I ever got in another argument, I would do the same thing.
 * 1) What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
 * Mainly, I just want to see what users think of me. Maybe in a year in so, I would run for adminship, but other than that, I just want a general review of my edits.

 Reviews 



Please consider this only a partial review of a single aspect of your editing.

I recently saw this question you posted at an RFA:


 * "5. What word would you best describe for your attitude for becoming an admin, and why?"

Obviously I can't speak for the candidate, but I suspect that at least part of the reason they ignored this question while answering others that were submitted later is that it actually does not make any sense. I mean, I think I get what you are asking for but it is phrased so badly that it is basically gibberish. I am not one of those users who makes a habit of criticizing others over their grammar or sentence structure, but this is into the realm of broken English. I see from looking at your edits to talk pages that you almost always use automated tools to speak for you. When you do actually write something it is often written in this same disorganized, semi coherent style. The ability to communicate coherently is important and will certainly be a big obstacle if you plan on running for adminship yourself one day. You clearly are able to read and understand English well enough, so I am guessing that this is just a result of going too fast and not double-checking your posts to make sure they  actually make sense. That shouldn't be too hard to fix. I would suggest that whenever you post a comment or question, preview it, read it aloud if necessary, and make sure it makes sense before you save it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason I use automated tools to speak for me is because most of the time I just use talk pages to give a user a warning, or alert them about an article I CSDed. buff  bills  7701  21:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Automated tools are fine for mundane tasks like CSD notifications, but they aren't a substitute for actual interaction. Often, it is better to use a hand written note instead of a template, explaining the problem.  This is particularly true when the user is new and simply doesn't understand policy.  Maybe being linked to the Teahouse or other pages.  Being able to communicate effectively can often make the difference between someone becoming a productive editor or a blocked editor. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  13:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As usual I don't know what I am doing here, but I saw your name and immediately remembered the article that appeared in the Signpost under your name about the Article Rescue Squadron. I don't know if you remember the exchange we had about it on your talk page, but I was not happy about you writing this article but not putting enough effort into making it interesting enough. I am not sure what prompted you to take on such an important task without having the time necessary to complete it properly? Just curious. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)