Wikipedia:Editor review/CHAK 001

CHAK 001
As an editor on Wikipedia, I do specialize in focusing on my favorite edits, which is not limited to just television. I also like to read other articles that are of my own interest, but sometimes, something may not be right. As a user, I felt that a review is needed since there are some areas that I would need improvement after one year being on Wikipedia. Although I have enjoyed editing on Wikipedia, I am also not sure if I am ready to become an Administrator. CHAK 001 (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * Most of my primary contributions focuses on articles that needs to cite sources, verify articles, or revert edits that are not appropriate to add to the article. While I only have created a couple of pages, I am usually pleased with the results to ensure that the article is relevant. Most commonly, I like to focus on articles as a local TV viewer, but I also like to read other articles that are of my interest. Most recently, I have started to be more familiar with the templates as time passes by, supported by users that gave me some advice. I will still allow anyone to continue accepting areas of improvement at my talk page, which I will most likely take into consideration.
 * 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.
 * For editing disputes, I relatively have very few. In general, when I am in a dispute, I do ask the question to users, and that user and I would chat for a while. As for stress, I usually get a bit annoyed if anyone tries to add something that either does not meet the guideline, has unnecessary information, or anything that deems inappropriate. In that case, I usually give courtesy notices to the user that does such things, followed by other actions. If the actions were to happen in my talk page, I do take it seriously in the form of a one-time warning, followed by a referral to an administrator if such behavior continues.
 * For editing disputes, I relatively have very few. In general, when I am in a dispute, I do ask the question to users, and that user and I would chat for a while. As for stress, I usually get a bit annoyed if anyone tries to add something that either does not meet the guideline, has unnecessary information, or anything that deems inappropriate. In that case, I usually give courtesy notices to the user that does such things, followed by other actions. If the actions were to happen in my talk page, I do take it seriously in the form of a one-time warning, followed by a referral to an administrator if such behavior continues.

 Reviews 

Hello CHAK. I dare to review you. You say "...I am also not sure if I am ready to become an Administrator...." Well, have you looked at others' user pages? This is a collaborative project where editors work together in a friendly atmosphere. Your user page is beyond bizarre. I have never seen anything like it. Warnings? Punishments? Terms and conditions? Mandatory this, and one-time warning that? All restrictions apply?

Here's a suggestion: Totally blank your entire user page and talk page. Replace all that stuff with a picture of a bunny, and "Welcome to my page. I hope you're having a good day." Don't worry CHAK, nobody will bite you. Nobody will breach security and send your user page into defcon 12.

Your user page smacks of paranoia and hostility. It's totally, totally unnecessary. We're a friendly bunch here. And any vandals who do encounter your pages the way there are now, will absolutely not hesitate to, with a huge smile of satisfaction, vandalize it to antagonize you.

Consider yourself reviewed, my friend. Oh, and your edits? Fine and dandy. Good stuff. bunny. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC) One more thing. In case you didn't know, here at Wikipedia bold is kind of like raising your voice, and all caps is like yelling. Bold and caps? Deafening. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Seconded on that review!! LOL! I'm sorry CHAK.. but I completely agree with Anna here.. your userpage is one of the most hostile and unwelcoming I've ever come across. You needn't be so worried about people posting unwanted things in your userspace, anything can easily be reverted. Relax a little, don't be so contractual and pedantic, people are not out to get you. If I may say though, with your style of writing, you should consider a career as a legal writer. -- &oelig; &trade; 18:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I third their reviews. A lot of bold and italics may be frightening to people who wish to talk to you. Other than that, your edit summaries need a little work; you only do them maybe once every 15 edits. Your communications with other editors is quite terse and can be offsetting for new editors, like at this IPs talk page. Also, without knowing the context of your comment I cannot tell for certain, but it looks like you are saying that someone owns the article at that page. As for administration, I don't think you would be accepted just yet; from what I've read, they judge you by your number of edits (you have 1300), balance of where you edit (you have not participated in many things, like AfD), and interactions with other editors. I am not an admin either, so I do not know for sure how an RfA would go for you if you made one now.
 * I honestly came here to remove the asterisk, then stopped to read the whole thing when I saw "bunny". hop hop
 * I hope that helps. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Could I fourth all that? I'd say as well that you don't need to worry about all of that. If your page gets vandalised or personal attacks get posted well firstly; its a wiki - so you or somebody else could just get rid of them on sight and secondly; admins are likely to take action regardless of whether there is anything written on your user page about that, it's against wikipedia policies: WP:NPA and WP:VAND. Another point is that you have made clear that it is your intention to report any breaking of your talk page rules to administrators - whilst some people choose to have some talk page 'house rules', they aren't binding or enforceable and I doubt any administrator would be willing to impose sanctions in such a case.
 * Also just to say, this reason for reverting: "Permission not authorized by the editor that watches the article closely" is totally unacceptable per WP:OWN. It is never ever appropriate to remove content added by another editor simply because 'the regulars' don't like it no matter how much you've contributed to the article or how new the other editor is. Please don't ever revert for that reason. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)