Wikipedia:Editor review/Crazymonkey1123

Crazymonkey1123
I would like to know if I am making any major mistakes or if I have an area that needs some improvement. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) (Shout!) 04:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My primary contributions are fighting vandalism. Since I recently got rollback rights, it has become much faster (and easier) to remove vandalism rather than using Twinkle. Since removing all vandalism edits are equal, I have no particularly intresting edits. I also welcome new users.
 * 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 had one IP blank my userpage three times in one day. I tried to spread some Wikilove to him to see if that helped. I have not heard from that user since. Other than that, I have not really been in edit conflicts (just a couple of small accidents making reverts). I would use the Dispute Resolution Process to resolve conflicts.
 * I have had one IP blank my userpage three times in one day. I tried to spread some Wikilove to him to see if that helped. I have not heard from that user since. Other than that, I have not really been in edit conflicts (just a couple of small accidents making reverts). I would use the Dispute Resolution Process to resolve conflicts.

 Reviews 
 * In #wikipedia-en-help specifically, try not to go off-topic or spam the channel with !afccount, !helpme, or worse, !fetchall, when there are helpees in the channel. :P Remember that most of them are new to IRC and get easily scared when they see walls of incomprehensible text suddenly appear out of nowhere. It's also very confusing when there are multiple people being helped during that time. Try do those things in maintenance channels instead where Helpmebot also exists (or other bots with similar commands/functions)-- Obsidi ♠ n Soul  20:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Or PM the bot; that works too.  Chzz  ► 18:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * When tagging usernames try to make sure they have edits. Also instead of just templating them try sending their name to UAA. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  01:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, here's a wall of text review less centered on IRC. Looking through your contributions, I see mostly vandal patrol work. I am reviewing a few of them, and so far they look pretty good. I am a bit confused, though, about some of the messages you're posting on user talk pages for vandals. For example, "You don't want to end up like 149.169.222.23, right?" . Perhaps there's a backstory, but why are you posting that on some other IP editor's user talk page? Another issue I found was your speedy tagging of Melvin L. Manfull. There are two issues there. First of all, you tagged that article 18 seconds after it was created. Although it's good to catch vandalism and the like early, it's often better to leave new articles for a bit so that the creator has a little time to expand. Secondly, you might want to review the A7 criterion. This is one that stumps a lot of people because of the difference between notability and "credible claim of significance or importance". Those are the two things that stand out the most in the few edits I looked at, but I can give you some more general advice. Take all of the messages on your user talk page to heart. A lot of people have posted messages to let you know about various issues. You clearly enjoy testing things out, which is definitely a good thing. However, it would not hurt to do a little more research before you try some things. For example, the issue about licensing could have been avoided if you had done a brief skim of WP:License. Another thing: definitely avoid edit summaries such as this. Definitely a bit uncivil. You have a tendency to be a bit BITE-y sometimes, so definitely keep an eye on it. I've also noticed a tendency towards WikiDrama, which is something that no one appreciates. After being corrected on something minor, there have been multiple times where I've seen you storm off, swearing you will never come back/never do something again/etc (for example: ). Several times you've done this on IRC, and then proceeded to return only minutes later. Also, things like this, and subsequently, this, seem a bit WikiDrama-y to me. It does nothing to help the project, and only confuses and annoys other users. It can also come off as a bit immature. And finally, I'd just like to point out that Wikipedia is not an MMORPG (best explained by WP:Wikipedia is an MMORPG). Your userpage, for example, prominently displays your reviewer and rollback user rights almost as "levels" you've achieved. User:Crazymonkey1123/my goals only reiterates that ("destroy vandalism"). A previous revision of your userpage contained "If you vandalize any of the pages I am tracking, you WILL regret it when you can't edit any of the pages on this Wikipedia" and "DO NOT edit it. I am not stupid and I WILL find you". Behavior like this can also come off as annoying and unhelpful to other editors. Anyway, I'm done for now, but I'd like to encourage you to leave messages on my talk page/message me on IRC/etc. if you ever have any questions about something you're doing or something you're interested in. I hope none of this editor review offends you at all, but I'm trying to offer honest critique. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 01:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As a fellow RCP'er I have to say your reverts that I looked through were spot on. So that is good! I also have to say that I'm impressed by how far you've progressed on Wikipedia in just 2 months. This is a great sign. If I could pick one thing that you need to work on it would be what GorillaWarfare had pointed out above. My brief pass through your user talk showed some BITEyness to me. Specifically this interaction. I would really caution you against using profanities on Wikipedia. Not because I'm pretentious or over-sensitive (believe me... I swear plenty... just outside of Wikipedia) but because it often shows that the person isn't intuitive enough to come up with a better response. And although I like the Wikipedia community I could deal without it in conflict mode. Some Wikipedia users can get very aggressive when their reasoning is challenged... it's a natural human response... but the sensible users (and the people you want to impress) often know that the better thing to do is to try to prove the person wrong with Wikilinks to guidelines that contradict their point. If that doesn't work, simply diffuse the situation to the best of your ability... sometimes that means swallowing your pride a bit as well. So just work on this a bit and you will go far on Wikipedia. Cheers! Bped1985 (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)