Wikipedia:Editor review/Dark jedi requiem

User:Dark jedi requiem
I've edited Wikipedia for a year, today. I've edited a lot of different articles, participated in Featured Pictures, DYK, dealt with vandals, copyright violations, and POV articles. I've uploaded loads of pictures. I've created articles and improved and expanded many. I've been active in The Star Wars portal, and recently joined Esperanza. I try to make constructive edits and have wanted to be an Admin for a while, but tried first to learn more and improve my edit count. I'm mostly curious as to what would best help me be successful in running for adminship. I would love constructive critisism that will help me on my way. Dark j e  di requiem  01:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

 Reviews 
 * Hello there, Dark jedi requiem, how are you doing? Here are some thoughts about you, hopefully it is what you are looking for. I will be as straight as possible:
 * Having your detailed editcountitis in your user page is curious. Some users believe having it there means they are interested in showing others how they progress instead of showing links to articles you are proud of. I am neutral myself, but I do not really voice an opinions in requests for adminship unless I know the candidate. However, I think I remember there was once (can't say exactly who, when or where) someone who opposed because the candidate updated the userbox holding his edit count as soon as he passed a new mark. In RFAs, there are very strange people.
 * Now, I am pretty happy that, although you are a Star Wars contributor, you are proud of two articles that have nothing to do with it. I was once told that fictional articles were good, but that they would only be useful for a niche, a small group of fans, while other articles are useful for a much wider range (especially those topics that are treated in school or universities). Although I decided to continue my way writing fictional articles for the time being, I try to pass this advice to others when possible, as it makes sense. It is good to see two articles of such quality. Maybe someday Image:Naso tang picture.JPG will be moved to Commons to be shared through all Wikipedias! It is also good to see you have a good knowledge about our manual of style. Administrators are also editors, and they are expected to know how to edit articles correctly. Some people have the 1FA rule, that any candidate should have written at least one featured article. Although I am not one of them, I believe every candidate should have written at least one good article, which demonstrates a basic knowledge about formatting, verifying and citing information, research and layout taste.
 * I see you upload a lot of images, but don't really use a fair use rationale. Also, note that there is a very strong movement lately to delete fair use images that can be replaced, especially those from living people and relatively easy topics like cars. Images like Image:Chris Cornell promo.jpg and Image:Stretch Arm Strong press photo.jpg could be sometime soon be tagged with either fair use replace or replaceable fair use. Also, although it has been some months already, when you upload an image from Amazon, try to add the full link to the page containing the image and the image itself, and use the amazonimages template to mark it as downloaded from there. As an administrator, you would probably be handling image deletions, and it is necessary to know about how to handle them when reported.
 * Although you apparently work in a lot of articles, you have done around 50 article talk edits. Those edits usually indicate how you communicate with groups in order to create, modify or polish an article, and the low amount could be considered a lack of experience in search for consensus when modifying an article. Note that this is my own interpretation of article talk edits, and that others may not even care about that number at all ;-) Also, these are different from user talk edits (of which you have twice that amount), because in user talk edits you communicate towards a single user, not a bunch of users at the same time where consensus may be hard to achieve due different positions and ideals. Adding both talk edits result in less than 10% of your total edits. Personally, my minimun threshold for a candidate is 10% for user and 10% for article talk pages (that is, 20% should be done in those both namespaces), but I also consider other circunstances (in example, if the user spends a lot of time in deletion discussions, or discussing policies, it is understood that he knows how to handle discussions, and the previous threshold can be ommited.
 * Now, I divide admins in two types, those handling humans and those handling articles. The user-oriented administrators deal with vandalism and blocks, they hunt them down, warn and block when necessary. However, you don't seem to fit this category, as I see little participation in patrolling, with just 4 test warnings in the last month, and no apparent reports to administrator intervention against vandalism. The second group of administrators handle article-related matters: speedy deletions, closing deletion discussions, protecting pages, reporting copyright violations, etc. However, you have a very low participation in articles, templates and categories for deletion, nor you have reports requesting page protection. While adminship is nothing really important, as people usually say, I believe it should only be given to those willing to act as administrators. And, unluckily, you don't seem to need those tools.
 * You are a very good editor, and hopefully will stay like this. Adminiship is not a prize someone can claim for doing things well, it is a full set of rights and responsabilities. If you want to become an administrator, you will have to spend more time "behind the curtains". Review my previous point to get some ideas of what you can do in order to "qualify" as administrator. You are free to nominate yourself for adminship if you want, but I am afraid it won't be successful, and that it may be closed early. Finally, note that you don't need to be an administrator to be a good editor, which you are. Try doing some administrator-like tasks for some weeks, and see if you can handle the pressure and stress. One thing is discussing with people about who the strongest character is, another is trying to explain a good faithed editor about why his edits were removed, and another quite different is to warn vandals who will deface your user page, insert tasteless images into your talk page, and go around heavily modifying or even moving articles while they can. I can tell you, it is pretty stressing. Just meditate, check the options, and decide. As long as you assume good faith, are civil and stay cool, it will be the right decision. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 15:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments 
 * One last thing I forgot to say. Your signature has around 220 characters. The guideline claims that a 200 character signature is already too long for most of the talk posts you may be doing. It is nothing very serious, but you may find people who will ask you to shorten it. -- ReyBrujo 15:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I'm very happy that I have edited a wide variety of articles, but I do like Naso vlamingii and Acanthurus achilles particularly. I made both articles (and even took a picture for Naso vlamingii, and was successful in getting them on the front page in the DYK box.
 * 1) 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?
 * I've never had any real conflicts with editors. The most that has happened are when fellow editors voice a concern about something, and I disagree. It's never anything upsetting and since I always try to assume good faith, there is never a problem. Overall the most frustrated I've been is when I was explaining a copyright violation HERE. I never got upset, just frustrated I couldn't explain it properly.
 * I've never had any real conflicts with editors. The most that has happened are when fellow editors voice a concern about something, and I disagree. It's never anything upsetting and since I always try to assume good faith, there is never a problem. Overall the most frustrated I've been is when I was explaining a copyright violation HERE. I never got upset, just frustrated I couldn't explain it properly.