Wikipedia:Editor review/Dipankan001

Dipankan001
I want to conduct this review as I wish to know, how am I trusted by the community, are my contributions OK, and other suggestions, if any, would be appreciated, and I would like to follow the suggestions if possible. 13:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * Updated: My primary contribution, as of now is vandalism reversion. I have reverted more than 500 vandalism currently. And apart from that, I've also been creating articles. I currently have about 68 articles 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.
 * Updated: Well, as a vandalism roll backer, I'd faced a vandal that tend to edit war at the article Doritos. Me and Vrenator were gave the IP several warnings but still not listened to us. The IP constantly made section blanking. Finally, I reported to WP:AIV, and I requested a protection of the article. 
 * Updated: Well, as a vandalism roll backer, I'd faced a vandal that tend to edit war at the article Doritos. Me and Vrenator were gave the IP several warnings but still not listened to us. The IP constantly made section blanking. Finally, I reported to WP:AIV, and I requested a protection of the article. 

 Reviews 
 * Thanks for patrolling new pages, but you need to read the definitions at WP:CSD and be more careful about choosing the right speedy tag - see my note on your user page today about inappropriate db-hoax and db-vandalism tags. JohnCD (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah,thanks for that.Will look over it. That's me!  Have doubt?   Track me!  14:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah,thanks for that.Will look over it. That's me!  Have doubt?   Track me!  14:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know your editing style or really anything about you as a Wikipedia user, but the one interaction I had with you was civil, so for that you're already a lot further along than many editors on here. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it seems you still need to work on your grammar, which I brought up here. While there isn't really a problem with it on talk pages, when you create articles with bad grammar, it creates more work for other people to clean it up. After all, this is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are expected to have correct grammar. Other that this, I'm sorry to have to say that it would do you good to read or re-read some of Wikipedia's policies. From removing a request to merge on your own article when it probably should be merged (see WP:NSONG) to drastically underestimating the good article standards to not having a knowledge of policy, you are on the cusp of owning your articles, feeling overly protective of them, and refusing to believe they are not-notable or have something wrong with them. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but you really need to know this stuff to contribute effectively. If it makes you feel any better, the better part of articles I've made have been merged. Continuing with the grammar thing, your lack of knowledge of the English language is evident at the top of this page in your opening statement. A grammatically correct version: "I want to conduct this review as I wish to know how am I trusted by the community and if my contributions okay. Other suggestions, if any, would be appreciated, and I would like to follow the suggestions if possible." In general I feel that because you don't have a firm grasp on English, it is degrading your work in all other fields. I might suggest taking a wikibreak and coming back when you are willing to improve you English and quality of work. You seem to be a bit too overenthusiastic right now, so a bit of time away from the wiki might serve well. Sorry again if I sounded harsh.  " Pepper "  @ 14:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. All right. Recently I try to follow your grammar - A bit problem might occur, as my mother tongue is Bengali, but I would be rectifying those. As for your comment on owning articles, I would never even try to do that - I joined Wikipedia because I thought that we may share our knowledge to edit the encyclopedia - that's all. And for the merging - you may be correct. Hats off to you, Pepper!Dipankan In the woods? 15:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, have you perhaps considered working on translation of articles from here to the Bengali edition? I'm sure there must be tons, and your reading comprehension in English seem quite good, even if your Bengali grammar is better, and translation is a much rarer skill than patrolling (not to say you can't do both).  —KGF0 ( T | C ) 20:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with the comments above. You're clearly enthusiastic (which is a great thing) but having a firmer understanding of English grammar would really help you out. Cheers, Magister Scienta talk 02:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments- I have translated Difficult to give cibara from Bengali language to English language.Dipankan In the woods? 12:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I owe you a review, so here I go. I'll keep this fairly short since a couple people have said some of the same things I would have.  You're definitely off to a good start here, and your enthusiasm is definitely a plus.  Your patrolling is coming along well; I can see that your mistakes are going down (everyone has some mistakes, and I certainly made a lot more than you did after the same amount of time patrolling), and you're learning from your mistakes, which is a great sign.  I've also watched your participation at RfA, and you've made some insightful comments there.  That's a huge help, as any bit of sanity helps.  You seem to really enjoy editing here, and it's good to try some new things; I look forward to seeing your name around in more and more places. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Told you I'd do after a week, *Sorry* I am late. Its better late than never. I am too agree with above reviews, m sure you are considering each one of them. I see you have been doing very good job lately, m glad. So keep going, awards and rights will come on your way :-). One thing I'd like to say, spend more time editing serious/important subjects if you know what I mean. And why dont you participate in WikiProject India, India/Collaborations of the month and Tag & Assess 2012. And do edit Bengali Wikipedia, it needs you more! Cheers -- ɑηsuмaη  ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 13:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This was not an appropriate WP:NAC. Hipocrite (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't do it again. Did I not tell that I won't do it before? Dipankan  ( Have a chat? ) 13:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * With edits like it looks as if you are an admin denying someone's request.  Because it is not your decision to make, it is best not to put "not done" or "no" and just make your statement commenting without making it look like a formal rejection.  I do not request that you use the nao template, just don't pretend to be an admin. I have not looked at your other work, so I cannot say anything about it! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not pretending to be admin; thanks for the comment; I would use NAO template later. Dipankan  ( Have a chat? ) 11:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your responsiveness to comments here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Review by Rsrikanth05
 * Hi Dipankan001, I should have done this earlier, but I guess it slipped out of my mind. So let me begin. I first came across you while you were spreading news about the WP:Highbeam thing. While I was initially upset that you had posted it on talk pages of a lot of people other than me, you said sorry for it which was not needed [You didn't do anything wrong buddy], which made me happy. Your edits are good, keep them up. Just take care of your grammar, something which is very important here. Keep up your editing, as that is the best way to learn and improve all your skills. Your work with Counter-Vandalism has been excellent, and I must really appreciate your work and sense of judgement. You have so far not got into many fights, arguments and disputes and that is excellent. Your civility with other editors is good. Keep up your spirit, and calm and you will do wonders, both as an editor and in real life. All the best buddy. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, so my only guide towards review editors is currently my process for !voting in RfA, which isn't exactly the point of Editor Review but I'll try to tailor that towards what editor review should be. First off, I see no issues in the "Bright Line" areas, 3RR, BLP, NLT, or COPYVIO, which is a huge plus. Clean blog log, you seem to be using the advanced permissions you've recieved well enough. I see no real issues with the way you interact with users, though a random sampling of User talk: edits shows very little collaboration. Same thing goes for the Talk: namespace; having no more than 3 comments on any particular article is a negative and doesn't demonstrate an ability to work with others (I'm not saying that ability's not there, just that it's not demonstrated). Good work with CSDs, nothing but positive things to say there. Your most recent AIV reports are all fine. As a non-content creator myself, I recognize the benefit of having people in the background doing the "dumb work" while writers fuss over flowery prose, and it looks like you're really helping in that regard. All-in-all, I'd be willing to support this editor for promotion to Symbol support vote.svg Good Editor status (and yes, I'm aware that there's no such thing and that such a scheme would not be beneficial to the Project; but, well, I think it's funny) Achowat (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey buddy; I'm now helping users and replying to posts on Talk namespace. Dipankan  ( Have a chat? ) 16:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Reviews by  →TSU tp*

I'd have done this myself and then saw your message so here it is. So far so good. You are an asset to community especially great work at IPL. Well my review begins here;


 * + Points:


 * A hard working, dedicated and civil editor which is what we need on this site and you are that.
 * Has inovative ideas such as WP:IPL (This was an awesome thought). Also the involvement of you is just amazing in the project.
 * A confident editor and always tries to do the right thing. Always willing to improve and develop.
 * You are a quick learner and always becomes better which is a rare quality and good also
 * Good work at AfDs (voting only) and consistent edit count is also nice

I don't usually like to write this but it is helpful so, -ve points


 * - points"
 * Collecting flags does not cause harm, but it creates a suspition that your intentions are not right which was a great reason for your rfa to fail. Requesting rollback rights 4 times in 1 month is not a good practice.
 * AfD closures. Well, your closures are good now but previously, they were not that appropriate. You also closed 1 discussion in which you were involved, nothing wrong in that, but NAC should be non-controvertial and if there is your involvement (voting or commenting) in AfD, then it is advised to not to close it. Also, 1 closure was not appropriate in which there were enough votes to delete it while you closed as "no consensus"., That AfD looked like an "nc" but actually, there were not much valid-policy based keep votes and were firm delete votes. Such closures are not clear and it should be left for an admin to close it.
 * Too much too soon - your RfA. 8 month experience is good but if you make mistakes on wiki in those 8 months and go for rfa, it is obvious that it'll fail as standards have gone way to high now. You should have asked any senior editor or admin before it and they'd have given the right advise. Next time do ask someone (I can be considerd in also). And yes, don't go in an year or some or else it'll fail as editors will come up giving the rational of inexperience of impulsiveness.
 * File moves- I see that you had those rights which were removed and then again you gained them. So be more careful in that as it creates a very bad impression when rights are removed forcefully
 * GA- I saw that you nominated KKR and 2011 WC for Ga without working or improving them. Without working on article, if it is nominated by someone then it is more likely to fail as no preparations or improvements are done. Before going for Ga, make sure that you at least have 50+ good edits on it. It is like preparing for exam. Articles look good, but a close look will tell that they are very bad in fact.
 * Lack of content creation- not many are good at this, but only 33 edits as top edited article is way too low. If you even go for a GA with less then 20 edits and it gets promoted, then it is not your credit. You have 30% edits in articles which mostly constitue anti-vandal (nothing wrong in here), but more skills at content should be shown. We are working on CSK in June and I hope that you'll help us to get it to GA (this is an good opportunity for you)

So here I close my review. You are one of the best non-admins we have got. As I said, you'd have got mop in 2007. You are doing great and has improved a lot. Keep it up and don't let your spirits down. Please, take my comments positively and there is no doubt in you getting those rights after 1 year or some. I hope that this was helpful :)  →TSU tp* 14:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Reviews by ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email

You are a very enthusiastic editor, but one thing that always troubles me is your experience on mainspace. I will like to see a GA by you, so one can make sure that you know the article policies. But overall, you are brilliant. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Review by Dennis Brown

Since your interests are working toward a future sucessful RfA, I will keep my review pointed in that direction. In short, you need more experience to become an admin, but I think you are moving in the right direction. I might have been a bit optimistic as to time table at your RfA, but as others tend to pile up on the candidate, I find that being kind is a nice way to offset this. Overall, I think you are clearly an asset to Wikipedia and you are trying hard to improve yourself and Wikipedia at the same time. I think this is a good thing. Since you have asked for the review, I will offer my opinions in a direct and honest way. This should be seen as criticism of you, but rather informational, with the goal of pointing you in the direction to continue improving. You might not like some of them, but obviously I think you can eventually become an admin, or I wouldn't be here now. As I'm a bit short for time to reply much, I have tried to provide enough detail in this one post.


 * AFD: You have participated in 251 AFDs, with a 70% vote with consensus, 23% disagreement, and 7% resulting in no consensus.  The record of 70% is on the lower side of acceptable but not a problem.  The low number of total AFDs is more so.  AFD is a good place to get a feel for both researching the notability of articles, and learning how to deal with disputes.  Assuming you stay in topic areas you are comfortable with.  You don't need to go overboard, but consider getting a little more involved, including with trying to save some articles by jumping in, sourcing them, THEN presenting this at the AFD.  Spend more time fixing and saving than deleting if you can. Try to never let "deletes" or "keeps" dominate your voting record as you move forward.


 * Articles created: You have created 29 articles. I don't see this as a problem, but others certainly will.  Finding good topics starts with finding red links.  It would be helpful for your RfA if you added to this with quality articles, even if short ones.  Stubs don't really count.  Your article contribution is 31.66%, which some will consider low.  Mine has likely slipped recently, but was at 43.31% of my contributions and many found that too low.  We are here to build an encyclopedia after all, and all admins need to be familiar with editing the articles.  Getting article edits to at least 40% is recommended before you RfA.  Keeping your automated edits (TW) from dominating your edit totals is also a good idea.  Some people demand you have many GA status articles, and this is fine, but I think having more total experience creating and editing will be enough to pass the bar with most people.


 * CSD: Adding comments to the "misses" in your CSD log is a good idea, and is something I do as well.  You are doing better, but at a much slower pace.  You still need to work on this area, but appears you are moving in the right direction, and I suggest you keep doing what you are doing, and you will continue to improve over time.


 * PROD: You should set up a PROD log, just like CSD log. Twinkle preferences, same deal.


 * Politics: I notice the most common editor talk page you participate on is Jimbo Wales. Many people will not look upon this as favorable in an RfA.  I'm not saying anything is wrong with it, just saying that some will perceive it poorly. Whether that is fair or not doesn't matter at RfA.


 * Attitude: I think you come across as having a positive attitude, but other may see this at being too eager. When running for RfA, eager is a deal breaker, as many will automatically vote to oppose even if they provide a different rationale in the actual vote.  Don't lose the enthusiasm, but working on expressing it in a more calm tone might be beneficial.  I find that waiting to reply is helpful.  Think on what you want to say before you say it.  Again, it isn't you doing anything wrong, but it may be coming across as "excited" sometimes, and this doesn't help you.


 * Don't Bite: Again, pause a bit more before commenting, especially with new editors. English is a funny language.  Something you might say to a Brit is fine, yet be mildly offensive to an American.  It is helpful to not speak like either, but in a more plain, generic (perhaps boring) way to insure the maximum neutrality in your statements.  No one has ever failed an RfA because they were calm and overly neutral in tone most of the time.  Actually, that is probably the only reason I passed mine.  This includes being careful to not speak in absolutes, something I have to get reminded of from time to time as well.  I haven't reviewed much of your vandalism work so I offer this not as a correction but as a friendly reminder: Always take great care to never label something as vandalism unless it clearly fits the criteria.  If you aren't sure, don't call it vandalism.  Mislabeling edits as vandalism will come back to haunt you if you aren't very careful.


 * Speaking of Edit Summaries: Always use them. Always.  Terms like "re" or "add" are fine when appropriate.  For instance, at AFD, I use "d" "k" "sk" "csd" "comment" "re" and "add" for summaries, which are quite short but more informative than nothing.  And sometimes having an edit summary that says "revert good faith error" is better than "I'm not sure why this user put in three asterisk marks ***! " which sounds a bit like editorializing.  It isn't about being "wrong", it is about a better way, which since you are seeking the admin bit, I assume you want to do the better way.


 * WP:ANI - I noticed some activity by you at ANI, including . I won't dwell on this, but it means you need time and experience. At some point you will need to help out there, but I don't recommend it soon.  Time forgives all sins.

In short, you are moving in the right direction. I have no idea when you will be ready to seek adminship again, but I would suggest waiting at least 6 months, and maybe as much as 12. Somethings simply take time to learn, and adminship comes with all the tools, not just some, so you need a well rounded set of experience to draw upon. Eagerness will subside as you get more experience, which will help you come across just a little more calm and level headed. You should be proud of the work you do, it is appreciated, and your efforts to improve yourself are very obvious.

Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  17:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Review by Strike Eagle

Overall Good Editor who improves from his mistakes and goes on.. Positives Always assumes Good Faith,very helpful and kind.Excellent Co-Ordinator Negatives as of now Non-Admin closures costed you a lot....and I see you are no longer involved in them......
 * Please continue your good work here....I see an Admin in you...keep it up..

 ƬheⱾtrike  Ҿagle  ™  14:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Brief review by Beeblebrox

User still showing problematic non-admin closures, two in the last few days. When asked to correct mistakes, did a very sloppy, half hearted job at it. Seems to still be trying to appear admin-like, and still failing at it. Suggest change of focus and not worrying about being an admin at this time as you are clearly still not ready. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)