Wikipedia:Editor review/Ebe123

Ebe123
I would like feedback and criticisms so that I know what to do better for wikipedia. EBE123 talkContribs 15:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I particularly patrol new pages at Special:NewPages. I'm pleased with it because that I feel that I help wikipedia.
 * 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.
 * Not that much, well sometimes I have WikiStress but I recover very soon.
 * Not that much, well sometimes I have WikiStress but I recover very soon.

 Reviews 

Review from Belovedfreak
Hi Ebe123, I don't often take part in editor reviews, but I noticed yours so I thought I'd drop by with some thoughts. I still have your talkpage watchlisted since I left a message there a few weeks ago. I've noticed you receiving quite a few messages about mistakes or telling you you've done something wrong. I'm sure that can be frustrating, but don't be disheartened by it! I would try to take notice of every bit of advice someone gives you on your talkpage, even if it seems annoying to keep getting messages, or boring. Learn from what people say and try not to make the same mistakes again. Regularly look over your contributions to see if you're being reverted. Where it says "top" after your edit, it means that you're the last person to edit that page. if you're not, then check who has edited since and why. If you've made a mistake. again: learn from it! if people link to policies and guidelines on your talkpage, read them. they may seem boring, but they will help you be more sure of your own edits.

Ok, here is some more detailed advice about just one thing I've noticed that you do. I've noticed that you add maintenance tags to articles. This is a helpful thing to do as it alerts the person who wrote the article that there might be problems, and it helps other editors who might be looking for articles to clean up. So, I don't think you should stop, but there are a few things to bear in mind to be even more helpful.
 * Firstly, be aware that some editors don't like maintenance tags at all. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use them, after all, they are there for a reason, but it's good to be aware of the larger context of their use.
 * Secondly, some tags have an obvious meaning. For example, you might add an unreferenced tag to an article that clearly has no references at all. That doesn't need an explanation because we can all see why it's been added. Other tags are not as obvious and should be explained on the talkpage. For example, you might think an article is written in a biased way and decide to add NPOV; this should be explained on the talkpage so that other editors coming along know why you added it.
 * Thirdly, try not to add too many tags at once. Adding a whole big list of tags can be very annoying to other editors (not just the article creator), it can also make them a bit less effective. Imagine you've just written an article. Someone adds a single tag asking for some references. You know what to do - add references. Imagine someone adds six different tags all asking for different things. Chances are, you won't want to read them (not saying you wouldn't, but say you're a brand new Wikipedia editor...). You might carry on, ignoring the tags, or you might think "forget this..." and go and do something more fun. Try to think which problems the article has that are really important. Major problems include having nor references (especially for BLPs), copyright infringement, being promotional or like an advert etc. Less important problems would be things like needing to be wikified, or have sections added. Try to stick to the most important problems. Other issues can be sorted later.
 * Fourthly, and this follows on from th previous point, try not to add tags that duplicate other ones or don't really mean much in the context they're added. For example, here you added both a wikify tag and a deadend tag. They do pretty much the same thing. You've also added lead too long, which isn't really necessary. There isn't a lead yet, it's just a stub. You've also added cleanup which to be honest, is not a very useful tag. There is rarely (if ever) a problem with an article that a more specific tag does not cover. Asking a new editor to "clean up" their article does not help them very much. In the example above, I would have stuck to adding unreferenced and either wikify or deadend.
 * Fifthly (!) sometimes it's nearly as quick (and much more helpful) to actually fix the problem than it is to add the tags. It would have taken you about 10 seconds to add some relevant wikilinks to that article, and would save someone else coming along to do the job. Here you added uncategorized. it would have been very quick for you to add a few relevant categories. I don't know if you're familiar with categories yet, but if you work in this area for a little while, you'll quickly learn some general categories that are used often. Without checking, I would be able to add to that article Category:Living people and Category:1985 births. I could have a good guess and be 90% sure that the following categories would also exist: Category:Canadian writers, Category:Canadian magazine editors and Category:People from Ontario. Some articles I wouldn't have a clue about, but biographies are quite easy.
 * To learn more about tagging articles and what other editors think of it, you can read these essays (please do!):
 * Tag bombing
 * Responsible tagging
 * Tagging pages for problems

I hope you don't mind me saying, but it is kind of painfully obvious that you are desperate to become an admin (that's how it comes across anyway). To be honest, that's not a great sign. It is great that you want to help more on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure why you want to be an admin so much. Becoming an admin shouldn't be a goal in itself; really it's just a few extra tools for helping out with the tedious backlogs there are on the project, and there are loads of backlogs you can work on without the extra tools. If you're wanting to be an admin so that you're more important on Wikipedia, or get taken more seriously, that's won't really be seen as a good reason at RFA. Although working behind the scenes with admins by eg. reporting vandals or tagging pages for deletion is great, you're probably best leaving actual admin tasks to the admins, or at least more experienced editors. I can't imagine any reason why you'd need to comment on an unblock request, for example. It's just not necessary. Let the admins deal with that sort of thing. Maybe, occasionally, you might know a blocked editor well, or have been involved in them getting blocked, and might want to give your opinion, but if you're just finding editors in Category:Requests for unblock, then seriously, you're best just staying out of it.

If/when you have an RFA, people will look at your edits, in detail and also at the bigger picture. You say on your userpage that you want to work with protecting articles. People at your RFA will expect you to have quite a lot of experience with content work. At the moment, you have 995 edits in the article space. That's not very much by RFA standards. Try to engage with articles a bit more. Pick a few that you are interested in and work on improving them. Work on actually making a difference to the content rather than just adding tags to get other people to change the content. Maybe join some wikiprojects and collaborate with other editors writing articles. Some editors at RFA will want to see that you've been involved in a content process such as WP:DYK or WP:GAN. This doesn't mean you have to be an amazing writer. You can work with others and make contributions by looking for reliable sources and adding them, or deciding what should be included in an article. Or you could take part in reviewing articles at peer review or Requests for feedback. Again, it's not about being brilliant at writing, but being able to show that you're committed to the project, and that you have a good understanding of a larger range of policies and guidelines. If you can't show that, people won't want you to be making decisions about protecting or unprotecting articles. The bottom line is that people judging your suitability to be an admin will be much more impressed, and take you more seriously, if it looks like you're here because you enjoy editing here, and care about building an encyclopedia, not just to get an admin badge.

You also seem to be trying quite a few new things, perhaps try to stick to what you know so far, and building up a good track record with very few mistakes (e.g.. in new page patrol). People will forgive mistakes at RFA, but only if you can show that you've learned from them! Another thing you could do to get more experience is help out at the help desk or the new contributors' help page, which are really good for helping other editors and learning stuff yourself at the same time!

I know this is quite long, but I hope you read it and take it on board, and I hope some of it helps! Let me know if you want me to clarify anything. -- Beloved Freak  20:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm here to help wikipedia, not the Sysop badge. I just want to be able to help wikipedia in more ways and the administrator.   EBE123  talkContribs 20:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Review from Physics is all gnomes
Hi Ebe123, Belovedfreak has given some good advice and is much more experienced than me! I just wanted to share one tip that I discovered recently. If you add

//TW CSD script, customized to log all CSD noms.

importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/twinklespeedy.js');

//TW PROD script, customized to log PRODs and endorsements.

importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/twinkleprod.js');

to User:Ebe123/vector.js, they automatically create pages that log all the speedy deletes and PRODs you do via twinkle. This is really useful because you can use it to check whether your nominations got deleted, and if you click on the article link, check whether it got deleted under the same criteria that you nominated it with. That way you can feel satisfied with the speedies you got right and learn from the ones you got wrong (and maybe review the CSD criteria or ask the admin if you can't see why). If at some point in the future you try for adminship, one thing people look for is an excellent record on deletion, and people often oppose over mistakes in speedy tagging. So this script is a good way to make sure you're getting it right as often as possible. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, BelovedFreak gave tons of good advice for me. I'm going to try the scripts.   EBE123  talkContribs 22:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cooly [[Image:Face-smile.svg|20px]], happy editing.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a look to see if the script was working, and I think you need to remove the ' at the end of the line


 * importScript('User:TheDJ/qui.js');'


 * as it seems to be breaking the rest of the scripts.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Review by Pichpich
I've had your talk page watchlisted since I left a note a few weeks ago and I've seen a lot of warnings about mistakes. I'm worried about the sheer number of them but also about the fact that some are very serious lapses in judgment. The speedy deletion tag on Romanian Red Cross strikes me as particularly absurd, especially after a couple of people had explained to you that you were not being careful enough. You need to seriously slow down and research articles before you tag them or else move away from new page patrolling. I know this sounds harsh but hasty CSD tagging is a real problem which can cause significant damage to the project, much more in fact than a dubious article which survives for a week because it was sent to AfD. There are numerous instances (NickPenguin's name RfC being another mind-boggling one) where you clearly did not think things through and this is a real concern that you should address. Pichpich (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)