Wikipedia:Editor review/Hamtechperson

Hamtechperson
I know that I am far from an RfA, however I want some feedback as too what I would need to do to become a good candidate for adminship. Where would I need to work more? Less? Should I try to work on other namespaces? What are my biggest holes that need filling? Please address this as a more detailed response to an RfA first. Then please leave as much detail as you can to assist me on my way to an RfA. Ham tech  person  03:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

 Questions

Optional Questions from Doc Quintana
 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * The contributions that I am most pleased about/enjoyed the most were the contributions I made to Dutchess Day School. These were in my first few days as an editor. Originally in my userspace, I moved these to the mainspace when User:Otisjimmy1 and I agreed that it was ready. I was able to learn quite a lot about "wiki-editing" while working on this article, and was very pleased with the editors I had so far met, which may be why I am still here today.
 * 1) Have you been in any disputes 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 thankfully have not been in any disputes as of now. I feel that I would, if I found myself in one, possibly be slightly too quick to go for outside help.
 * I thankfully have not been in any disputes as of now. I feel that I would, if I found myself in one, possibly be slightly too quick to go for outside help.
 * 1) Why did you come to Wikipedia, and what do you get out of it? Doc Quintana (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I first came to Wikipedia as a research tool. I then found a hole in the coverage and created an account to remain anonymous while editing. Wikipedia is to me what a much nicer world would be... full of collaboration, and "jailing" for breaking the peace Ham  tech  person  19:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

 Reviews 
 * Hello! Ok, here is goes.  I looked at the Dutchess Day School article and it seems you lack knowledge of our policy on reliable sources which asks for third party sources for verficiation on the notability of an article.  I also think your article lacks notability and may soon find itself in an WP:AFD.  You also have very few edits, only 178, and out of those edits quite a few use automated tools (specifically friendly).  Admins are expected to have about 2000+ manual edits at time of their WP:RfA.  You seem to like to tag article issues, consider being bold and fixing it.  You also seem to enjoy welcoming new users, consider joining the welcoming committee.  If you wish to someday being an admin, also consider requesting rollback permissions so you can show your vandalism fighting skills.  Overall a good start, you'll make a fine editor and maybe someday a fine administrator.--v/r - TP 01:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am involved in New Page Patrol. Because of this (and the extreme backlog) I try to avoid spending to much time on one article, hence all the tagging. also check for new pages by new users, patrol them, and welcome them. Twinkle and Friendly make this much easier. Therefore I make many automated edits. I don't want to delete new pages, so I use Friendly more so than Twinkle. Ham  tech  person  21:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's awesome. I'm a new page patroller as well, but my point is that on an RfA, those automated edits will kill you.  The problem is that a lot of folks view automated edits as too easy to make with little or no thought going into them (not exactly true of course).  The idea is that manual edits take longer to make which gives you more time to develop your thoughts and appropriately apply the correct policies.  We should never neglect quality to achieve a quantity.  Backlogs can be worked on.  But if you try to quickly unclog the backlog, you remove the chance for someone to make some quality improvements on an article.  If you take the time to make quality edits, that article you missed because you didn't have time will have the chance to also receive quality edits when someone else reaches it.  You see?  If you read some RfAs, you'll see this is a continuing problem with newer editors.--v/r - TP 21:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As someone who contributes without logging in, I understand the value of new page patrollers and how WP:RCP tools such as WP:Huggle make that and other often-thankless tasks more efficient. But I was involved in an exchange with you that I think demonstrated an inattention to WP:BITE and WP:Faith.  In response to a significant and constructive contribution to Bollard (disambiguation), you use HG twice, with escalating warnings, over changes it turned out you had a narrow issue with: I had used both  and  instead of just using the latter and formatting the page into sections (see Talk:Bollard (disambiguation) and Special:Contributions/67.101.5.148 for more details).  After my second reversion and request that you bring up your issue on the disambig's talk page, you did so, to your credit.  But that statement of your issue was accompanied by the warning "If you continue this, we may have a edit war" which I think fails the WP:Assume good faith guideline.  I should note that your subsequent comments (timestanped 23:49 and later) included a thank you, so perhaps the events prior to that were atypical.  67.101.5.148 (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion with Airplaneman re: Censorship by BaronLeaf and IanCheeseman
Ok, I have had only one experience with you, but I found your actions extremely clumsy and inappropriate. Airplaneman warned me about vandalizing BaronLafs page.

I then wrote him this, "Censorship by BaronLeaf and IanCheeseman"

I suggest that before you immediately delete my comments about BaronLeaf, you investigate what is going on. I have been posting about threats made by the Mayor and Police Chief of Stevens Point against a motel holding a swingers party. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stevens_Point,_Wisconsin&diff=343103433&oldid=340824310

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stevens_Point,_Wisconsin#Removal_of_Harassment_by_Mayor_Andrew_Halverson_and_Police_Chief_of_Camp_NCN_Swingers_Group

I wanted to have a discussion with Airplaneman about his actions and why he called these comments vandalism and then you immediately call my comments about a discussion vandalism. You wrote, "Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to User talk:Airplaneman. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Hamtechperson 19:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)"

How is wanting a wikipedia moderator to explain his actions and how I can post an article without drawing a vandalism warning, vandalism?

I would request that you revert my comment on Airplaneman's talk page, so we can have a discussion and BaronLef and IanCheeseman.

Daniel D. Dobson 22:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)