Wikipedia:Editor review/Luckyluke

Luckyluke
Seeking adminship and improvement feedback. Luke! 06:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Well, you seem to be in good shape for becoming an administrator; you have got over 2850 edits since October 2004 (making you quite an experienced editor) and you seem to assume good faith along with remaining cordial and friendly (making you a trusted and friendly user), but I am not sure if you are familiar with the so called sysop chores... If you are not familiar with them, then just learn a bit about them and that´s it; but if you are familiar with them, then you seem ready to request for adminship... --TomasBat (@) (Sign) 18:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're doing a good job. Your edits are positive contributions to Wikipedia. I have recently gotten into vandalism patrolling and I see that you do that as well. I would recommend taking the time to leave warnings on the talk pages of vandals after reverting their edits. I think it's great that you are a Wikiproject participant. Keep up the good work. Lara Love  T / C  02:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * 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?
 * Not particuarly. I believe myself to be a fairly well-rounded individual here on Wikipedia. However, I am involved to varying degrees with Wikiproject Hong Kong and WikiProject Vancouver. I re-vitalized the WikiProject Hong Kong effort and am one of the main contributing editors to maintaining Hong Kong-related articles; in addition to Vancouver-related ones.
 * 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?
 * No, I have not been in any conflicts since I started editting for Wikipedia. I have remained cordial in my dealings and for the most part (99.9% of the time) assumed good faith in other editors.
 * 1) Why do you want to become an administrator?  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel that by becoming an administrator I am in a better position to improve on Wikipedia's scope and quality of articles. Granted that all editors technically do this, I feel that I have gained the trust of the community to properly exercise the community's consensus in performing the necessary housekeeping activities to help Wikipedia achieve its goals. Luke! 00:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think like an administrator?  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe I do think like an administrator. Luke! 00:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) How so?  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Adminstrators need to have clear and evident knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies that have developed through community consensus. Through my edit history, it has been shown that I have consistently acted within community consensus guidelines - whether that be XfD processes, Manual of Style for articles, notability guidelines, etc.
 * 1) What types of things should a sysadmin (or any experienced editor, for that matter) notice or look for when arriving at a page?  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that one of the first things that an experienced editor or admin should look for when first arriving at a page is that it actually meets the general guidelines for notability and inclusion. Furthermore, some articles, such as biographies of living persons and organizations, are subject to additional notability guidelines. Once notability has been established or is evident, the Manual of Style guidelines for article development. When I first arrive at a page, these are the first two steps that go through my mind. A close third step behind is I usually copyedit the page and, if required, add any necessary tags to the article. Luke! 00:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) What do you notice about Editor review?  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well admittedly it has taken me a while to get on this question. From reviewing the WP:ER pages, we can see that there is a substantial backlog of editors requesting comprehensive editor reviews. Most editors have at least one review by another editor. I have found that the process of an editor review is not as well known as other Wikipedia processes may be. It may be that perhaps the guidelines for giving reviews is not clear.
 * 1) In general, when an administrator (or editor) finds a problem with a page, what should he or she do about it?  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because of Wikipedia's size and scope of articles, it really depends on the problem. Some problems may just require the appropriate cleanup tags, criteria for CSD, copyedditting, etc. Before doing anything, it would be prudent to check the article's talk page first to see if any relevant discussions have taken place. Following that, I believe that if a page does not meed criteria for CSD or AfD, then the appropriate cleanup tags be introduced while correcting any obvious deficiences. All these actions would be followed up with a summary of the problem and your edit acitivity summary to try and correct the problem being noted in the talk page. I would also attempt to notify any editors that have contributed to the article significantly, seen through the page history, to solicit their help. Luke! 00:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that one of the first things that an experienced editor or admin should look for when first arriving at a page is that it actually meets the general guidelines for notability and inclusion. Furthermore, some articles, such as biographies of living persons and organizations, are subject to additional notability guidelines. Once notability has been established or is evident, the Manual of Style guidelines for article development. When I first arrive at a page, these are the first two steps that go through my mind. A close third step behind is I usually copyedit the page and, if required, add any necessary tags to the article. Luke! 00:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) What do you notice about Editor review?  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well admittedly it has taken me a while to get on this question. From reviewing the WP:ER pages, we can see that there is a substantial backlog of editors requesting comprehensive editor reviews. Most editors have at least one review by another editor. I have found that the process of an editor review is not as well known as other Wikipedia processes may be. It may be that perhaps the guidelines for giving reviews is not clear.
 * 1) In general, when an administrator (or editor) finds a problem with a page, what should he or she do about it?  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because of Wikipedia's size and scope of articles, it really depends on the problem. Some problems may just require the appropriate cleanup tags, criteria for CSD, copyedditting, etc. Before doing anything, it would be prudent to check the article's talk page first to see if any relevant discussions have taken place. Following that, I believe that if a page does not meed criteria for CSD or AfD, then the appropriate cleanup tags be introduced while correcting any obvious deficiences. All these actions would be followed up with a summary of the problem and your edit acitivity summary to try and correct the problem being noted in the talk page. I would also attempt to notify any editors that have contributed to the article significantly, seen through the page history, to solicit their help. Luke! 00:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) In general, when an administrator (or editor) finds a problem with a page, what should he or she do about it?  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because of Wikipedia's size and scope of articles, it really depends on the problem. Some problems may just require the appropriate cleanup tags, criteria for CSD, copyedditting, etc. Before doing anything, it would be prudent to check the article's talk page first to see if any relevant discussions have taken place. Following that, I believe that if a page does not meed criteria for CSD or AfD, then the appropriate cleanup tags be introduced while correcting any obvious deficiences. All these actions would be followed up with a summary of the problem and your edit acitivity summary to try and correct the problem being noted in the talk page. I would also attempt to notify any editors that have contributed to the article significantly, seen through the page history, to solicit their help. Luke! 00:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)