Wikipedia:Editor review/Sam ov the blue sand

Sam ov the blue sand
I have been here for 8 or 9 months now as a registered user and I would like to know how others think of me so I can be a better editor. Sam ov the blue sand 02:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 
 * First thing I noticed is your edit summary usage. You should set it in preferences to remind you to use an edit summary. Edit summaries are always helpful this way people don't mistake an edit for vandalism. That's the only thing I noticed right off the bat, but I'll take a closer look when I have a chance :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I met Sam in November 2006 when I inadvertently offended him during an arbitration attempt. I didn't realize how rare of an event it was that I witnessed soon afterward:  Sam was rather angry when he came to my talk page, but after a short conversation, he gave me a barn star.  If only every one of my attempts to deal with angry users ended so pleasantly. :)  Since then, I've only dealt with him directly while responding to his occasional question on my talk page.  I sense a genuine willingness to improve himself.  Besides little nitpicks like his lack of edit summaries, I can't give any advice, but I hope others can give him the help he's looking for. –Gunslinger47 04:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I met Sam in the Akatsuki talk page what feels like a year ago, but was probably around the beginning of this year, around the time of March i decided to do some heavy re-vamps or the article of 666 Satan, and while working on it he was a enormous help with showing me steps i need to take to make certain things happen such as creating of new pages, how i should design them in sub pages of my own user page along with just being here to answer questions for me, Sam i think that your strongest quality here is that your not afraid to stand up for what you think is right or what you want/think there should be, and its also great that you never have a problem with helping anyone out who needs advice, or just some help doing some stuff, i think your area that you need to improve on is somewhat advanced wikipedia formating(although i have no problem helping you with that:P), good luck though with your review:)...  Ancientanubis ,  talk  Editor Review 06:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you would like to become a better editor Sam, the best method would be to edit articles more. In the last three months you have made six edits to the main article space. In that same period of time you have edited talk pages (both of articles and users) well over a hundred times. While communication with others is encouraged, this is a very disproportionate ratio. Find an article or a group of articles you enjoy working on, add them to your watchlist, and improve them (add content/revert vandalism) whenever you have the chance. ~SnapperTo 04:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disappoint anyone, but I don't have a paragraph's worth of information to say. At first we didn't agree very well (especially in the Itachi merging), but I'm over that. You contribute to articles, but lately you've been on talk pages more than you've edited articles. Although your edits are good, I suggest you raise them to a higher level, like Snapper2 or Sephiroth BCR, and with a little practice you could do it, but do whatever you feel. Anything else I'll say would probably just be something someone else said, so I don't think I should say much more than what I've already done. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I am your adoptee, I would still like to put in my preference: You are a good editor. You have taught me well, and i think i am lucky that you adopted me. You are a kind but bold person, and you would make a good admin., even if you don't think so. so sometime, try to apply, because i think you would get it. Cheers(everybody says that and now i am to. what is up that?) -Tobi4242 (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Review from Sephiroth BCR
Hello. I've seen you commonly editing around the Naruto-related articles, reverting vandalism and ensuring consensus is followed. Anyhow, as you appear to be involved in vandalism particularly, a nice path for you to pursue would be picking up one of the anti-vandalism tools commonly used nowadays: Twinkle, VandalProof, or a tool of your choice from Cleaning up vandalism/Tools. I've been using Twinkle for quite a while, and find it the easiest to utilize in addition to being rather versatile. VandalProof is effective, but requires you to sign up for it, which can be an aggravatingly long wait (although you meet all their selection criteria). But then again, play with the tools as you see fit and choose the one you feel best using. Remember to be responsible with their use, however. Simply because reverting is a button click away does not give you the license to break WP:3RR or revert war period for that matter. That said, you appear to carry the right temperament in this regard. If you really want to get into anti-vandalism activities, then you can get Lupin's anti-vandal tool, which gives you a feed of recent changes, where you can revert vandalism right as it occurs.

A particularly worrying thing that I've seen in your recent edits, however, is a belief that administrators instinctively want to delete or merge articles (diff and diff). First, this is an automatic assumption of bad faith that needs to be avoided. Next, the material that you're defending more often than not is information that does not pass Notability (fiction) (given that both of these cases are on fictional subjects), and any inquiries that should happen from an administrator on the article's notability is quite justified. However, please note that they are editors, just as you and I am, simply with additional tools that aid them in rather specific categories of Wikipedia that require them. They are not "higher" than other editors. By virtue of being an administrator, they tend to be more competent and respected than most regular editors are. If a concern is brought up (and this applies to all editors) concerning the notability of an article, answer it civilly and respectfully, and address the point at hand. Your actions in the diffs above are ad hominem arguments that have no place in discussion on Wikipedia, and I'd highly recommend that you abandon this belief. It's not the end of the world if an article on a fictional subject you particularly like gets merged or deleted, and if you really want the article, then find reliable secondary sources, and all parties (editors and administrators alike) will defer to your argument.

Cheers, Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 02:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

 Comments 


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


 * View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * My edits to Akatsuki by getting members their own articles was my first couple of edits I'm proud of. Another thing I'm proud of are my edits Ace Combat related articles.
 * 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?
 * In a word, yes. Sadly in my first 3 or 4 months I was a bit of a troll, but I did not know I was trolling until Gunslinger 47 told me I was and helped stop my trolling ways. I do get into civil arguments with Someguy. I have been in one edit war. I usually look up the facts and come back with what I've found or I just stop when I figure out I'm wrong. I hope to under stand why I argue with them so much with this editor review.
 * In a word, yes. Sadly in my first 3 or 4 months I was a bit of a troll, but I did not know I was trolling until Gunslinger 47 told me I was and helped stop my trolling ways. I do get into civil arguments with Someguy. I have been in one edit war. I usually look up the facts and come back with what I've found or I just stop when I figure out I'm wrong. I hope to under stand why I argue with them so much with this editor review.