Wikipedia:Editor review/Staffwaterboy

Staffwaterboy
Hello i am staffwaterboy have been help expand wikipedia since 2006 i am currently trying to see were i am currently at,In regards to considering running for another RFA since its been a year,Also try to expand several articles that can be seen on my user page in the left hand column,I also try to fit time in to revert vandalism which i have been doing for quite some time using via huggle,I was issued rollback rights back in May 1, 2006 and recently received acc rights this year. I am glad to be a part of the wikipedia community this is a great website with tons of resourceful information.  Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 21:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

 Reviews 

OK, so first things first. Your vandal fighting work is admirable, well done. I would suggest that you periodically try and do it without huggle, just to make sure you don't become too reliant on it. Also, should you end up going for RfA, quite a few editors don't like seeing huge amounts of Huggling nor Twinkling, though personally I have no issue with it. You might also consider more friendly messages on talk pages of new users where it's less likely to be vandalism, but more likely to be misunderstanding of the rules. Don't always rely on the templates, try writing your own messages to new users, I think it can make an enormous difference.

I would also concentrate on a bit more detail on your edits summaries. Looking through your contributions there are a lot of +s, which is fine on your own pages, but it would really benefit other editors if you filled out your summaries a bit more.

You may find it easier in the future to try and keep all conversations on one talk page (and copy to your own when it's done if necessary) as that can make finding information on stuff you've done in the past a lot easier.

Also, try and get involved in XfDs, particularly AfDs, and that will help you get to grips with the nuances of the application of Wiki policies, and how different people interpret differently. That's very important to be able to show at an RfA.

One issue that some editors may pick up on that you might not easily be able to fix because of your offline life is that your edits are rather lumpy. They come in massive clumps, then nothing for days, even weeks. If it's possible, try and do a little every day, even an hour (and still have those big days), as that might reassure some editors that you are committed to the project. It's not an issue for me, but may be for some.

And I really like your user page! Mine's rubbish, so i'm always jealous of good ones!

Hope that was helpful :) -- Ged UK  21:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I also am impressed by your userpage, particularly the barnstars and am additionally pleased that you have no blocks on your logs! :)  If you do take Ged UK's suggestion about participating in AfDs, please also considering helping us rescue articles as well as it is good to not only commenting in the discussions, but to also help improve the articles under discussion.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using X!'s counter


 * Hi - you posted the following comment to me: 'The recent edit you made to the page Peter Zumthor has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive.' And yet rather than mine it was your revert that unconstructive[]. I added a noted to show that a substantial yet rather vague claim had been made. Either the claim needs appropriate citations or some re-wording is needed. The speed at which you made this revert could not have allowed you to review my addition. Please could you review more fully edits rather than undertake spontaneous reactions. Thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk • contribs) 5.50 20 March 2009


 * Comment as per that that was explained what happened on both mine and your userpage User_talk:Staffwaterboy,User_talk:210.54.238.178 expalined what happened as per the what was issued maybe a new template would be inline when using huggle.  Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 15:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I belevie i have made servral usefull contributions here on wikipedia which can vary in many different ways,I think the most useful contribution that i have made so far to a single article would be State_University_of_New_York_at_Canton and the second would be Walter_Panas_High_School,I like to keep as much information as accerute as i can and up to date since wikipedia is a highly used encyclopedia. 
 * 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?
 * There has been time were there has been a conflict of interest that has caused some stress and disagreement towards others, Such has articles as Indian_Point_Energy_Center,were there seems to be no npov.In these such cases i would try to seek a third opinion since this is a very highly discussable and opinionated topic,As i did for this article i seek-ed a third opinion using THIRD to see what a neutral editor would have to say with the context that is being put on the article.
 * 1) I'm puzzled by your recent !vote at Articles for deletion/Buddhism and the body. You said Strong Keep without dealing with the serious issue of OR addressed by other editors. Given that your !vote was strongly against the consensus why didn't you address the issues more fully? It looks like you were just trying to be contrary. andy (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel that the article had very useful information that can be used, I see it as if the article was rewriting or was wikified then the article should then meet nobility of wikipedia i do agree i should have gave a better explanation on why i voted strong against the consensus. Please Feel free to ask any other qestions if you like i am completly open to  them. Regards,  Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 23:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm puzzled by your recent !vote at Articles for deletion/Buddhism and the body. You said Strong Keep without dealing with the serious issue of OR addressed by other editors. Given that your !vote was strongly against the consensus why didn't you address the issues more fully? It looks like you were just trying to be contrary. andy (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel that the article had very useful information that can be used, I see it as if the article was rewriting or was wikified then the article should then meet nobility of wikipedia i do agree i should have gave a better explanation on why i voted strong against the consensus. Please Feel free to ask any other qestions if you like i am completly open to  them. Regards,  Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 23:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) I'm just curious about why you have Pro-Choice and Pro-Life userboxes on your userpage. I mean, which are you.. Pro-Choice or Pro-Life? Surely you can't be both? - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 07:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am pro life the other userbox might have been stuck in there by accident,when trying to add other userboxes.Please Feel free to ask any other qestions if you like i am completly open to them. Regards,  Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 22:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed this editor review. Staffwaterboy, I think you are a very enthusiastic editor, obviously have Wikipedia's best interest in mind, and are willing to dive into new areas of the project; those are all good things. Unfortunately, if you did an RfA right now, I wouldn't be able to support you. Here are the reasons, and some things you might be able to work on: There's all I can think of right now. I'm not trying to be overly critical, but to point out areas where you can improve, and [hopefully] some things you can do to improve those. Also, it's typical in RfAs for people to dig into all sorts of little details about you, so consider this a warm-up! :) Best, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 14:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Review from r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs
 * General communication skills . It probably sounds picky, but using proper capitalization, spelling, and punctuation is important when interacting with other editors (which you would probably have to do more and more of once you become an admin).  I don't know if you're a native speaker of English or not, but anyway, if you have a lot of typos (two comments above, "nobility", "completly", etc.), unusual capitalization ("Please Feel free", "wikipedia", "been a year,Also try"), missing punctuation (two comments above), and awkward syntax (your first comment at the top), people will perceive you as a kid, or at least think you didn't spend time thinking about what you were writing.  It may not be fair to pre-judge people like that, but it happens anyway; if you are considering adminship I would urge you to be more careful when writing comments, and perhaps to proofread your comments before clicking "save".
 * Nature of contributions . I believe this came up in your last RfA too, but basically, most of your work seems to be in vandal-fighting and other automated sorts of things.  It does seem like you have branched out since last year, as I see you doing some work in other areas too, but still most of it seems to be a bit cursory (like, in-and-out votes at AfDs, etc.).  In admins, though, people want to see evidence that the person has done work that makes them think carefully (ie, participating in difficult discussions, rescuing articles, etc., rather than just reverting and warning vandals, which is simple and doesn't require much thought) and that the person has at some point committed to something big and worked on it for a while (ie, bringing an article up to GA or FA status, creating lots of articles in a certain category, writing templates or otherwise contributing to the "behind-the-scenes" part of Wikipedia).  From what I can tell, most of the articles you have listed on your userpage still need a lot of work, so I think before doing an RfA you might want to commit to one or more of them and put a lot of work into them&mdash;both to demonstrate that you can do it, and to gain the knowledge and experience you get from working in-depth on one thing.
 * Understanding of policy . Again, looking at some of the articles you have created (such as United Engineers and Constructors), several of them have cleanup tags (,, etc.) and are missing footnotes, etc, which might suggest to people that you yourself aren't familiar with all the style/content guidelines.  Since as an admin you would have to be dealing with lots of debates over articles that are on the borderline with respect to these guidelines (i.e., closing AfDs, speedy deletion, etc.), I think people would want to see you demonstrate that you yourself know the rules well, by writing a substantial article that meets all of them, and by editing a wide variety of articles.  Along similar lines...in our interaction several days ago about DYK, it seemed to me that it took you a while to understand the DYK rules I was trying to explain, and even after I left you a message I think you still tried to suggest some articles that didn't meet the criteria.  Granted, the DYK rules can be complicated, but there are detailed explanations of them (which I gave you links to), and I tried my best to explain them; as an admin, you will often have to learn things pretty quickly (for example, when you get dragged into debates in areas that are new to you...which happens a lot, some people will latch onto an admin they know and continually come back asking them for help), and people will want to know that you can figure out new areas quickly just by glancing at the rules/policies that are written down or getting a brief explanation from someone.  Please don't take this as an insult or anything; I just mean you should be more careful about figuring out the rules and policies for a given area when you're going to jump in.