Wikipedia:Editor review/Thine Antique Pen

Thine Antique Pen
I recently changed my name from Tomtomn00 to Thine Antique Pen (Sonnet 19, W. Shakespeare &mdash; Line 10). I've made over 2100 articles and have a good CSD log. Comments? Thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 19:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My articles, listed here
 * 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.
 * I have been taken to AN once and ANI once. There was a third time when I took myself there. I got some complaints about errors in my stubs (mass error, 600+ stubs) &mdash; so I went and was bold and fixed them all.
 * I have been taken to AN once and ANI once. There was a third time when I took myself there. I got some complaints about errors in my stubs (mass error, 600+ stubs) &mdash; so I went and was bold and fixed them all.

 Reviews 


 * Review from Wikipelli
 * Before offering comments, I'd like to ask Thine Antique Pen to elaborate on questions 1 and 2. "Are there any contributions that you are particularly pleased with and why ?" and, more elaborate answers to #2. I am a strong believer in self-evaluation and reflection and I'd like to know how he feels about those questions.   Wikipelli Talk   21:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It would also help me to know if this has been taken care of and also response to this . Hundreds of one line stubs about beetles and highways are all well and good, but, in my own opinion, not what I'd go to to review someone's editing.   Wikipelli  Talk   21:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would prefer this to be a more recent review of my contributions, not one going back a few months. I will try what I can with the beetle stubs. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 21:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not going back months... all of these things are current now. Certainly the questions posed for the Editor Review are current.... the GA reassessment is ongoing (not a few months ago)... the beetle stub issue is current - 3 days ago (to the best of my knowledge)   Wikipelli Talk   22:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He said he's still working on the beetle stubs. It's quite clear that he doesn't have anything to add on the Jakobus GAR (others have answered the questions that were directed at him, as far as I can see - did you check that?) Although I agree that it would be useful to have some elaboration on Thine Antique Pen's replies to questions 1 and 2 (especially 2, but also the "why" part of question 1), I would also respectfully suggest that if you're not able to offer a constructive review based on the information that Thine Antique Pen is prepared to provide, then you should take a back seat and let others do so instead. I've never really seen "badgering the review-ee" being a problem before, but this comes close to it! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, Wikipelli. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 10:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Review from Electriccatfish2
 * I think that you are a great editor, but I also thought that you were already an Admin. If you have created so many pages, why aren't you Autopatrolled? Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Topic banned from requesting userrights. Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 10:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments from Chip123456
 * A reminder to everyone that when you review, remove the asterisk. I take it the not yet reviewed template has been removed because I can't see it. Anyway, although it's great you are creating articles for us to view, when I'm in the recent changes, patrolling I see a lot of 'created stub' from you. Why do you create a lot of stubs, instead of taking your time to create a reasonably sized article?--Chip123456 (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I create stubs because they are missing from the encyclopedia, and it is the birth of an article. However, I have done things such as Compton–Belkovich Thorium Anomaly, Jacobus Deketh, Megitza and The Wedding Dance. ⇒ T A  P  14:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, whilst all that is good, as the 'parent' of the article you have created (although you don't own it) it would be good to see you build it up, to really show what you are capable of.--Chip123456 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You say it like there is 'one' article &mdash; I've made 1700+. --⇒ T A  P  14:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm aware of how many you've created! It would be good if you could build several of your articles up to show what you are really capable of. If you don't mind me asking, why are you topic ban for requesting rights?--Chip123456 (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm topic banned from requesting them myself, but not getting then. See this list. Regards, ⇒ T A  P  15:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, so, what are your aims on Wikipedia? What are your intentions?--Chip123456 (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

My only current intention is to expand the encyclopedia so it covers all of the necessary topics. Regards, ⇒ T A  P  15:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And you will do that by? Updating articles, creating stubs, creating good sized articles? --Chip123456 (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I will continue to create stubs until I believe that I have covered enough topics to satisfy myself. I will create large articles between that. ⇒ T A  P  16:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Review from Graeme Bartlett
 * Since this is a review on Thine Antique Pen and I quite often interact, I should write some text here too. Thine Antique Pen is a person who likes to ask, and is a friendly and fast working person.  Therefore he has fitted in with DYK to ask for an appearance of articles on the main page.  Another thing to do is to nominate others articles for DYK, from new page patrol or for AFC acceptance.  I think the anomaly article may be the best work so far and the painting a close runner up.  I encourage more of this quality of article that are actually useful and interesting rather than 1000's of insect substubs that possibly will only be examined by web spiders and bots. The attention span may have to be longer on a smaller selection of articles.  A challenge to attempt is featured article. I also hope that TAP has taken the time to check the watchlist!  Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to get The Wedding Dance up to FA. It's currently a GA and has everything I believe is necessary in the article. I've also done work on Megitza (now GA) and CBTA (follow redirect &mdash; GA). ⇒ T A  P  09:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * TAP has highlighted another strength of his - a fast response! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes a bit slow... ⇒ T A  P  10:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess I can't get away with pretending I'm not watching here any more. I've been following your progress since you dropped a note on my talk page a couple of months back, watchlising the odd page which I think is relavent. I've read with interest the progress you've made. Back then, coming off your block, I didn't think you'd be a particularly useful member of the community, but thought it'd be worth giving you a shot. You've excelled yourself in that time period, and I want to make it clear how impressed I am at that. You've got a lot of strong points going for you, good articles, over half your edits in the mainspace, actively seeking feedback and so on.
 * Review from Worm That Turned

However, editor reviews aren't for lavishing praise on an editor - they're for giving constructive feedback, to allow you to improve. I have seen a number of areas where you could do with work. That's all I've got for the moment, though I may have some more later.  Worm TT( talk ) 12:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the biggest problem I've seen over the past few days is a lack of understanding of CANVASS. Now, this has been tackled on your talk page, and I hope that you have learnt from it. A little annoying from my perspective, because my comments on the matter were entirely off my own back, based on what I'd seen. I won't go into the matter further, but it's important that you understand what WP:CANVASS means.
 * This whole user-right/hat collecting issue is still an issue for you I see. I assume you're still bothered that you're not allowed to request rights, and I know there was a big hoo-ha over you getting the autopatrolled right. Unfortunately, this is going to be something that you're going to have to live with, and I expect you to make peace with the concept. It's not even that big a deal - you don't need rights to work on the encyclopedia. If you were to compare the amount of access you get over say, BBC news - or any forum, or just about any other internet site, it's phenomenal. Bwilkins is right on this, you need to forget about rights all together. I appreciate that you haven't requested any for a while, and the only requests were suggestions, but I hope that nothing like that will happen again.
 * I'm more than a little concerned at the rate you're editing. You've only really been active since March, yet in March and April you made about 2500 edits, in May, 4000. Already this month you're at 4000, and we're only half way through! I understand that you're a much faster editor than say, me (I rarely go over 500 edits in a month), but I do wonder how much care you're taking over each edit. In fact, based on the numbers, you're active for about 5 hours a day during the week, plus about 12h per day during the weekends, making 49h per week. 2.5 weeks so far this month... makes say, 125hours... 4000 edits in 125 hours, 32 edits per hour, or one every 2 minutes... Personally, that seems far too high. I do believe slowing down and focussing on quality, not quantity, is a much more productive use of your time.
 * Adoption. I find it amazing that you'd chose to go through two virtually identical adoption courses. The adoption course was designed to bring a new user up to speed in the encyclopedia. I've looked at how Demiurge1000 was answering questions, and whilst verbose, it does at least give you an excellent thought provoking exercise. Why on earth would you choose to do the same thing again with Bmusician?
 * Focus. I see you're a stub creator. Now, that is a reasonable persuit, though it's not one of the most needed in my opinion. I don't believe that it's something that should be shouted from the rooftops, as I think more thought should go into why we can create an article for every beetle discovered, but not for every pokemon created (hint: I don't think either should have loads of articles) However, you have had a hand in some good articles.
 * I'm slightly peturbed about the articles though. For example, you've written quite a bit on Compton–Belkovich Thorium Anomaly but almost all the sources are offline books and journal articles. This is obviously a good thing, but I'm curious how you have access to them. Many of them are journal articles, and only available through very big or academic libraries. It's a gut feeling, but I'm just a little bothered by it.