Wikipedia:Editor review/Whats new?

User:Whats new?
I have been with Wikipedia for about two months, and I know that is a short time, but I would just like an indication of how I am going, and which areas I can improve in. I would like to be an administrator some day, but I think I'm too inexperienced to be one at the moment. I would love to hear tips about steps to becoming an administrator, and improving the quality of my edits. Thanks for all your comments. --Whats new? 03:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

 Reviews 
 * Hello there, Whats new?, how are you doing? I have checked your user page, where you state the articles you have created, and I must say I am impressed. Over 20 articles created for someone with around 500 edits is extremely good. And considering your articles are related to Australia, they are even more. You know, everyone can contribute with some articles like fantasy books, american TV shows and worldwide history, but very few about country-specific topics, and thus your contributions are really appreciated. This can also be applied to the images you upload, thanks for doing so. Please continue this way, as the best way of improving Wikipedia is by contributing obscure topics (as in, not known everywhere) and free content. As for tips to become administrator, I remember some editors wrote a couple of pages with suggestions, but I can't remember them right now. The administrator's reading list will give you some weeks to ponder about, understand the different concepts and see how administrators apply them in real cases. A word of warning: candidates with less than 1000 edits are not usually successful, so you still have some time ahead. Another word of warning: increasing your edit count to reach that 1000 mark should be "unconsciously", that is, you need to continue the way you are doing without caring about that mark. People usually ask for some months of hard work, maybe 2 or 3 months, some as far as 6, and a good knowledge in the different style guides, guidelines and policies. Personally, I suggest you to check articles for deletion, which is a section that grows pretty fast. I notice you had contributed there in one discussion, you should consider doing that regularly, first as an observer until you learn about the different notability guidelines, to know what should be included in Wikipedia and what not, and then begin participating, learning from others, studying before giving an opinion. "Waterfalling" is not useful, we need your opinion. In example, if there is an article with 20 delete opinions, although you can add your delete opinion there, it is not as useful as when you add it in a discussion where, currently, there are 5 keep and 4 delete opinions. That is because in the first case is clear the article will be deleted, while in the second consensus has not been reached yet. Also, check requests for adminship to see what people ask from candidates. Also, consider joining the patrol to learn how to prevent vandalism, read about the different templates that can be used in a user talk page so that you are prepared to warn vandals as they appear. Consider reporting to requests for page protection when a page is being reverted many times in a very short period of time, either by an apparently unsolvable content dispute (known as war edit) or by vandals. If such vandals are persistent, request intervention from administrators. Also, if you find an article that has been copied from another site, you can report it to the copyright problems section. Learn about the speedy deletion criteria, learn to apply it, and how to inform users having their articles speedy deleted. Also, spend some more time in article talk pages, discussing with others how to improve determined articles, gathering ideas about a new layout without breaking the different manuals of style guides. Interaction with others is extremely necessary as an editor in Wikipedia, and even more as an administrator, so you should be fluently there, not as in speaking well (I am still learning!), but as in learning to stay civil and cool when others appear to lose their mind, to never make personal attacks and, if necessary, applying the different suggested steps for resolving disputes. All these wikilinks may overwhelm you now, but as time passes, they will become second nature. Just remember: adminship should be given to those needing it, and currently, you don't need it. If you are happy as an editor, continue as an editor. I am happy being a wikignome, even though I have had some offers to become an administrator. Being one is a lot of responsability, and some people just can't handle the stress. So, I suggest you to "enjoy" this time as editor, and leave for the future plans for adminship. If you decide to become an administrator, hopefully this review helps you get information about who they are, why they exist, how they work and when you could become one. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 17:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments 


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

 Questions

''
 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I don't build many full size articles, mostly stubs. One of my most recent articles, Bathurst railway station, New South Wales is one I'm very happy with. Template:Seven Network schedule is a template I made and think it is well done.
 * 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?
 * ''I haven't had any real conflicts over editing. In the future, I will contact the users who I'm having the conflict with and try to resolve it civily.
 * ''I haven't had any real conflicts over editing. In the future, I will contact the users who I'm having the conflict with and try to resolve it civily.

I'm happy enough with stubs - but unlike Sean Berry (journalist), they need to assert WP:NOTABILITY from the get-go, using references unlinked to the employer / subject in question.Garrie 05:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)