Wikipedia:Editor review/Xp54321

Xp54321
I have been on Wikipedia for 2.5 months now but most of my recent activity has been in the last month or so. Thus I want to if I'm doing well or not. Xp54321 (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

 Reviews 

 Comments 


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

 Questions

✅ Mistake explained. Xp54321 ( Vandals Beware!!!, Contribs ) 01:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I have yet to make any major contributions(by this I mean something like doubling the size of an article). But once I finish up with my Twinkle, Friendly, and AWB work I'll probably try out DYK and see what it's like.
 * 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 have been in one edit conflict before over Gmail and how often the storage counter was to be updated. I dealt with it by participating in a discussion started on the talkpage. An anonymous IP ended up updating the storage counter when it reached 6700 MB as we had reached consensus for 100 MB update threshold.:). I would probably do the same thing in the future and get other editors involved when necessary.
 * 1) As I dislike edits like this made with AWB, I wonder why you just re-shuffle the order of categories and stub templates? The purpose of having a stub message in a prominent place is to make editors improve the article rather than just push it to a less prominent place in the categories list. The relocation "feature" may have been implemented in AWB according to Stub, but this is under discussion. I had placed a message on your talk, but you removed it immediately (Reverted good faith edits by Matthead. (TW)). Sorry, but you do not earn my respect this way.  -- Matthead  Discuß   14:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Why did you revert, using admin rollback here?  Al Tally  talk  23:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Why did you revert, using admin rollback here?  Al Tally  talk  23:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Realist2


 * I have found Xp54321 to be a quick learner, more than willing to make up for past mistakes. He/she takes advise well for the most part and works to improve. An example of this can be seen in edit summaries. Originally 50% of the users edits had no summary, after pointing this out the user quickly improved. The month of May will close with nearly 85% edit summaries included, well done. I would like to see you interact more with other editers and i believe you need to do more article building for this to occur. You need to discuss ideas with others and learn to build consensus and compromises, something vandalism reversion alone does not bring. You are more than just a net gain for the project, you are a valuable editer. Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 00:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to slow down when it comes to the use of automated tools. I think you might have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes vandalism. Either that, or you're incredibly impulsive. You need to realize that edit counts do not matter on Wikipedia, but, rather it is the quality of the edit that is germane to improvement. I suggest that you take a break from anti-vandalism and focus your attention on some moderate to heavy article building. Cheers.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 02:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Useight I will comment more a bit later, I have to go do a few things, but I wanted to get something down. Please don't take anything the wrong way, these are just some tips to improve your editing. Okay, first, be sure to always use edit summaries. It's very important so other editor's can more easily determine what you were doing and/or what your reasoning was. Second, I agree with Wisdom89 above, you need to slow down with your automated tools. You reverted a bunch of things that should've been fixed using the "undo". Only click revert or use an automated tool for blatant vandalism, such as insertion of "woeinsdgogiw" into the middle of an article, or "I am cool", or "Bob sucks." Things like that. If there's any question about whether it's vandalism, don't use rollback. I'll take a deeper look a little later. Useight (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see, what else? I was randomly going through some of your most recent reverts and I found that you're doing a much better job now. Looking good. One pretty trivial thing, though, was that I, personally, don't like edit summaries like this and this which don't really say what you did. Perhaps be a little more descriptive. But that's not a big deal at all and nobody would ever ding you for that. Also, I'd recommend being a bit more communicative, you don't do much talking with other people (outside of issuing warnings via templates). If you want to become an admin in the future (and you're userpage says you do), you'll have to both communicate more and do more work in the mainspace. Endless vandalism reversion isn't going to cut it at an RFA. Useight (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by PhilKnight Firstly, you are very enthusiastic, which is good. Any criticism should be considered to be nothing more than suggestions on how to improve. Looking at your contributions to requests for page protection, my suggestion is that you should only list pages that have been overwhelmed with vandalism from several different IP addresses. The approach is to avoid semi-protecting pages unless absolutely necessary, to encourage new comers. PhilKnight (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Excirial

As Xp54321 Adopter, i think its appropriate for me to come in and join the talk on this subject. As PhilKnight already said, XP54321 is a very enthusiastic editor who has a sense of humor when you have a conversation with him. Also i have to agree with the other users that he is a fast learner who only needs a polite word once to improve any small or big error in his editing. Overall i can just see one huge block of good faith edits with the small human mistake every now and then. In short: I am pretty pleased with my adoptee :).

However, i also notice that there is to big a focus on two things: Editcount and Adminship. As said before, it is not the amount of edits that count, it is the quality of those edits. I sometimes notice a pretty large amount of edits for a pretty low amount of improvement (Par ratio that is). An example is |here. This is a diff of 7 edits, showing only marginal difference. Try to prevent saving for every word, but make a large contribution at once if possible. I have seen this happening several times, and i am pretty sure that during a new RFA people will point at this as being an attempt to increase edit count fast. Again, its not the amount of edits, its the quality of the edits that count.

Second, don't see adminship as a goal you wish to reach, or at least not in a set time period. Think about it like this: If i put a banner on my user page which states that i would be running for admin in 3 months, that would be frowned upon. Why? It will look like i want to get adminship then no matter what; It does not give a reliable impression when someone says he will be ready when he reaches a set point. This was actually more or less worded on the RFA when this was posted:

It's less than three days since I last issued you a warning for your behavior, and I see no reason to trust you; on the contrary, I see someone frantically abusing automated tools to boost their edit count, who appears to want adminship to add to their trophy cabinet, rather than to do anything useful.

While frowning at the obvious incivility of this line, it does contain a core of thought that you should remember, even though it is rather badly worded. In short the thought behind this is that you have to much focus on editcount and adminship; In the above editors eyes that automatically means that you "Want to have it to have it", and not because you want to do something good with them.". Leaving aside the matter if that is the case, it IS an opinion that is often expressed at RFA's in such cases. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 08:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)