Wikipedia:Editor review/SLSB

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] SLSB

SLSB (talk · contribs) Want to see how I'm doing... SLSB talk 02:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

• Welcome to editor review! I see excellent use of the edit summary - keep it up! Lets others know what you've done, and that's great. Good participation in Wikipedia space, and as a newcomer, well done for carrying out tests on the sandbox rather that in mainspace. Few article contributions, you can perhaps work on a few? You're request for a review from me shows a willingness to improve, which is excellent! Overall, good first month. Keep working hard. :-) Lradrama 15:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• How are you doing? Very well. You're off to a better start than I had. I see you're confident with the process of reporting inappropriate usernames & vandals to administrators, which is good. You're reverting vandalism which is also good. If you're interested in being an admin (as you indicated), I suggest continuing with your vandal fighting and taking up comments at WP:AFD. You nominated an article which was kept, not to worry, Wikipedia is a learning process. I started commenting on AFDs by seeing why others wanted to delete/keep articles, thought don't assume everyone is right!

There's nothing you've done wrong, the AIV warning page was deleted because it was inflammatory. We don't want to provoke vandals (don't feed the trolls and don't give them the idea of reporting legitimate users to AIV) rather we want them to change or go away. That would seem the only rough patch (and it's by no means wrong, you can't be expected to know every policy) on what is a very good start to wiki-editing. On adminship, some pointers; voters are very harsh on incivility so remember to keep your cool, although there are no set minimum standards, it's unlikely you'll pass with less than 1500 edits and at least 3 months editing (and even then quite a few people will oppose based on your edit count), variety is necessary, they will want to see mainspace edits (articles improved, not just vandal reverts), vandalism reverts & reports to AIV, sensible comments on deletion discussions (more than just "delete per above" or "delete - non notable") and discussion of policies in the Wikipedia talk namespace. It may sound daunting but it takes at least 3 months before anyone stands a chance so there's plenty of time to learn. Everyone is always learning so don't worry about it if you make mistakes, just remember to remain calm & you should stay out of trouble. Happy editing! James086^{Talk | Email} 06:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• I see pretty good work. It's nice to lay off the vandal fighting every once and a while and do some article editing, even if it's just copy editing. Helps one to realize that Wikipedia isn't simply a big game of cops and robbers. Not sure why you've applied to many block tags, though it does seem you've applied them correctly. Do you go through the block logs? I generally prefer to apply my own block notices and frankly, would be a bit annoyed if someone did it for me first. But if you're just going through situations where folks have clearly missed doing it, then I suppose it's all right. As for why you AIV page was deleted, it's unclear what you were trying to do there. If you were trying to create a list of vandals you had reported to AIV, then I would definitely support the deletion per WP:DENY. If you were trying to create some kind of warning message or template, then there is a whole project involved with that, you'd probably want to check in with them. And you wouldn't want to create it as a user subpage either. Dive into some projects or articles, Wikipedia is more than vandal fighting. Cheers Dina 15:12, 23 July 2007 (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?

   So far, I'm not particularly proud of any. Although I do enjoy reverting vandals.

2. 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?

   Only when my AIV page was deleted per WP:DENY however I may contact the admin and politely ask why they deleted my page.

This is untrue. This user is currently engaged in a conflict with me over his totally false accusation of Sockpuppetry. Despite having absolutely no evidence whatsoever, he has written "I am not closing because of something a suspect says". Now he claims to not have any conflicts or stress with other users. I can certainly confirm that he is in conflict with me, has caused me undue stress, totally unfairly, and with no evidence. HateWatcher 22:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now we are in a conflict. Hatewatcher please let the checkuser run its course. The more and more you argue the more I believe your a sock. SLSB talk ER 03:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Check came back negative. SLSB talk ER 02:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Why did you randomly remove a sock puppetteer notice from an active sock puppetteer's talk page without any explanation or discussion?[1] Try explaining your actions, especially when you jump into something unannounced and change it without explanation. KP Botany 21:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It was on their userpage. SLSB talk ER 17:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)