CattleGirl (talk · contribs) After editing Wikipedia for 6 months and seriously considering an RFA in the coming months, I'd like to recieve some feedback about what I'm doing both right and wrong. I tend to focus on vandal fighting, try to visit Templates for Deletion at least every 3 days, hopefully more, and occasionally Articles for Deletion. Admittedly, I'm not a big fan of creating my own articles, however I like to rewrite articles as I see no point in deleting something that only has a few problems. One such rewrite is Nick Vujicic, after a friend asked for my input. Although not a huge article, my edits along with that of other users stopped it from being deleted. I'd like this editor review so I can fix up any problems I might have when editing, and to prepare me for a future RFA. Thanks- CattleGirl talk | sign! 10:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews
- Ok. Here we go. If you want to be an admin, you need to do a few things first. You need to get the edit count a bit higher. Around 4000 will do. Also, you should get more Wikipedia edits. Wikipedia edits deal more with admin activities and a higher Wikipedia edit count will attract votes quite nicely. (Just to let you know, User:Topcattheirrefutable is banned from Wikipedia for being a sockpuppet so you don't need to woory about encounters with him/her.) That's all I have to say. Captain panda In vino veritas 21:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Several points:
- Nice article-editing - you've chalked up 900 mainspace edits and made a lot of valuable contributions. Keep up the good work.
- As Cap'n panda says, you need more edits in the WP namespace in order to pass RfA. I suggest hanging around WP:AFD a bit more; commenting on more AfDs will give you more familiarity with deletion policy and practice, which is always a big bonus at RfA.
- Very high number of user talk edits shows that you're good at communicating with other users; you mention vandal-fighting, so it probably also indicates that you always remember to warn vandals, which is very good.
- You could also consider diversifying slightly and doing more work on templates and/or images; this isn't essential at RfA, but could be helpful in demonstrating a variety of experience.
- All in all, I think you're nearly ready for RfA. Chalk up another thousand edits or so, concentrating on the WP namespace, and you'll be ready to pass by the end of April. Whatever you do, though, don't jump in too early - the threshold for RfAs is very high, and it's easy to achieve a majority of support but just miss out on promotion, due to an overzealous bureaucrat. Check out Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KyraVixen for an example of where this happened. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- I can't think of any edits over others, however I am proud of all my rewrites- not just Nick Vujicic. I formatted the entire Cattle page, I've rewritten pages of various musicians, and I've added information on various breeds of animals. I've also started a Panic! at the Disco WikiProject, after listing it at Wikiproject Proposals to see who's interested, as these pages need some sort of central organisation. Other than that, I'm happy with all of my edits, as they have been done in good faith and I believe have been good quality.
- 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 believe on Wikipedia I handle stressful situations pretty well. Probably the most stressful discussion I've had with a user remains the same as my last editor review- a discussion with User:Topcattheirrefutable. Most of this discussion had to do with Wikipedia policies and how they apply to us, and I believe that I handled it well. Other than that I've gotten the usual from angry vandals that I've reverted- messages on my talk page, vandalism to my user page, where I revert, warn and get back to editing.
- When dealing with these problems, I don't often get angry. Most of the time I reply to the user in question, either by notifying them with a vandalism warning if applicable, or sometimes just a simple message explaining what the problem was. I don't recall a situation where I've been overly harsh or critical, and I intend to keep it that way. When warning I prefer to give users a milder warning than one that's too harsh, and I believe that method works well, as it helps prevent users from becoming angry or offended, and sometimes these users turn around to become very good editors. I'm satisfied with the way I've handled conflicts on Wikipedia.