Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Editor review/Editorofthewiki

< Wikipedia:Editor review

Editorofthewiki

edit

Editorofthewiki (talk · contribs) Hey, I've been registered here since January 2008 and I want to know how others think of me. Since then I have accumulated 5,000 edits and several DYKs. I want to see if it is soon time to request adminship as I know I will still be considered a newbie. Editorofthewiki 01:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

  1. I have seen Editorofthewiki all around Wikipedia, and I've enjoyed the edits that this user has made. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 18:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Good. He's been contributing into a lot of the world's oldest people articles. Support. Neal (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  3. Does an excellent job creating articles as well as cleaning up other articles. Has been active in areas that don't see a lot of use. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Razorflame Report false positives 22:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Editorofthewiki is a great user who spends a great amount of time editing Wikipedia. he has good contributions and only further improves the encyclopedia. I would like to see him become an admin before I do because he has so much more promise than I did when I started editing. Good luck! ~Meldshal42 00:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick note here: I'm a he. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I have great respect for people who create content and EotW has been an invaluable creator of original and important content. I am particularly impressed that he has taken the time to fill in gaping voids of Africa-related articles. He has also earned my respect by standing up for what he believes in and openly questioning decisions and opinions that violate the basic tenets of civility. Wikipedia gains immensely by having intelligent, sincere and dedicated editors like EotW on the team. My personal message to EotW: you, sir, are an asset to this web site! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The editor keeps adding Category:Date of birth missing in articles. This category should be added in Talk pages. In articles we use Category:Year of birth missing. The editor lacks in adding appropriate categories in articles about individuals. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Should this go here, or under comments? I don't know. Anyway, I find your sig kinda confusing with four wikilinks within one word. It's like playing the lottery when I try to find the link I want. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I marked a copyright violation image and this user removed the tag without explanation or justification, only leaving a cryptic message on my talk page "No credible assertion of fair use, eh?". In fact, there was no credible assertion of fair use, only the duplication of the criteria without any supporting information. The simplest of reviews of the information would have immediately revealed that not only was the copy added to Wikipedia not "rendered in low resolution", but it was precisely the same content, unmodified, of the identified source. Several other of the regurgitated criteria are similarly vacuous. --Danorton (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first review, so please forgive me if I make any errors!

You make a hell-of-a-lot of new articles. That's excellent! I've created only a few pages so far. It's good to see you format the pages properly. Also, well done with the featured article. (As you told me) featured articles are very difficult to write. I would suggest more edit summaries like others above me. I myself am going to start using them more often. I suppose I could say the same to you as what you said to me: if you want to get adminship, more work in places like deletion discussions would probably be good (even if they don't interest you, I suppose it's good experience). It's also good to see you help out in the Did You Know area already. Have you written many articles for that? Anyway, I hope my review is helpful! how do you turn this on 15:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um ok, 43 DYKs... well done. I should try to get one. how do you turn this on 15:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the first thing that jumps out at me is that you should probably try to use the minor checkbox a bit more if you can (i.e. for edits like [1]). Also - use edit summaries 100% of the time. I think there's actually a checkbox in "my preferences" under the Editing tab that warns you if you leave the edit summary field blank (there's actually also one that marks edits minor by default). You actually have a very impressive number of mainspace edits - although I imagine quite a few of those are due to edits like this - nonetheless the fact that you were to do a template in and of itself is absolutely awesome, since you're clearly most comfortable in the mainspace field. A quick look at your edit count show's you've mixed up your activity in the Wikipedia-space, and that's always great; if, as your userpage suggest, you'd like to become admin I'd suggest a bit more activity at ANI, but frankly you're active enough in other areas that I'd be shocked if that was used against you. I mean, I can't really find much to complain about. From what I've seen you're a very solid editor - keep up the amazing work and you're sure to go as far as you want. Good luck!--danielfolsom 02:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
    • Oh and yes I know that I am not the biggest user of edit summaries. I understand their purpouse and all, but I don't see why we have to use them ALL THE TIME. I just wanted to give everyone a head's up before they continue.
  • Hello, I am User:RyRy5. I think your doing great. You edit in the mainspace alot. But I don't really think your ready for the RFA just yet, but very soon though. I suggest participating in XFDs (which are WP:AFD, WP:MFD, WP:AIV, etc.). Also, write a few more articles and DYKs. And try to revert a little more vandalism than usual. I think your an old newbie. If you continue your edits and add in my suggestions, you should be well on your way for adminship. Also, try boosting your edit count with quality edits. Cheers.--RyRy5 Got something to say? 14:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try for more edit summaries. You cou do that by enabling the reminder @ "my preferences." More Wikipedia space edits would be beneficial for you and the encyclopedia. I hope that helps! Basketball110Talk 20:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said before, I am not the biggest fan of edit summaries and I think it is a fault of Wikipedia for all of its editors to use them all the time. I use them when convenient, and small little edits don't require them. Thanks for the review anyway. Editorofthewiki 20:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to make a quick comment and disagree with you on this one, especially if you're gunning for adminship - RfA !voters often look for near-100% edit summary usage. They're very helpful and should never be omitted. Take up shorthand if you must (ce for copy edit, for example), but edit summaries are an important part of article building. xenocidic (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why you think it's a fault to use summaries all the time? I ask partly out of curiosity, and partly because if it does come up in a RfA people are going to expect a justification. Olaf Davis | Talk 12:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say its a fault for using them all the time, I said it was a fault for wikipedians at rfas to require them. For example, not every minor edit needs one, nor every single freaking edit if the es tells you nothing important. If it can, then I'll use them. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 22:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you probably need a lot more experience (or at least better judgement) before you are ready to be an admin. I was very displeased to see that you added irrelevant information to a Signpost article.[2] You implied in the article that an article you wrote was the "2001"th FA promoted, which is not true. That edit was blatant self-promotion and was deliberately misleading. The fact that you would do this in such as public area gives me little confidence that you have the judgement to be an admin. Karanacs (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not blatently misleading, nor blatant self promotion. I simply wanted users to know about an FA (which I rewrote) was one that was promoted in the less than a day after Wikipedi had its 2,000th FA. Whil this could be viewed as self promotion, it is really only reporting on a topic that I did many hours of reasearch upon. Editorofthewiki 18:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are not the only person to spend hours of research and hours of writing to bring an article to FA status. Four or five other articles were promoted between the 2000th and yours. Your edits also had nothing to do with the subject of the article (the five FACs sharing credit for the 2000th article). While you may argue differently, most people will view your actions as self-promotion. Either you didn't see that when making the edit, or you realized that and made the edit anyway (without asking first on the talk page, as you should have done given your conflict of interest). Either scenario implies a lack of the necessary maturity to be an admin. Karanacs (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, though, the issue is a bit broader than that; you added your name to the byline, implying that you were an author of the Signpost article. I imagine that you meant to convey that you were a principal editor of one of the FAs enumerated in that article—relative to which Karanacs's well-founded concerns, then, might well apply—but your inadvertently accrediting to yourself text for which you were not responsible was a bit careless and perhaps suggests some unfamiliarity with our practices. In any case, even were Karanacs's comments to be understood as insufficiently assumptive of good faith (as well they might be; "deliberately misleading" is probably not, in the absence of other evidence, a sound deduction, and almost certainly not the best phrasing one might essay), the underlying substance is not unremarkable, and other editors (as, for instance, those who might !vote in an RfA—ER is, after all, intended, at least in part, as RfA preparation) are unlikely to look highly on the diff adduced (believing it, rightly or wrongly, to reflect an instance of poor judgment) even if your altogether reasonable explanation that you acted in good faith is accepted, and so I imagine that you would be well-served to take something constructive from Karanacs's comments, indelicately worded though they may, at least in part, have been. Joe 21:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know this editor or his or her work, but I do have concerns about the user name "Editorofthewiki". It seems to me to create the wrong impression, implying that the user has some kind of official relationship to Wikipedia, and I think the editor should consider changing it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With admirable openness, Editorofthewiki has agreed to open a discussion about his username on RFCN, so no comments should be made about it here, the discussion instead should go here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had to template this editor for removing a maintenance template without addressing the problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't have to do anything. You chose to template him. Furthermore, he could have been in the midst of improving the article, and a template at the top of the page would have been interfering. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've only made one pass through this user's most recent edits, but I do not see any major concerns. I agree with some of the previous discussion about the use of edit summaries, however. Even if you're only changing one little thing, it's still very helpful to those who edit after you to be able to see exactly what you've done previously. Someone above suggested developing a method of shorthand... that's what I've done and it works pretty well. Even if you're performing a simple undo, I suggest making a note of the reason why you are undoing the edit. If you'll notice in some of my recent edits, I use the standard WP-provided edit summary, but I chop it off after "Undo revision (number)" and add - (reason) afterwards. Something to think about... I'll make another pass through your contributions soon and see if there's anything else that I can mention. Cheers! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing well ... seen him/her a lot recently and solid work. Victuallers (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ed. There's something I'd been meaning to ask you about for a while. It's your talk page. The fact there's no edit links on any threads makes it incredibly difficult to edit your talk page. I'd rather be able to edit the thread directly than the whole page, and having to scroll down searching. Just my 2 cents. -- how do you turn this on 00:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This user has in the past had disputes with persons such as Admin:Canadian Paul (See February 2008 archives) and more, seems to try to WP:OWN articles that he upgraded to GA status, such as Lazare Ponticelli. He needs to be more open to compromise, pluralism, and respecting other points of view, and less focused on what comes across as "self-promotion," not the least of which starts with the "Editorofthewiki" moniker. That alone says a lot. The irony is that while I supported this editor's goal of expanding the Ponticelli article, I was a little put off with his methods of dealing with other persons. Respect and cooperation are major issues on Wikipedia, especially if one wants to be an admin. Also, he needs to remember to be humble. As Socrates is alleged to have said, "the only thing I know for certain is that I know nothing for certain." Wisdom comes from realizing that what we think is right, might actually be wrong. Part of being a good admin is being able to listen to major sides in a argument and show an ability to change and improve when deficiencies in behavior or editing style are identified.

Note that I do not exactly come across as smelling like a rose on Wikipedia, either...but then again it's not my review. And as the old saying goes, "takes one to know one." Well, the obverse is also true.Ryoung122 09:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    That's pretty hard. I am fond of my DYKs, but I am also fond of my substubs on Algerian villages. I plan to make Munster an FA some day, but I must not also forget my edits everywhere. I am fond of all my edids, as I am The One And Only Editorofthewiki
  3. 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?
    Well, I got blocked in the beginning supposedly harassing User:Misza13, though all I id was nominate her page for MfD. As you probably all know, I also nominated prod for deletion, though I'm not the only one who thinks it shouldd go.
Am I late? A comment—

Hi Ed, just a point about edits and signing posts, it really does keep things easy to find and scroll to, if you sign your edits constantly (it helps others find their way around the text and to know where your post finishes and someone else's starts) and my view of making edit summaries is they really really help when someone like me is looking back through an article's history to find information or where a change was made so I don't have to click through entry after entry to find where it is or where to retrieve something. I understand as an editor it's easier to be breezy when you're racking up thousands of edits in a short time, but since you're leaving a trail, you might do well to be helpful to others by making it easier to follow details. Best, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About your DYK contribution

Deux Balés National Park was created by you in form. There was a problem, the source you used says the park is in "Central western section of the country, in Black Volta Province just west of the Black Volta River." You put the location dot slightly outside of Burkina Faso, in the far eastern end, not the "central western part of the country," in fact, across the divide from the drainage basin of the Volta River. Also, why didn't you just check that Black Volta Province is redlinked? There are no missing administrative units at this level on Wikipedia. If you had checked, you would have seen you had mapped the park in Est, not in Mouhoun, where it is located, and you might have caught this error. Please don't be so quick to get credit for a DYK, that you let the most obvious and checkable facts go by you. The source you used says, "central western section of the country," but you mapped far far eastern, you missed the river by a major divide. --Blechnic (talk) 07:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was half asleep when this occured. I copypasted the format from another page and completely messed up. My apologies. I'm glad other users fixed that up while I was on wikibreak. Thanks everyone.I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly know how a professional editor handles mistakes: own it, apologize and do better next time. If this is on your way to trying for adminship, don't forget it. It could make Wikipedia a nicer place all around, and make an admin's job a lot easier. --Blechnic (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio - Beth Wambui Mugo

Stephen posts here: "Any reason for this copied directly from here?" FYI, EOTW, there is a discussion about the Beth Wambui Mugo article copyvio here. Bebestbe (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Federal Government puts most of its material in the public domain. Also, you inline cited each paragraph in the text to its source, so this seems more of a mistake than anything else. You're one of the few who actually is generating Africian articles, so I think on balance this really isn't a problem. Figuring out Kenya copyright law as understood by U.S. Copyright law would seem a complex job. As for the copyright status, Section 25 of the Kenya Copyright act applies to copyright works in Government and Section 45 addresses works in the Public Domain. Bebestbe (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In general, though, as I said elsewhere, assuming a US default value for intellectual property in African nations is not a good way to go. Intellectual property laws in African nations are sometimes derivatives of colonial copyright laws, but there's no US foothold there. It would be more likely to find codified repugnance to US intellectual property laws than a copy of US laws in most sub-Saharan African nations. --Blechnic (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was about to go to a talk page to ask this one, but then I saw this, and I think its worth adding because it would be a bad wiki-habit and has been alluded to above. On the page for Angelo Parenti, an apparently obvious case of pure invention suitable for deletion under CSD 3G, Editorofthewiki removed the CSD plate with neither reason nor attempt at improving the article. Kevin McE (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/Editorofthewiki&oldid=1140562592"