Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser

TheGeneralUser

TheGeneralUser (talk · contribs · count) I have been a Wikipedian since June 30, 2011 and now soon going to reach 1000 edits (in article mainspace). Need a general overall review on all of my contributions so far, be frank about anything if there is a concern and if that also needs to be addressed. I respect both positive and negative reviews, so that i can improve myself and Wikipedia further. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I primary contribute to Wikipedia on any article that i like or come across from time to time. I am now actively taking part in more and more other areas of Wikipedia (non-article main-space). I also frequently revert vandalism that i come across using rollback, move improper file names to correct ones using file mover and review other user's edits. I plan to expand my work and editing throughout in almost every area of Wikipedia.

3. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   Never got involved in an editing dispute, only very few minor queries which were resolved within a short period of time. If one were to happen i would calmly and peacefully discuss the matter with the involved editor(s) and if after that still problem remain, then would seek dispute resolution, but i'm sure things wouldn't come to that ;).

4. Can you name five (or more) articles that you would like to create or improve?

   Well, haven't made any list of articles that i would like to create, but will surely create articles if i find them to be suitable and appropriate for inclusion here on Wikipedia. And as for improving the articles, i normally go to any article that i come across and edit/improve it. There are no specific articles :).

Reviews

• Heart in the right place, sensible user page, clean block log, e-mail enabled, several additional flags (none of which have been withdrawn), so far so good. The few CSD tags I flicked through in deleted contributions were not unreasonable, however, I would recommend leaving more time in future. NPP should not be treated like a firing range and nothing is going to alienate potentially new contributors more. In terms of edits made, bear in mind that what is most important is the journey one has made, not the amount of steps involved. Having said that, 1,000 edits is not enough for a successful RFA. I notice you have quite a few edits to the project space, but on closer examination, most of these do not relate to admin areas and removing redirects in the project space is not going to give other editors much of an understanding of your interpretation of admin policies. In terms of the article space, I notice many things like reverting vandalism, tagging and source cleanup, which are obviously advantageous, but going back as far as early January, I was unable to find substantial addition of content. RFAs where the participant has scant to no evidence of writing articles are often an uphill battle, and many participants like to see content credits. Perhaps consider writing a couple of DYKs - they are much less taxing than an FA but are still very satisfying to have your work on the home page for a bit. WilliamH (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you WilliamH for your time and nice review. I will keep in mind the points you have mentioned, and work more towards the better development of the Encyclopedia. TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've got various points, so rather than giving you a massive blob of text, I'll give you numbered points.
  1. On my user page, you said "I am always truthful, i also intend to become an administrator in the future to help and serve the project better than ever". I admire your honesty, but based solely on edit counts at the moment, I'd strongly advise against RfA: although I personally think we probably demand too much from RfA candidates in terms of edit count, the realty is that a pretty decent edit count is pretty much a necessity for RfA these days. When I ran, I think I was definitely at 20,000, but I was doing lots of anti-vandalism and other repetitive editing tasks. (Still do, incidentally.)
  2. It'd be helpful for RfA (if/when you eventually try to become an admin) to opt-in for edit counts. Create User:TheGeneralUser/EditCounterOptIn.js, then your monthly and other stats will be available on the tparis edit counter.
  3. Your UAAs look legit.
  4. On the AfD front, I'm not sure what your reasoning is for this: the various language versions of Wikipedia operate independently. Just because an obscure Dutch film hasn't been written about on Dutch Wikipedia doesn't actually count as a reason on English Wikipedia. This seems like an argument to avoid to me. I'd certainly hope any closing admins would disregard it, and there's no reason to include an argument that the closer is going to disregard.
  5. User talk:Guerrilla of the Renmin/Archive 1#Your unintentional personal attack is unfortunate. Neither of you exactly covered yourself in glory on that exchange.
  6. I'm still not totally sure what the point of you requesting the Reviewer right was. And I say that as someone who is very much in favour of turning Pending Changes back on.
  7. This edit summary seems unrepresentative of what you are doing: "removing unsourced content", "removing trivia content"—either of those would be fine. But "correction"?
  8. There are edits as recently as February 2012 without edit summaries. I'd suggest turning on the settings in My Preferences that nags you into using edit summaries.
  9. You should probably start some more articles if you are shooting for adminship. Smack That looks good: well-sourced, no howlingly bad copy or other obvious problems. It'd be great if you could carry on and create some more articles.

  Hope that helps. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your points Tom Morris. I will create the edit counter page soon. I will make sure to provide more edit summaries, start more articles, and do everything else to improve Wikipedia. And in the

Wikipedia:Help Desk archive you will find the reason for me needing reviewer right as the requests page was not active. I appreciate all your points and reasoning, will learn from them and work better and harder. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Be aware I haven't done one of these before, and I'm not very good at edit stalking :-) That said, one of the reasons I'm not good at it is I'm very aware that we're all volunteers, and people find very different things they're interested in doing here - and what that is often changes. I second the suggestion above that you opt in at the edit counter so that bars appear for your activity in each month; it will show at a glance how the areas of the project you are active in change over time, as well as whether you have inactive periods or edit more and more as time goes on, or whatever. I find that interesting for my own use. But the impression I get is that you are still casting around for a focus, and that's ok. You've been moving files to more descriptive pagenames - that's useful, and shows initiative as well as responsibility; I wouldn't have even thought of that task much less requested the necessary right. You've been making some thoughtful votes at RfA. You've not only thought about pending changes, you're running a test. You've also done some thoughtful page moving, and like me you don't just look at policy and guideline pages, you tweak the wording or make corrections when something doesn't look right or clear :-) Earlier you were looking into possibly problematic Usernames. But I don't see much article work, although that's what you started out doing, and what I do see of that kind is reverting people, updating things chronologically, making small corrections, and so on. And unless I've missed a re-creation or an expansion from a redirect, the only article you've actually created is
  Japanese films of the 2010s, which you never went back and populated. (The other two listed by the tool seem to be the result of page moves.) I think you need to nose around and find an article you can expand because you know the topic and have access to sources. Then find an interesting redlink and make the article. One learns a lot that way, and interacts with other editors differently than in the things you've been doing. Many editors specialize in one or two topics, and you may find working within a wikiproject helps if that's the way you think, but you look like a generalist. You could of course sign up with lots of wikiprojects! Or if you prefer - go back to that Japanese films article first, and start filling it out. Also, are you using your watchlist, and/or checking articles you have edited a month or two down the road? Very often someone else will make changes that suggest ideas - including ways of improving a different article on a similar or related topic. So ... no criticisms, just some ideas. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yngvadottir, first of all i would really like to thank you for doing your first ever review for me :). I will soon make the edit counter page for everyone's convenience. Also thanks for your response on my various activities that i have done so far on Wikipedia. The article

Japanese films of the 2010s which i created just needs basic editing and adding up of more year title pages when they will be made, not the main content as it is a list. I will definitely look forward to join more Wikiproject's in the future. I keep many articles and other pages on my watchlist but keep changing them from time to time, but surely keep an eye of most of them. You have given many good ideas and i respect them. Again, thanks a lot for your time and nice review :). TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Your interactions with other editors have been generally constructive and you do have the ability to accept advice from more experienced users, which is not as common a trait as you might think. Certainly I've always found you to be polite and considerate in our interactions. Overall, you're a real asset to the project. Monterey Bay (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Monterey Bay for your great kind words! I will always uphold the trust the community has in me and improve the project as best as i can :). TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]