| Revision as of 19:18, 19 April 2008 editKaranacs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users27,644 edits →Editorofthewiki: either you didn't realize it was self-promotion or you didn't care; either way implies a problem with the thought process← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:00, 19 April 2008 edit undoJahiegel (talk | contribs)13,228 edits →Editorofthewiki: commentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| ::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. ]]]] 18:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC) | ::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. ]]]] 18:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::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. ] (]) 19:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC) | :::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. ] (]) 19:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::In fact, though, the issue is a bit broader than that; you added your name to the ], 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 ] (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. ] 21:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ''' Questions''' | ''' Questions''' | ||
Revision as of 21:00, 19 April 2008
Editorofthewiki
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 2,500 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)
Reviews
- I have seen Editorofthewiki all around Misplaced Pages, and I've enjoyed the edits that this user has made. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 18:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good. He's been contributing into a lot of the world's oldest people articles. Support. Neal (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC).
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, ect). 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 14:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Try for more edit summaries. You cou do that by enabling the reminder @ "my preferences." More Misplaced Pages space edits would be beneficial for you and the encyclopedia. I hope that helps! Basketball110 20:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- As I said before, I am not the biggest fan of edit summaries and I think it is a fault of Misplaced Pages for all of its editors to use them all the time. I use them when conveniant, and small little edits don't require them. Thanks for the review anyway. Editorofthewiki 20:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
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. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Questions
- Of your contributions to Misplaced Pages, 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
- 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.