Tellyaddict
Tellyaddict ( talk · contribs) Hi, although for the minute I'm not applying for an RFA (I'm going to in about June if I feel ready and if the wikipedia community trusts me for these extra editing tools), I am just requesting feedback on what people think of my contributions so I can improve myself and help Wikipedia even more. Please be honest about what you think as it will help me to improve. Telly addict 16:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Reviews
- You have an impressive number of user talk page edits, a healthy number in mainspace, but as I'm sure you're aware of, your Wikipedia space contribution is lacking. I'd work on that. Good luck. Xiner ( talk, email) 17:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- From your edit count it is obvious that your interest in editing wikipedia is high. You have demonstrated outstanding civility and your recent proposal for a wikipedia project similar to random smilies shows that you care about community-building, as well. As an editor who contributed for months to levels of thousands of edits, having never received a barnstar or even a virtual pat on the back, and reading everyone else's barnstars and editing awards, I realize that there was once something here that has dissipated. Your interest and involvement on that front can make a difference, IMHO. As for your edits; my only suggestions are a) You may want to consider policing your user talk page a little more... it is difficult to see who is saying what to whom, as sections are often filled with unindented, unsigned comments, and some sections contain orphan comments that have nothing to do with the section. You may consider enlisting HagermanBot to help with the signing. But you probably want more feedback on article namespace edits, so my only suggestion would be to begin using bulleted lists and charts when articles wind up being a long page of small sentences, each in its own section. It makes the page hard to read the former way. An example is Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service. But overall very good editing and excellent community stewardship. Jerry lavoie 23:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose I concur with the above reviewers in applauding your community-mindedness, as evidenced by your many talkspace contributions. I am generally of the opinion that it's none of my business to appraise the quality of your contibutions to Wikipedia's content, provided that they are in the direction of improvement and not in the opposite direction.
- You say you're not interested in requesting Adminship yet (I'll consider that thought a bit further below). What will mar your chances of being given the mop is your poor understanding of policy. If I may illustrate with a couple of examples:
- I choose this because I was watching the page when you made the edit. User warnings aren't like parking fines - you don't award one for every single bad edit. By my reckoning, Jackhaswell's edits were all in quick succession and should probably count as one act of vandalism for the purposes of the user warning escalator.
- But that's not the point. The Point is that however much vandalism a user is doing, you should only ever give one warning at a time: three at once is utterly pointless, because the offending user can only possibly see and react to them all at once. If you give one warning and then the user continues to vandalise, then you give another, because you can assume that the user has received the first warning and ignored it.
- If a user's vandalism is serious enough to warrant jumping up the scale, then use your judgment and apply a level-4 warning (or a higher level on whatever the scale-du-jour at WP:UW is). Doing as you did will only raise the eyebrows of the Admin who turns up to block a misbehaving editor.
- I choose this because my edit to this article immediately precedes yours (and the article was created by our friend, Jackhaswell). I confess that I find {{ Notability}} a bit pointless as a tag. It may as well be a Prod tag, in my opinion. But it exists in order to provoke editors into adding material to clarify/confirm notability. You'll notice that I actually removed material which I though was non-notable (at which point, the article ceased to offend my sensibilities, so I left it alone without further consideration of notability).
- The subject of that article is no more notable now that when it was full of cruft. Your use of the {{ Notability}} tag there doesn't seem to accord with WP:NOTE, or the way in which notability works in general.
- This diff, to a TfD discussion.
- I choose this one because I nominated it for deletion myself, but there are a few other examples among the many opinions you've given at XfD of your occasionally Zen talent for getting the wrong end of the stick.
- That template is an image copyright tag. It's designed to sit on the page of an uploaded image and give standard information about the copyright status of the image. Every single image on Wikipedia has one of these, many images have more than one. It's not a case of "theres no need for a big template to stuck across the article/image".
- This suggestion and the other one just above, that the WikiDefCon be increased to Level 1.
- All right, so the WikiDefCon is a bit of a laugh, and I've no good cause for complaining about yout earnest, repeated requests for it to go up a notch. But you too should remember that it's a not-entirely-serious gauge of vandal activity. You are not David Lightman and Going To DefCon One will not make the slightest difference to the quantity of vandalism or the quality of the eds' response to it.
- Lastly, I take issue with your 'roadmap' for Adminship. It's nice to have something to aim for, but on Wikipedia, I don't think Adminship is it. Being an Administrator isn't a prize or a medal, and it's not a step up or a step forward from being an ordinary editor - many users make countless thousands of edits but never become, or aspire to become, an Admin.
- The way I look at it, putting down 'RfA' in your diary for June is absurd. The only thing that will certainly change between now and then is your edit count; you may become more familiar with policy and you may find that you're forever making requests to Admins for intervention in a way that suggests that you need the mop yourself, but neither of those things is certain.
- All of which said, if you really want to be an Admin, then you're going about it the right way: the easiest response to the question they'll ask you at RfA ("What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?") is to point at a pedigree of 'vandal fighting' and claim that you need the ban-hammer.
- Your prolific contibutions to the community areas of Wikipedia are both a blessing and a curse. They'll have put you on the radar of the sort of eds who vote at RfAs, but they also expose the gaps in your policy knowledge. If I could make one recommendation to you, it would be to read more policy. It's easy: every time you see another editor cite a policy, go and read it. The flipside of my recommendation is that you should apply more policy too. Every time you give an opinion at XfD, or in a straw poll, you should cite which line of which policy you think applies.
- Best wishes. — mholland 19:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely convinced, that while your oppose at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Firefoxman was in good faith, that there was good reasoning behind it. That was a major case of editcountitis, and to ask 1,500 edits per month is quite outrageous, to be frank. I'm also not liking what Mholland has pointed out above about a "roadmap" for adminsip, have you read WP:ADMINNOT? Sorry if this review is totally negative, but I think it's points that could easily be used against you in a future RFA. – Chacor 16:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- My main criticism of you would be your case of editcountitis of mythic proportions. One doesn't need 10k and 3k mainspace edits to be a great admin, 2500 or so total is enough. Try focusing on the quality of edits.-- Wizardman 21:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Only one comment, which is that the Good Article review you wrote for Talk:Still Reigning basically missed the point of GA reviewing. The Land 18:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Comments
- View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
- Hi Tellyaddict, as you are after comments on your contributions, I feel obliged to give you some feeback on your recent entry here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantinos Makrides. I think that your opinion to delete (which was overwhelmingly rejected) was an opinion based on poor research on your behalf. It seems you did not analyse the subject or did not read WP:Bio well enough. That’s excusable for mere mortal wikipedians like myself, however for those few special ones who have (or seek) administrative status, I think it is not.
- KRBN, (the editor who nominated this article for deletion) has a track record for such rejected nominations. Please take a quick look at his previous nominations ( [1], [2], [3], [4] ) and you will see what I mean. He however, is not up for administrative status. On the other hand you express desire/intent to apply. And the rest of us expect administrators to represent the gold standard. I think you might just have taken KRBN’s word for this article not meeting WP:Bio.
- Your entry reads "Nominator seems to be correct, it does fail WP:BIO" however I had to ask 3 times to try and get a response from you as to “why” this was your opinion. Firstly you answered in the wrong format, messing up the sequence of entries and in the end you just didn’t provide an answer to the question posed. Don’t get me wrong, everyone is entitled to their opinion and I am not trying to lay into you, but you have to be prepared to back that opinion up with well sourced arguments. More so when you are prompted to it several times on an article that is up for deletion. So my suggestion would be for you to reflect on this and next time
- spend a bit more time reading about whatever you are editing before you make your mind up
- answer in the correct format
- be prepared to justify your opinion, especially when prompted several times.
- I am sure you will agree, it’s not all about the number of edits you clock up, edit quality counts too. Georgeg 10:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Georgeg that Tellyaddict should "spend a bit more time reading about whatever you are editing before you make your mind up". He/she has recently reverted edits I made to British Rail Class 207, claiming that I had deleted text. In fact, I hadn't deleted text, just re-arranged it. 82.21.65.109 10:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your contributions to the Help Desk are very welcome. You are always very friendly. However, there is just one small nitpick that I have to make (I hope you won't mind): please note the difference between there and their! Other than that, good work! Adrian M. H. 13:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- I am particularly pleased with my contributions to UK Fire and rescue service articles, I have created a few articles such as Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service, Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service and about three others, (see my user page for more details). I'm also pleased with my contributions in fighting vandalism on wikipedia. Aswell as some daily contribs to WP:AFD, WP:TFD, WP:RFD, WP:MFD and WP:UCFD. I am also very pleased to have been appointed the position of 'Deputy Chief of UK Operations with two other users on WikiProject Fire Service.
- 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 don't think it counts as an edit conflict but I have had friendly discussions with Escaper7 before about the capitalisation of words on Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service, but that has ended and I admit I was in the wrong and that they did not need to be capitalised, I recently crrected them though.
Would there be an interest for more information on the Fire Retardant treatments applied on upholstery fabris in special or would this issue be too technical ? Aesopos 07:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Tellyaddict
Tellyaddict ( talk · contribs) Hi, although for the minute I'm not applying for an RFA (I'm going to in about June if I feel ready and if the wikipedia community trusts me for these extra editing tools), I am just requesting feedback on what people think of my contributions so I can improve myself and help Wikipedia even more. Please be honest about what you think as it will help me to improve. Telly addict 16:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Reviews
- You have an impressive number of user talk page edits, a healthy number in mainspace, but as I'm sure you're aware of, your Wikipedia space contribution is lacking. I'd work on that. Good luck. Xiner ( talk, email) 17:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- From your edit count it is obvious that your interest in editing wikipedia is high. You have demonstrated outstanding civility and your recent proposal for a wikipedia project similar to random smilies shows that you care about community-building, as well. As an editor who contributed for months to levels of thousands of edits, having never received a barnstar or even a virtual pat on the back, and reading everyone else's barnstars and editing awards, I realize that there was once something here that has dissipated. Your interest and involvement on that front can make a difference, IMHO. As for your edits; my only suggestions are a) You may want to consider policing your user talk page a little more... it is difficult to see who is saying what to whom, as sections are often filled with unindented, unsigned comments, and some sections contain orphan comments that have nothing to do with the section. You may consider enlisting HagermanBot to help with the signing. But you probably want more feedback on article namespace edits, so my only suggestion would be to begin using bulleted lists and charts when articles wind up being a long page of small sentences, each in its own section. It makes the page hard to read the former way. An example is Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service. But overall very good editing and excellent community stewardship. Jerry lavoie 23:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose I concur with the above reviewers in applauding your community-mindedness, as evidenced by your many talkspace contributions. I am generally of the opinion that it's none of my business to appraise the quality of your contibutions to Wikipedia's content, provided that they are in the direction of improvement and not in the opposite direction.
- You say you're not interested in requesting Adminship yet (I'll consider that thought a bit further below). What will mar your chances of being given the mop is your poor understanding of policy. If I may illustrate with a couple of examples:
- I choose this because I was watching the page when you made the edit. User warnings aren't like parking fines - you don't award one for every single bad edit. By my reckoning, Jackhaswell's edits were all in quick succession and should probably count as one act of vandalism for the purposes of the user warning escalator.
- But that's not the point. The Point is that however much vandalism a user is doing, you should only ever give one warning at a time: three at once is utterly pointless, because the offending user can only possibly see and react to them all at once. If you give one warning and then the user continues to vandalise, then you give another, because you can assume that the user has received the first warning and ignored it.
- If a user's vandalism is serious enough to warrant jumping up the scale, then use your judgment and apply a level-4 warning (or a higher level on whatever the scale-du-jour at WP:UW is). Doing as you did will only raise the eyebrows of the Admin who turns up to block a misbehaving editor.
- I choose this because my edit to this article immediately precedes yours (and the article was created by our friend, Jackhaswell). I confess that I find {{ Notability}} a bit pointless as a tag. It may as well be a Prod tag, in my opinion. But it exists in order to provoke editors into adding material to clarify/confirm notability. You'll notice that I actually removed material which I though was non-notable (at which point, the article ceased to offend my sensibilities, so I left it alone without further consideration of notability).
- The subject of that article is no more notable now that when it was full of cruft. Your use of the {{ Notability}} tag there doesn't seem to accord with WP:NOTE, or the way in which notability works in general.
- This diff, to a TfD discussion.
- I choose this one because I nominated it for deletion myself, but there are a few other examples among the many opinions you've given at XfD of your occasionally Zen talent for getting the wrong end of the stick.
- That template is an image copyright tag. It's designed to sit on the page of an uploaded image and give standard information about the copyright status of the image. Every single image on Wikipedia has one of these, many images have more than one. It's not a case of "theres no need for a big template to stuck across the article/image".
- This suggestion and the other one just above, that the WikiDefCon be increased to Level 1.
- All right, so the WikiDefCon is a bit of a laugh, and I've no good cause for complaining about yout earnest, repeated requests for it to go up a notch. But you too should remember that it's a not-entirely-serious gauge of vandal activity. You are not David Lightman and Going To DefCon One will not make the slightest difference to the quantity of vandalism or the quality of the eds' response to it.
- Lastly, I take issue with your 'roadmap' for Adminship. It's nice to have something to aim for, but on Wikipedia, I don't think Adminship is it. Being an Administrator isn't a prize or a medal, and it's not a step up or a step forward from being an ordinary editor - many users make countless thousands of edits but never become, or aspire to become, an Admin.
- The way I look at it, putting down 'RfA' in your diary for June is absurd. The only thing that will certainly change between now and then is your edit count; you may become more familiar with policy and you may find that you're forever making requests to Admins for intervention in a way that suggests that you need the mop yourself, but neither of those things is certain.
- All of which said, if you really want to be an Admin, then you're going about it the right way: the easiest response to the question they'll ask you at RfA ("What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?") is to point at a pedigree of 'vandal fighting' and claim that you need the ban-hammer.
- Your prolific contibutions to the community areas of Wikipedia are both a blessing and a curse. They'll have put you on the radar of the sort of eds who vote at RfAs, but they also expose the gaps in your policy knowledge. If I could make one recommendation to you, it would be to read more policy. It's easy: every time you see another editor cite a policy, go and read it. The flipside of my recommendation is that you should apply more policy too. Every time you give an opinion at XfD, or in a straw poll, you should cite which line of which policy you think applies.
- Best wishes. — mholland 19:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely convinced, that while your oppose at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Firefoxman was in good faith, that there was good reasoning behind it. That was a major case of editcountitis, and to ask 1,500 edits per month is quite outrageous, to be frank. I'm also not liking what Mholland has pointed out above about a "roadmap" for adminsip, have you read WP:ADMINNOT? Sorry if this review is totally negative, but I think it's points that could easily be used against you in a future RFA. – Chacor 16:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- My main criticism of you would be your case of editcountitis of mythic proportions. One doesn't need 10k and 3k mainspace edits to be a great admin, 2500 or so total is enough. Try focusing on the quality of edits.-- Wizardman 21:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Only one comment, which is that the Good Article review you wrote for Talk:Still Reigning basically missed the point of GA reviewing. The Land 18:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Comments
- View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
- Hi Tellyaddict, as you are after comments on your contributions, I feel obliged to give you some feeback on your recent entry here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantinos Makrides. I think that your opinion to delete (which was overwhelmingly rejected) was an opinion based on poor research on your behalf. It seems you did not analyse the subject or did not read WP:Bio well enough. That’s excusable for mere mortal wikipedians like myself, however for those few special ones who have (or seek) administrative status, I think it is not.
- KRBN, (the editor who nominated this article for deletion) has a track record for such rejected nominations. Please take a quick look at his previous nominations ( [1], [2], [3], [4] ) and you will see what I mean. He however, is not up for administrative status. On the other hand you express desire/intent to apply. And the rest of us expect administrators to represent the gold standard. I think you might just have taken KRBN’s word for this article not meeting WP:Bio.
- Your entry reads "Nominator seems to be correct, it does fail WP:BIO" however I had to ask 3 times to try and get a response from you as to “why” this was your opinion. Firstly you answered in the wrong format, messing up the sequence of entries and in the end you just didn’t provide an answer to the question posed. Don’t get me wrong, everyone is entitled to their opinion and I am not trying to lay into you, but you have to be prepared to back that opinion up with well sourced arguments. More so when you are prompted to it several times on an article that is up for deletion. So my suggestion would be for you to reflect on this and next time
- spend a bit more time reading about whatever you are editing before you make your mind up
- answer in the correct format
- be prepared to justify your opinion, especially when prompted several times.
- I am sure you will agree, it’s not all about the number of edits you clock up, edit quality counts too. Georgeg 10:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Georgeg that Tellyaddict should "spend a bit more time reading about whatever you are editing before you make your mind up". He/she has recently reverted edits I made to British Rail Class 207, claiming that I had deleted text. In fact, I hadn't deleted text, just re-arranged it. 82.21.65.109 10:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your contributions to the Help Desk are very welcome. You are always very friendly. However, there is just one small nitpick that I have to make (I hope you won't mind): please note the difference between there and their! Other than that, good work! Adrian M. H. 13:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- I am particularly pleased with my contributions to UK Fire and rescue service articles, I have created a few articles such as Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service, Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service and about three others, (see my user page for more details). I'm also pleased with my contributions in fighting vandalism on wikipedia. Aswell as some daily contribs to WP:AFD, WP:TFD, WP:RFD, WP:MFD and WP:UCFD. I am also very pleased to have been appointed the position of 'Deputy Chief of UK Operations with two other users on WikiProject Fire Service.
- 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 don't think it counts as an edit conflict but I have had friendly discussions with Escaper7 before about the capitalisation of words on Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service, but that has ended and I admit I was in the wrong and that they did not need to be capitalised, I recently crrected them though.
Would there be an interest for more information on the Fire Retardant treatments applied on upholstery fabris in special or would this issue be too technical ? Aesopos 07:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)