Wikipedia:Editor review/Jguy

Jguy

Jguy (talk · contribs · count) Just want to see how I've been doing. I may be interested in submitting an RfA in the distant future, but for now, I just want to know if there's anything that other editors think I should be focusing on more than others? ^Jguy_Talk^Done 12:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
I make mostly grammar edits on Mainspace articles, but I also have been paying more attention to vandalism as well as enforcing some policies on Wikipedia. I have added just a few sources to articles that needed it, and am trying to get more into doing that.
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.
I remember my dispute over Jorja Fox's status on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. I used the policies on WP:V to make sure that Youtube or another unreliable source wasn't provided on the article, and that the source was properly obtained. After almost engaging in WP:3RR, I requested a page protection and that seemed to have solved the issue. In the future, I think I would handle the situation in the same way; it seemed to work and no other editors thought that it was wrong or maybe there was a different way to handle it. I'm always open for opinions, as I was still "new" to Wikipedia (and kinda still am) at the time of that dispute, so any other way I could have handled it, I'm open to critism, heck, that's why I'm here on WP:ER.

Reviews

Review by N5iln

The first thing I see is a very low edit count...282 total edits as I write this. That's not going to be enough activity to evaluate your total knowledge base regarding Wikipedia policies. Further, on your User page, you have a userbox that indicates you've been working on Wikipedia for eight months and six days (again, as I write this). If you're honestly considering submitting yourself for RfA, you're going to find a great deal of resistance just based on that comparatively short time on the project. That's not to say your RfA would not succeed; there's not really any specific "minimum" time spent as a member of the project prior to requesting adminship. But you would do far, far better if you waited another six to eight months.

Looking at your contributions, I see mostly gnomish work, which I applaud (I'm rather gnomish myself), and some countervandalism work, which I also applaud. Have you ever looked over any Articles for Deletion discussions? Or done any new-page patrolling? Those are areas which many will want to see experience in prior to supporting your RfA. Have you worked in any biographical articles? WP:BLP is huge to some, and one of the most strictly-applied policies in the entire Wikipedia project...and for good reasons. Again, you'll be asked to demonstrate (as opposed to just talking about) knowledge and experience in applying such policies before you'll be given the mop.

If you're truly offering yourself up for this review with an eye to opening your first RfA, my unvarnished advice is not to put yourself through that sawmill yet. Become more active in more areas, pick a small article where you have an interest and improve it to the point you're willing to submit it for good article review, and get involved in discussions on articles. The only way to get past any "lack of experience" argument at a RfA is by gaining experience.

Good luck in all your endeavors. Cheers, --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]