User:Adam1213/Improvements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Improvements that wikipedians feel I need to make

Instead of having a lot of reasons like wait 2-3 years on my RFA and reasons repeated and not put clearly I have decided to make a page where people can list things I need to improve on / prove I know.

[edit] Improve

  1. IRC is not Wikipedia. Writing an irc client doens't give you wikipoints ;) (this is an example, but it has deeper thoughts if you meditate on it)... -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Vandalfighting is not a guarantee nor a requisite for adminship (some admins don't even do RC patrol), so argumenting "I deserve admiship since I do RC patrol" holds awater and will backfire on you. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Edit more outside your userspace, you have many edits, but they are all on your pages, that doesn't count much sinc esome peopel see it as you don't have familiarity/experience with interaction with other users. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    #2 and #3 are important issues to me too, see my standards. NoSeptember talk 15:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. RC Patrolling is not a contest, vandals won't "win" anyway, that sounds a bit childish. The point here, is you need to be more careful with the way you express yourself, you may have good ideas and intentions, but your words are the only thing the others will see, so you need to use them wise and properly. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Make your sig more discreet. I know it is better than it was, but the large marjority of Wikipedians have regluar font/color sigs. Yours just screams immaturity to me. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    user:adam1213/Rfs what do you think it should be? --Adam1213 Talk + 15:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    Personally, I think a simple signature like mine would make it look nicer. I don't care either way, as I think it's currently okay, but... Ral315 (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Fix your grammar and spelling. I know it seems like a small issue, but the way you write says a lot about yourself. I have opposed other candidates before because of this. It seems like a small issue, but I don't want to see you dragged down in your next RfA because of this. (Protip: re-read your edits before you save them, I caught two errors (of mine) just in this edit.) -Greg Asche (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    I will also there still is one in yours you don’t end your brackets (not saying that I am not worse) --Adam1213 Talk + 15:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Understand that adminship isn't a shiny badge- it's a tool given to users who help out the Wiki. I waited nearly a year from my first edit until I was nominated, at which time I had over 1,000 article edits, and nearly 3,000 edits overall (more than is normally needed, but it's always good to have more.) While I know adminship is no big deal, and stress this regularly, I think that more vandalism-fighting, and more original edits would go a long way toward helping out the Wiki, and thereby giving you more credibility on RFA. (On a similar note, I would refuse any new RFAs for at least 3 months, probably closer to 6 months. This way, it doesn't seem like you're trying specifically for adminship.) Ral315 (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Try working on article-editing processes, rather than just vandal-fighting to have a more all-rounded experience on Wikipedia. - Mailer Diablo 18:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Think more about how your comments may appear to come across to people reading them (and I don't just mean for RFA). e.g From the RFA "and for now you should be in #wikipedia-en-vandalism2" comes across as either an order or suggesting that the other editor (me in that case) is somehow at fault. "Thanks for mentioning them you saved me the time of having to make a link (0.5 secs)", to me comes across as patronising. Also your response FreakOfNurture showed two things (1) you didn't understand Cynicals point and (2) was "attacking", sure people complain of editcountitis in RFAs but it's not such a great idea for the candidate to do so in such a direct manner --pgk(talk) 21:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. It's not a race, take your time and do things right (and this ties up a bit with the one above). e.g. "I was replying to so many things that I just forgot to sign some of them.", you acknowledge it isn't an excuse, but it seems to suggest you weren't being careful. --pgk(talk) 21:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Punctuation. I know this ties up with GregAsche's comment about spelling and grammar, but sometimes a lack of punctuation in your comments makes them ambiguous and difficult to understand. For example, and I quote you, "One oppose for edit count reason high one.... next its not that high oppose". You might be able to understand that, but it is difficult for others to understand the meaning of it on the first read. It needs rewording and the addition of commas to make it clearer. -- Daverocks (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Try and see the wood, and not the trees. Look at the bigger picture, rather than asking for specific points. Knowing when not to do something is just as important as doing stuff MartinRe 10:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

== Policy related == User:Adam1213/Policy

  1. As I said on your RFA, many of your policy beliefs are flawed. You should read over these again, and try to understand the meaning of them- why they were enacted, and when they should be used. If you have any questions about specific policies, I'd be happy to answer them. Ral315 (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    Why do you think that many of my policy beliefs are flawed? Please quiz me on my policy you would be suprised about how it is not flawed --Adam1213 Talk + 00:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    With all due respect, your beliefs as expressed on the questions on your RFA aren't necessarily correct. I'll take this to your talk page. Ral315 (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    Adam, you already have been quizzed on Wikipedia policy in the questions on your RfA, and your answers show your policy beliefs are flawed. Since this is the page to inform you about improvements you can make, I'll quote part of Ral315's comment here:
    "Being an administrator requires a knowledge of Wikipedia policy, which I don't believe Adam1213 has. His mention of "Google rankings" on question #6 about WP:CSD shows a fundamental misunderstanding about speedy deletion. His answer to question #9 shows that he doesn't understand consensus, a pivotal part of being an administrator. His answer to question #10 is horribly wrong- WP:IAR has many different interpretations, none of which fit with his." -- Daverocks (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doing well

  1. I agree with the comments others have made above, but I find your obvious love for the project and desire to serve the community to the best of your ability to be strong positives in your favour. I also respect your openness and willingness to listen to other's opinions about how you may be able to improve yourself. I feel this a very important quality for a prospective admin. Sarah Ewart 04:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)