Wikipedia:Editor review/Colin Keigher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Colin Keigher (talk · contribs) I want to keep track of how I am doing on Wikipedia. There is no real purpose behind this besides wanting to know how I am doing, where I need to improve, and say what have you. Maybe "no purpose" may be incorrect here, but I just want to see what I am at now, and what avenue on WP I may be able to travel down in the future. One thing I have been jumping on to as of late is anti-vandalism, and so far I seem to enjoy it. I think that I may be a bit harsh and quick to jump on someone, but then again, I would like to hear what others have to say. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 05:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

[edit] Luna Santin's review

Looking over your recent contribs, I might suggest that you find access to one of the many counter-vandalism resources of the RC patrol -- VandalProof and the RC patrol script come very much in handy, and can greatly speed the process of reverting, warning, and reporting vandals to AIV. Which also brings us to the subject of warning vandals -- I haven't looked too much into this, but it looks like you revert more often than you warn. Some people try to keep a pretty much 1:1 ratio, but I don't warn on every revert, either-- just something to consider. You could also take the time to join a WikiProject, or have a stab at some of the massive backlogs. If you're interested, you could contribute a bit to any of the ongoing policy debates, perhaps through the village pump or Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, or even XfD discussions -- whatever strikes your fancy. I don't have too much experience with images, to be honest, but the body of work looks impressive to me. :) Luna Santin 18:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michaelas10's review

I will divide this editor review into each of the common categories:

Edit summary: Should be improved, you do seem to miss a lot of these. Note that edit summaries are always needed.

Edit count: Less than 1000 is considered low by most, more than 2000 edits is usually necessary for a successful RfA.

Activeness: No concerns here.

Article and edit qualities: You do some heavy template adding work. But instead of placing NPOV and expand templates on articles, you can pick a subject you like, research on it, read the help tutorials, and improve its Wikipedia coverage as much as you can. At least one featured article is usually needed for a successful RfA.

XfD involvment: You seem to be quite involved in AfD's, but a lot more is recommended.

Vandalism reverting: Increased a lot recently, but I suggest using a tool such as VandalProof for quicker and easier reverting.

Images: Nice job, you got some high quality photos there. Although non-free licensed images of yours, such as Image:Aelogo.jpg need a fair use rationale.

Civility: No concerns here.

Talk page: Please try to answer all of the comment in your talk page, especially ones that are questions. After all, you don't want to make users feel ignored, do you?

Edit discussing: Not quite enough, also please try to make your messeges longer.

RfA involvment: No involvment. This is usually needed to understand the common criteria for adminship, and might help your own RfA in the future.

FAC/FAR involvment: No involvment. This should help you understand the process and the criteria for featured articles, and might help you make one yourself.

Other Wikipedia namespace involvment: Minor involvment at administrator intervention against vandalism and the administrators' noticeboard but nothing exept that. Please try to be more involved at the help desk, village pump, requests for comment, peer review, and many others. You might even want to start your own WikiProject on a subject you like.

Overall: You are a good user. You have a lot of potential of becoming an admin some day, but until that day, you have to improve in each of the given criteria above.

Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

Questions

Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

I have been really pleased over the photos that I have submitted. Most of my photos are of locales that are local to me, and I have even taken photos while on vacation specifically for Wikipedia. Next in line might be pursuing vandals, but I think I still have more to work on that.
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 feel that maybe sometimes I may be a bit hot-headed, but unfortunately I am unable to recall anything off of the top of my head. I tend to forget the things that make me mad, and I feel that is a good thing. I know that some of my early AfDs were not the greatest, but I have since started to reform my actions and attempted to get a better understanding of the AfD process.
How do you feel about your Wikipedia experience or performance? Are there any particular areas in which you'd like advice or review? Luna Santin 18:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alan.ca Review

Questions

In a copyright dispute, if there is conflicting evidence of who holds a copyright, should the material be included if there release is only from one of the alleged holders?
Do you believe any editor should be permitted to revert changes on anoter user's talk page if that user chose to remove something?
How do you feel about informal mediation on the mediation cabal?

Before I respond to your questions, I'd like to point out to anyone reading that this sort of questioning is in reference to a copyright dispute that I have had little involvement in compared to this particular individual or anyone else for that matter.

1. In the case of copyright relating to a government property, it is wholly acceptable in my mind to leave the image there and just get the appropriate material. In the case you're referring to, you're not going to see the Prime Minister's Office going after us for using his image.

Actually, I wasn't referring to this specific instance. I am asking you if you lean towards removing or keeping content while a copyright dispute is taking place. Alan.ca 05:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

2. No. You were warned for violating WP:3RR, and therefore given the warning template on your talk page. By removing it not even a week later, you are effectively trying to masquerade your actions and trying to legitimize yourself in an inappropriate way. As I said in your talk page, it is best that you archive the warning and not delete it, claiming that it is "bullshit."

To clarify, even though you cite no wikipedia policy to support your position, you're stating that you have a right to judge what a user removes from their own talk page? Alan.ca 05:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

3. I have no problem with mediation cabal, but it all depends on the other parties.

Colin Keigher (Talk) 19:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)