Wikipedia:Editor review/Yasht101

Yasht101

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I left a message on your talk page and asked for review. While this may sound weird, it is because I just wanted to know that where I m going wrong and where I m strong. So that when I comeback on wiki after my retirement, I can do things in a right way

Yasht101 (talk · contribs · count) I am on this community from 1st Jan 2012. As most of the newcomers, I made many mistakes but have learned from them and now have become a good editor with 13K+ edits. I am an active new page patroller (96% success rate so far), article creater (230 till now), close AfDs, participate in RfAs, patroll recent changes (IP and newvies especially), create templates (50+) also, active in Adopt-a-user program and try to help anyone who asks for it. Specifically I made more then 4500 assessments for WikiProject India and still working Yasht101

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   My work is not focused in only one are. As stated in the intro; I m a new page patroller (96% success rate so far), article creater (230 till now and counting), close AfDs, participate in RfAs, patroll recent changes (IP and newvies especially), create templates (50+), do assessment work (5000+ so far)

3. 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 have never been in any dispute while editing. If i were in one, then i would first disscuss about it and if still it is not solved, i would seek an opinion of an experinced editor.

Reviews

Review by Σ

• The signature policy does not permit the usage of images in the signature. Please remove it, thank you. →Στc. 06:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

   Done Yasht101 07:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Review by OlEnglish

• A couple things. I've noticed in a lot of your talk page posts you make use of SMS texting contractions such as 'u' instead of you, or 'r' instead of 'are'. My advice would be to stop doing this if you want others to take you seriously and see you as a mature user. Also, I'm flattered that you've obviously been influenced by my userpage, and have no problem with others imitating its layout and design, but any wording I've written on it, including the "obsessed" comment at the very bottom, was meant to be original to my page, and not copied word-for-word. I'd appreciate it if you can modify yours. -- œ^™ 15:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  Okay, but most of the time, when I interect with my friends on wikipedia, I use SMS language. But I'll avoid it. And about your userpage, I m really sorry, but, I have never ever seen your userpage till today. I copied that comment from this user: User:Chitransh Gaurav, not from your. Yasht101 :) 01:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

   Done Yasht101 :) 01:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  Okay no problem. And I did not know about User:Chitransh Gaurav. It's okay, you both can use my userpage as a template, I don't mind. -- œ^™ 01:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Review by Yunshui I've rarely seen such enthusiasm in a new editor (not so new now, of course!), and it's very encouraging watching a newbie develop rapidly into a competent and experienced editor. Particularly noteworthy is your willingness to delve into every aspect of the project - most editors, myself included, tend to focus on just a few areas, but you've gotten involved in everything from adoption to anti-vandalism to article review to wikiproject creation to AfD to cleanup to article creation... it's good to see.

If anything, your greatest strength (the above tendancy to diversify your wiki-activity) is also your main weakness as an editor - because you spread yourself widely, it takes you more time to learn the nuances of a particular area. CSD is a good example; although your most recent CSD nominations have been largely accurate, much of your early work in this area showed a lack of knowledge of the appropriate policy. You might benefit from a little more focus when approaching part of the project you haven't worked in before; get some background reading under your belt before diving in. That said, don't take this to mean you have to curb your enthusiasm - just don't spread yourself too thin.

Like me, your editing is not especially article focused - your pie chart shows that most of your edits have been in userspace. Personally, I see no problem with this (as I said, I do the same), but it's important to realise that Wikipedia is, first-and-foremost, about encyclopedia-building. If you choose to go for adminship in a year or two (and if your editing continues on its current trajectory, you probably should) you'll need to show much more evidence of work in article space - RfAs are often shot down due to lack of evidence of such activity.

You've done a lot of article creation, tending towards stubs. In this area, you may want to try creating more substantial articles, and you should also consider adding additional sources (a lot of the articles you've created had only one or two sources at creation). You do seem to be writing about notable subjects, but you may be required to prove it at some point!

Your interactions with other editors have been generally constructive (you've not gotten into any fights as far as I can tell), and you do have the endearing tendancy to accept advice from more experienced users, which is not as common a trait as you might think. Certainly I've always found you to be polite and considerate in our interactions. I do second OlEnglish's comment about text-speak, though; us curmugeonly older users don't like it!

Overall, you're a real asset to the project, and you're learning and improving fast. Good work. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That is the best review I can probbably get. Thanks for seeking time and writing all that for me. It is the replication lag that is causing the difference of 1 week because in 1 week i have got 1,200 edits. In the first 5 days of the week, every edit was in articles. But since last 2 days, i have been involved in WikiProject India and I made 600+ assessments so certainly my edits on talk pages of articles will increase a lot. To detoriate it, I created Wikipedia:Wikipedia for World Heritage and few more templates. I also became active in RfA voting so article ratio again decreases.

Once the asssessment contest ends on 1st May, I feel that I want to get involved in WikiProject Wikification. It will help me recover and will make my pie chart for article of about 40 or 50 %

I dont desire to be admin. But it will not refrain me from going for it. I have seen many unsuccessful RfAs and I m learning from it and trying to overcome all the mistakes done by those editors. Yasht101 :) 00:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Review by SupernovaExplosion

You are doing a good job in improving the encyclopedia. But I have a minor concern. After reviewing the articles you created, I'm a bit concerned whether you are familiar with policies and guidelines, particularly the notability policy. You are quite a new user, so I'll suggest you to go through WP:N carefully. Happy editing! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your review. Though, i replied to talk message, I did create those articles 10 days back and then became active in WikiProject India. There is a contest so it attracted me. I m on the 5th position currently. Anyways, I didnt modify those articles since I created.

Now, I was thinking to wikify them by adding names of Presidents, V.prez, GS, S, the year in which they were formed, their controvercies, problems, their rule in their respective state, etc., which will lead to cover the 'N' issue.

Again thanks for leaving the review Yasht101 :) 13:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Review by MikeLynch

• While I like a communicative editor, I fear you might be a bit too communicative ;) . A whopping 35% (nearly) edits are to userspace, something that isn't bad by itself, but one would wish you spent that time writing on the encyclopedia instead. A note about RfA: I'd like to comment on some of the stuff you wrote on User:AshLin's talk page here. RfA isn't some IIT-JEE or AIEEE exam that you're going to write after you pile up XYZ edits; nor do you have to be ABC years to become an admin. All that people ask for in a candidate is maturity, and as long as that is there, it really doesn't matter if you're 13 or 30. Honestly speaking, adminship isn't all that "cool"; so don't overly concentrate on making your "RfA profile" stronger. So, comments like "It will help me recover and will make my pie chart for article of about 40 or 50 %" above aren't really cool. I appreciate your article contributions; some of them are really nice. Overall, you're doing great (don't let the negative-ish comments from me above bog you down!). Keep up the good work. Lynch7 13:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this. The comment that i left on Ashwin Sir's page was before few days. Now, I nomore wish to be a admin. Also, the edit counts of mine which can be seen are different due to replication lag. There are 2200 approx. edits seen. But at present, I have 4700+ edits. So, the scene is different. I got into Wikipedia:Wikipedia for World Heritage and Tag and Assess 2012 contest. I also created templates, participated in RfA, etc. Anyways, thanks for pointing out my mistakes. I always want to improve myself. Yasht101 :) 13:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Note to MikeLynch This user provides invaluable coaching advice to servral adopted users so a higher Talk Page activity is a positive factor of community contribution. Thanks Yasht101 for all the help and support. BO; talk 16:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Review by Rsrikanth05

I believe that I should've been the first to review this, but unfortunately, had a lot of other things at hand. So here goes. As an editor, you are doing good. You have shown excellent signs of understanding policies for someone who's barely been here for ~3-4 months. You're edits to the article space is good. I suggest you also, take part in Talk Page discussions, ask questions about discrepancies etc. Spend more time on articles. Try some vandal fighting. use the Recent Changes page more often. After a while, request for Rollback rights, and you can use Mainstream tools like Huggle, etc. Be more productive, and increase your value here [I'm not implying you have no value. You have a lot and you should focus on increasing it]. Avoid User talk pages unless it's an urgent matter. Don't turn them into Chat logs, focus less on them. Not many users may take them lightly like I do, some may hand out warnings. So be careful on that front. I'm not saying avoid User Talk, but limit your use their. This is not a Social network. Apart from this, I won't say much. Your contributions to the Tag and Assess 2012 Contest at WikiProject India is excellent, hope to see your contributions there double. Good luck with your editing and enjoy. [This is NOT an April Fool's Day Joke]. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the kind words and advise. I m following everything that you stated except article work. I know, it is important as i only have 25 % edits in articles. Anyhow, once the contest ends, I m going to start work for wikification project. Again thanks! Yasht101 :) 10:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Review by AndieM

I've bumped into you quite a few times on WP, but the most important one must be when you told me I had tagged an article for speedy deletion under the wrong criterion earlier today. I thank you for the feedback and for keeping me in check (I've had my account longer than you've had yours ;) ). You've done a lot for the project in 4 months! AndieM (Am I behaving?) 11:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes! You are senior to me Sir Madam ;)

I have also seen your sign few times, but didn't got chance to interact and when I got, I informed you.

I have been active a lot, 9,000 edits almost in 4 months and most of them for WP IND. Thanks for the kind words :) Yasht101 12:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for correcting the mistake. I m not good at grammer ;D Yasht101 12:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

In real life it looks like I'm younger than you - and I'm a girl by the way :P I hope I see you still contributing actively to WP! AndieM (Am I behaving?) 12:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry miss, I didn't knew that and yea, I m gonna stay for long time. :) Yasht101 12:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Review by hf24 I'm going to go straight to the point. From an RfA oppose you've just commented on, you seem to take "edit count" as a "very important factor" – it shouldn't be (though that page is intended as humorous, it basically gives you an outline of why it shouldn't, as the number of edits you make doesn't matter, it's the quality of those edits that matter. Secondly, I take that you're a (sorry) "admin wannabe"...like it's your WP-goal to, er, gain power...after all, it's no big deal. I have some concerns about your comprehension of English. Though it isn't a serious barrier, you should take into account that the fact that you might have misinterpreted their message might confuse them too...

Two last things – I took a look at a few of your articles on your userpage, and they aren't of great quality. Some are tagged for referencing and cleanup, others for other issues. It would look better upon yourself to clean up them as you work on WP. The other thing is that there are some problems with your CSD tagging...for example, you tagged Quolowardia-The Novel as A7, but it doesn't apply for books, which is also a mistake you made here. Hamakula clearly gave content enough to satisfy A1, since you can identify the subject; and A7 wouldn't work, as it doesn't apply to words.

Hope this helps.

Cheers, hf24 15:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I have little problems with CSDs as my success rate is 93%. And sorry if you are mistaken, but edit count does not matter much to me. It is the experience that speaks during RfAs. Because I have seen editors with 20K+ edits loosing and on the other side, an editor with just 3K+ edits getting mop. And again no. I don't have any intention to get power (at least not in wiki). I have stated earlier to my wiki friends that I don't have any intentions to run for adminship till next 3 years (i.e., till I have my school life on). About the articles, I know they are bad. So I have started to improve them in a bunch. I'll do 10 each day. The article look bad as at the time I wrote them, my understanding about wiki wasn't good at all. Even now it isn't perfect, in fact not even close to it ;) Yasht101 03:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Review by Kelapstick

I am going to try to keep this short and sweet (well short anyway) Pros:

• Prolific editor
• Helpful
• Takes constructive criticism well
• Plays well with others
• Your user and talk page are much better than they were (no offence intended, but I used to think it looked like a rainbow threw up)

Issues:

• A little MySpacey, although not enough to be disruptive, I'm just not a fan of using Wikipedia to notify your mates that they have mail or Facebook sort of things, which I have seen a fair bit of. But as I said, not enough to be disruptive.
• Not a fan of editing your CSD log when articles are recreated as valid topics. Note that I didn't see anything that indicates that you removed them when they were declined, so I am not suggesting any wrong doing, I'm just not a fan. Part of CSD is to consider if it is a notable topic or not, not just see if the article in its present state fits the bill. If it isn't formally, it should be.
• Your April Fools Day RfA was over the top. I don't know if I mentioned it at the time (although I have talked to you about it on another topic), but RfAs are not a fun process, and the RfA process being jammed with 6-7 joke RfAs at the same time as somebody's genuine one is closing does not help the process for them. I know that you were not the only one involved, but in my mind, RfAs are not a place to go joking, regardless of the day of the year.
• I saw a week or so ago you were contemplating nominating someone for Admin, even though a while ago you were told that it would be a bad idea for you to do it. In my opinion, you are not ready to nominate someone for admin, and participating in RfA discussions does not mean that you fully understand the requirements, or what will make a good administrator.
• You have been here since January and are adopting users, I don't think that is a long enough time, regardless of the number of edits you may have, it takes time to understand the policies and procedures here, and where they came from.

All in all Yash, you do good work, are a great benefit to the project, are very helpful, listen to others, and I am glad you are around. You just need to gear down a bit, don't participate in every discussion that you see, and you don't have to give your opinion on everything. I guess this isn't as short as I had said it would be...--kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Review by Worm That Turned

Hi Yasht. Firstly, can I say it's a great thing to be able to seek feedback and take it as constructive. It's something that editors and people in general should do more of. I must commend you for your enthusiasm, you've made more edits in April than most editors ever make (indeed, it was more than I made in my first 2-3 years of editing). I'm also very impressed with the positive approach you take to life, offering friendship, positive comments and generally offering support.

Having said that, I have a points I would like to make in the review. I'll talk about my gut feelings first of all, primarily because I thought it'd be interesting for you, what impression you leave - my initial gut feelings are often wrong and are in no way binding... I change them all the time. So, my first impression is that of an editor who doesn't quite understand the mentality of the encyclopedia, where we value quality over quantity. For example, you've made nearly 4750 edits to article talk pages, yet never made more than 6 to any single talk page. I guessed you do a lot of wikiproject assessments, which is a good thing, but I can't believe you're actually assessing them - on 2 May, between 14:17 UTC and 14:35 UTC (18 minutes) you assessed 41 articles, all as start class, low importance. In doing so, you are effectively calling a three line stub, Raichur Airport equivalent to the long article (with aparent copyvios) Kabir Project. Most the articles appear to be either copyvios, unsourced, poorly written / formatted or non notable, and I think if you'd spent those 18 minutes fixing up 2 of those articles, it'd be much better for the encyclopedia.

Next, there's the fact that you do seem to spend a lot of time... wasting time. Wikifriends, wikilove, humour and so on all have their place, but it does appear you've taken it a long way. For example, your RfA on April fools day was the 5th in a row... the joke had long since passed. And whilst talking about RfA, I'm not certain about your criteria - I know that everyone has the right to their own opinion, but I've seen you talking about nominating editors who I'd already explained were not likely to pass an RfA. I can understand you have your own opinions on who would make a good admin, but exposing some of these editors to RfA would almost be cruel, they would face undue levels of criticism and have little chance of passing. I won't go into names here, but if you want to email me, I can give you more information about that. Basically, looking at your RfA criteria, the only point is essential is 8 (and possibly 7), the rest are good to have.

Coming now to adoption, I'm glad to see that you're adopting editors, we need more people doing this, there's a backlog and the adopt-a-user program is languishing at the moment. My only advice there is to remember that almost no one is as active as you are, and giving people a 2 day deadline to get something done isn't a great idea. We're all volunteers here, and doing as much or as little as we like is quite an important part of that.

There's a few other points... if you have time...

• Your userpage is exhausting, a mishmash of images userboxes and too many colours. It's not somewhere I'd look at for long as it's likely to give me a headache
• You appear to be slightly hat collecting, keen to put your rights in userboxes, thinking about adminship and so on. (Talking about "deserving adminship" is a product of this)
• You don't appear to have done much in the way of content creation - editing, yes, but not creation. It'd be good if you could take some articles to a point where it's reviewed by your peers, such as a few DYKs or a couple of GAs.
• Nearly 40% of your edits are to Talk space. Since your work there is on the periphary (tagging), it looks like you might be suffering slightly with WP:EDITCOUNTIS.

Overall, I think you're doing a great job, but there are areas you could improve. If there's anything you want to talk about privately, feel free to email me, otherwise, I'm happy to expand here. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Review by Anna Frodesiak

For the next year, a little more listen and learn. A bit less teach and tell. Stay in the mainspace and produce. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Review by Bmusician

Hi Yash. As I said before, you are one of Wikipedia's most helpful young editors. Your work primarily consists of good CSD tags and good recent-changes patrolling. I echo the reviewers above that you are just a little bit too MySpacey, although you're nowhere near being disruptive. Although it's not an issue at all - just treat Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and not a social network. I also see that you're new to the AFD process, and have done some non-controversial closures. However, I am concerned about this closure - in which there were only three keep !votes against two endorsing deletion. That closure would definitely cause controversy. The keep !votes were all WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSNOTABLE !votes: they are not supported by policy and are basically "arguments without arguments". If the !votes were to be policy-based and were actual arguments, closing as keep would be fine. I have closed AFD's for half a year already, so please contact me if you need help regarding this area. I hope that helped. →Bmusician 12:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Review by Catfish Jim and the soapdish

One thing you cannot be faulted on is your enthusiasm. By and large, your editing is good and you are a net positive to the project. However, I wish you'd slow down a bit as some of your tagging is a bit sloppy. CSD tagging is, on the whole, good. I like the fact that you keep a CSD log, but it might be an idea to revisit pages that you have tagged to see if your accuracy is really as good as you think it is. For example, 你年青又見識廣闊，懂得又多 is a page that you tagged as CSD-A7. It was speedily deleted (by myself) but the subject was not covered by A7, so technically it was an inaccurate tagging. I also echo comments made above about removing items from the log when they are declined. I would be far more impressed if I was looking through the log, say, if and when you were a candidate for adminship, if you kept declined items there with an explanation as to why they were declined.

Also, you are occasionally a bit "bitey" with other editors (particularly IP editors... I recommend you read Wikipedia:IPs are human too) and a bit careless with warning templates. We already had a discussion about this on your talkpage. Another example would be here where you removed some information an IP editor had placed on Jabalpur Airport about public transport available at the airport, then gave him a level 1 warning for making a test edit... the same editor added the information again, and you gave him a level 2 warning for removal of content. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Review by pjoef

Divina natura dedit agros, ars humana aedificavit urbes
"Divine nature gave the fields, human art built the cities" —Marcus Terentius Varro, De re rustica 3:1 (37 a.C.)

13000+ edits in about four months is a remarkable number. On the contrary 1000+ deleted edits, circa 3000 edits in the user talk space, and 2200+ (18%) edits in the article/main namespace are not very good. Your major and minor edits on Ahmedabad, Arjun Modhwadia, Badruddin Shaikh, Anil Kumble, Green Day, Dvora Bochman, Asit Vora articles (at first sight) are valuable contributions. Wikipedia is a community, you know: "Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing." —Jimbo Wales, 20 December 2006 ... and it seems that you are playing this perfectly. 230 new articles created is also a good result, but most of them, if not all, seem to be stubs. Probably it would be better if you could work more on your sandboxes, before presenting new articles as stub (in my —humble— opinion start-class is a decent entry level for new articles, and this will allow you to submit new pages for the Did you know? template featured on the main/entry page of the English Wikipedia, which is not a small thing nor so bad.) I also agree with Catfish Jim's recommendation above about IPs. We need to encourage people to contribute to WIkipedia, even when they make errors, and not the contrary (please, read: Revert only when necessary when you have time). Happy editing! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 18:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Review by Peridon.

1. Take note of Anna's comment somewhere up above. 2. Calm down. You are doing some excellent work, but you are also rushing around like a blue-arsed fly at times. You will probably make a good admin one day, but that shouldn't be an aim. Consolidate what you have been learning - which is a heck of a lot more than I had after so short a time. I won't say stop teaching newbies - but make absolutely certain that you are teaching them the right way of doing things. Re-read the policy before you post. 3. Keep on monitoring (not only me...) and querying gently - I was very pleased when you pointed out that I seemed to have deleted something under CSD A11. (For the benefit of others, I hadn't in fact. There was a mistake in a db-multiple which didn't show on the displayed template, but did in the delete reasons you see when clicking on the link to a former article.) 4. Keep up content work when possible - but be careful about correcting things for reasons of wording or grammar. 5. For a change, visit Random Articles. Interesting things can turn up, as RichardOSmith recently found out when he got Tillery as a random. There is probably quite a load of crap in here - and stuff that needs referencing, despamming carefully, tagging, and so on. But no-one sees it until someone from the unfriendly side of the press finds it by accident and just loves it.. 6. Calm down. OK? 8-) Peridon (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Review by DBigXray

Well others have already said pretty much, I am glad as i dont need to repeat. You are very helpful and a lot of us have already acknowledged this. Take care not to introduce bare link as refs (beware of linkrot ;)) will suggest you take your time before you jump in for an RFA, experience is very much needed specially in your case. try spending some time and participating at wp:DRN and wp:ANI disscussions that's a good place to learn. [P.S] I will keep crapping your talk page with more of my unasked advices -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 00:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

“ Thank you friend for taking out time for this. Now I know that what m I supposed to do when I return on wiki. I m sorry if I wasted your time. And thanks again. ”

Yasht101 04:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.