Hello. I am Yuser31415, an experienced user on Wikipedia. I would like to know how I am doing, and what the community thinks of me.
A lot of my vandalism-fighting efforts are directed against IP spam, although sometimes I widen my goals. I have adopted two users through the Adopt-a-User program, and comment often on WP:ANI. I regularly close Articles for Deletion debates, but unfortunately not being an administrator I cannot delete articles which have gained consensus for that action.
I am planning on making another Request for Adminship in mid-February 2007, but before I do so I'd like some feedback.
You are a good contributor. I have two areas of concern (especially in view of what others might think): (1) I don't think mid-Feb is a good date especially as the last time was mid-Dec and it failed on grounds of inexperience. I'd suggest waiting till mid-March, as apart from other things, some might detect an over-eagerness. (2) I'd personally like to see you make more contributions to articles, images, content. This is an encyclopedia, after all and in recent months there has been concern about admins who don't really help build an encyclopedia through their conduct and single-minded taste for administrative issues. Contrary to being a position of authority, I like to think of admins as those who protect the flanks of the encyclopedia builders. Rama's arrow (3:16)15:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your points. I'd be happy to wait until mid-March, and, as you say, contribute to articles. There has been a lot of controversy over (2); some would argue that contributing to admin-related tasks is essential, and needs to be done to keep the place running; some would counterargument by saying that this is an encyclopedia, and articles should be first priority. I think a delicate balance between the two is best (and I agree, I'm quite overbalanced on the admin side of things, mainly because I enjoy doing such work more than article-related stuff). I will take both of your suggestions to heart, however. Cheers! Yuser31415(Editor review two!)20:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your enjoyment of adminship work is not a problem - I know many admins who are fine contributors simply because they keep things in order. Yes, all admins are important parts of this place, but this is an encyclopedia, which is not built by deletions, blocking, etc. A lot of it is just becoz this is an internet, free-for-all encyclopedia. I'd just like to see something from you that shows that you're active in your own way on the content-building. Its also beneficial to you, as whenever you may feel overwrought or getting carried away, think that being an administrator gives you an inch above others, losing your fundas while handling adminship, contributing pure content is very helpful and relaxing. Rama's arrow (3:16)16:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I Would just like to say that I made a link to Victory Supermarkets that was 100% accurate I used to work there and I know all of the facts. Every member in my family used to work there and I think that I was warned by Yuser31415 under false pre-tenses and I think that it is an outrage. MercCougXR7
I'm a bit concerned with your interpretations of the guidelines at the AfD for Kim Kardashian. You cited Ilikeit after several votes without much explanation of why. I'm not trying to hack on you, consider this fine-tuning advice, but seeing the response that Mer-c is getting at AfD you may want to consider how you are being perceived. Frankly I think that the Kim Kardashian piece is crap, but she does seem to make notability per the guidelines whether we like it or not. As an admin you will have to make decisions against your personal preferences. AfD is important to me, so how you have performed there will influence my vote in your RfA. I will certainly look further though. Good Luck! --Kevin Murray20:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also curious about the warning placed at user:AV8NLVR regarding his posting of his airports infromational link. The warning seemd harsh as a last warning, where I didn't see any prior warnings. I reviewed hsi site and found it to be interesting and not commercial in nature. I think that he is a dedicated hobbyist who is sharing his passion for airports with WP. Where is the harm. But, I'm not seeing the big picture. Is there more to the story? --Kevin Murray20:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was a little while ago now, but I believe I did so because the user was adding quite a few links (normally I play "better safe than sorry", issue a high-level warning, and remove it if they ask me why, or provide a reason that their links are not spam). It's a tactic I learnt from dealing with high-speed spammers (4 links per minute, for example). Yuser31415(Editor review two!)21:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yuser, it was two days ago. I understand what you were doing, but I think the term "ready, fire, aim" could be applied. But I looked though more of your work and I don't see anything else objectionable. You do a lot of editing and I only looked back a couple of days. To me AfD is a big thing, because I think that the standards being used presently are overly restrictive interpretations, due to a backlash against spam etc. Sadly a lot of good articles are getting lost and writters are becoming disillusioned. That's why I'd like to see more examples of your AfD stance prior to the RfA. Good Luck! --Kevin Murray00:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From my initial brief experience with this editor, seems to recognize simple mistakes, and responds well and politely to comments on the editor's talk page. So far a pleasure to work with! Ciao! Smee07:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
You really need to stop insisting that every page must present the creationist worldview. There are articles where that makes sense, but you're overdoing it. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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?
Short answer: No.
Longer, and more correct, answer: Yes, I do sometimes get into conflicts with other editors. I feel sometimes I've got to assume good faith more, especially when reverting "spam" or "vandalism". I have hit angry users when closing polls. I have disagreed over several conventions of WP:UN (basically I would prefer to disallow any names containing "God" or a name of a deity that could be offensive to any users). Sometimes I meet users who just plain don't know our Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and when asked to stop their actions post uncivil comments on either their or my talk page. Most of the time, however, I manage to reach an agreement with involved users.
A: When the NPOV policy states "... The article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source ...", I believe that it implies articles should not discount the opinions of a significant group of users, or a significant group of real-life people; how sizeable that opinion would be required to be in order to be called "significant" would be a matter of debate; I'd conclude that "significant" meant "having a noticeable effect" [1] in society or community. Yuser31415(Editor review two!)04:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
