Xenocidic (talk · contribs) I've been on Wikipedia for almost 2 years now, but the bulk of my activity has occurred in the last 5 months or so. I'm very active in the video game space (including the Xbox and VG wikiprojects) and also do work at Adopt-a-User (see my adoption subpage) and Disambiguation pages with links. I also love to create userboxes, though I know this doesn't really help encyclopedia building all that much. And then of course, there's the vandal-fighting. I mainly just want to get a gut check of how I'm doing, and where/whether I should diversify. I'll admit that sometimes I may appear somewhat fanboyish/biased towards the Xbox 360, for example, in the dispute over the order of platforms in the infobox. I'm working on that. xenocidic (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews
Balloonman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
I know that you are interested in becoming an admin, so I will try to give you the typical review that I might give somebody who was currently running for admin. At first glance, you look like you are definitely on the correct path. You appear to be involved with several areas where discussion occurs---Eg Wikipedia space and the Wikipedia Talk Space. I particularly like the fact that you are involved with the Village Pump. That is an area where you can differentiate yourself from others---especially if you establish a solid foot print there. I preach "foot prints" in adminly areas for people who want to run for RfA. You want people to see you as an admin and as a person who can have significant discussion on serious subjects. Your edits to Template and Images show at least a passing familiarity with those processes. You have a decent number of articles with significant contributions, that being said, you need to broaden your interest. Right now, your article edits are too focused in one area. You seem to be pretty solid with creating user boxes, but that being said you've gone a little overboard with userboxes. Your user page is a little too cluttered. Consider getting rid of some of the user boxes. That many and with as many that are goofy could hurt in an RfA. Consider using subpages to simplify your main user page. Eg, rather than having all of the user boxes you've created on the main user page, move them to a sub page. (I'll look at you some more tomorrow, I'm going to bed.)Balloonman (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2: 1) Your user page is hard to follow. This is personal preference, but it really makes reviewing a potential candidate much easier---I'd recommend responding on the page where the discussion originated. If somebody contacts you on your page, respond there. 2) You might want to diversify your edits, right now they are all in the video game arena. 3) I like that people come to you for help/advice. It is a sign of trust and respect---goes a long way in RfAs.

• Thank you for your comments. I've trimmed some userboxen from my main page, please let me know if you think further trimming is required. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 13:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I coulda sworn I had already replied to this (must not have committed the changes). By user page hard to follow, I assume you mean user talk page hard to follow. I do often refactor my replies made to others before I archive, but if you think it's best, I could reply in both places at the same time (I'm a fan of the orange box). I am looking at diversifying, probably starting with a proposed WP:VG/WP:MILHIST collaboration. Thanks again for your time. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob696 (talk · contribs)
I am a fairly new editor, but I know the difference between a good and an exceptional editor.Xenocidic is an exceptonal editor.Every time I ask for help, xenocidic is there.Every time I make a mistake, xenocidic fixes it and tells me how to prevent myself from making it again.Xenocidic has done amazing work with the adoption area, and makes some amazing edits. I'd nominate for Admin.... Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 17:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jacob, that means a lot! xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chrislk02 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Based on my recent interaction with you at CSD, my initial impressions are extremly positive. You appear to always be ready to accept constructive criticism and are not afraid to ask if you are unsure. These are characteristics I highly value in a contributor to this project. It looks like you are willing to do extra work intstead of taking the lazy way out, another plus. Based on a quick review of your edit counts, appears as though you are willing to engage in discourse and help sort out situations by your talk page contributions. Also, your WP space contributions look pretty good too. If you are looking to become an admin, my personal reccomendation would be wait 2-3 months. If you need any help or any questions in the mean time, or would like another opinion/potential nomination at some point, drop me a line by my page. Im always glad to help. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to write here, and again for your advice with the CSD issue. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 19:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
After a quick review, I'm impressed. Your work is good, your talk page is filled with people asking questions and thanking you. I think you should do an RFA in the near future. Useight (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a month or two, I might be willing to nom him... he needs a little more experience IMHO before he makes a run---six months is a minimum length. But yes, I can see a run being feasible in the not to distant future---eg late June/July.Balloonman (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC) He's only a few weeks away from 6 months... I went ahead and nom'ed him!Balloonman (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Support is in the bag for me. Rudget (Help?) 18:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your words of encouragement. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 18:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

Questions

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

   A lot of my work is somewhat behind the scenes and wiki-gnomish, but I think the most visible would be the overhaul I did to the articles Realtime Worlds and WeMix.com. I also completed a major overhaul of Adopt-a-user, in particular helped to reduce the backlog of those seeking adoption from over 120 down to zero. I do create articles whenever I'm the first on the scene with breaking news, as with Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X.. An overview of my contributions can be found at User:Xenocidic#Contributions.

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?

   I've been involved in some conflicts, but most of the time I try to resolve it with talk page resolutions, either directly with the editor, or on the talk page of the article. Sometimes I may have let my preference for the Xbox 360 somewhat colour my contributions as with the aforementioned platform infobox order conflict (it was my opinion that the order listed by the press release should be used, others inferred this was to preference the Xbox 360), this is something I'm seeking to avoid and have conceded to the "alphabetical" argument advanced by seemingly disinterested contributors. Fanboy conflicts like this I often take to the Video games wikiproject for a range of opinions. In the future, I think I will just steer clear of these conflicts altogether because they often tend towards lameness anyway.