Wikipedia:Editor review/Ling.Nut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Ling.Nut

Ling.Nut (talk • contribs) I have been contibuting since 6 August 2006, and know I am far from ready for the mop. I need time lurking/contributing to WP:AN, WP:AN/I, and watching how admins handle blocks etc. But I'd like feedback on where I've been so far, and where I should be improving in the future. Ling.Nut 03:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Comments

  • Positive: Ling.Nut has been the first person in a while to try to move Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups out of the comfortable rut it had settled into, and he's been doing great work there.
  • Positive: Tenacious. Follows things through.
  • Negative: his remarks can, at times, be cryptic: he'll reply after a few days to something on a different page, and not put a link to the context of what he's talking about. (The negative here is much smaller than the positives, and he has always been totally cooperative when I've asked for clarifications. Still, probably something to work on.)
  • In any case, someone who is clearly off to a good start and who I expect will be an excellent contributor. - Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Answer
    1. Actually, almost all of them
    2. Taiwanese aborigines has been my pet project for a while.
    3. Wikipedia talk:Schools. I dunno if my position is popular, but I feel I'm helping Wikipedia evaluate itself.
    4. Setting up the Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Adopting disambiguation pages for the same reason above (minus concerns about popularity).
    5. Making templates is rewarding (see my user page), and so are various wikignome tasks.
    6. I loved setting up the Ethnic groups assessment and importance ratings system.
    7. My current project is a new WikiProject:
NEW INFO added. --Ling.Nut 15:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. 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?
    Answer
    1. Nothing serious, but one very embarrassing exchange. Actually, this gaffe helped me tremendously. I really began to reevaluate myself in the light of Wikipedia's practices.

--Ling.Nut 04:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • NEW INFO ADDED (but read below for complaints from a contributor)--Ling.Nut 15:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. What is your main reason to reject somebody's edits by reverting it? I found your revert of my edit: [1] is very unreasonable. Why? Is it because the article is yours? There's no such article owned by a user. Yes, we can talk about it in the talk page (as you mentioned in your edit summary and a message in my user talk), but don't you think it is very uncivil to revert first then talk? My edit is clearly not a vandalism. I found the article in GA nomination page and I'm one of a GA reviewers. I found the lead section before my edit were full of weasel words, redundancies, missing commas and some inexact terms of time. I was just trying to help the article to have clear grasp meaning of lead section. I didn't add anything, just a copyedit. As a result, it was just reverted. — Indon (reply) — 16:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Indon,
I appreciate your concerns. I replied on my talk page and yours, saying that I appreciate your contribution. There were simply a large number of changes, and as I made clear in the edit summary and on both our talk pages, I reverted simply because I would like for you and I to sort them out together, one by one one or in small related groups, on the article's talk page. I hope we can sort these out together... Thanks! --Ling.Nut 17:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
You said: "I reverted simply because I would like for you and I to sort them out together". That's not a good way to ask somebody for a discussion. By reverting first before talking, I don't think I'd like to sort them out with you together. Not to somebody else either. It has shown to me that you're not a cooperative person. Honestly, I don't have any interests in that article, just a copyedit help. So I don't want to push my edits to be in your "pet" article. — Indon (reply) — 17:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry that my reversion of your edit offended you. It may have seemed like a drastic move. I tried to compensate for that by explaining clearly my reasons for reverting, and leaving several doors open (in several different forums) for us to discuss things further. If you decide not to contribute further to Taiwanese aborigines, I will regret the loss of your input, but I will repsect your decision.
  • Best regards, --Ling.Nut 19:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Review by tjstrf
For being here a mere 4 months, you've certainly done quite a bit. Your main article space contributions are excellent. A lot of them are AWB edits, but your writing in the non-automated contributions shows a dedication to referenced content. (There's nothing wrong with AWB edits, by the way, they are just occasionally frowned upon in Requests for Adminship because of their tendency to bloat your edit count.) Your reference standardization templates look similarly helpful.
With regards to Wikipedia talk:Schools, since you explicitly mentioned it, I'd have to say that the discussion seems to grow more and more polarized the longer that page goes on... not a good sign. You and the other contributors should probably have tried requesting wider input rather than rehashing the same arguments at a higher emotional pitch with the same people. Not becoming too emotionally involved in the subject matter is a must if one wishes to have productive debates. I can't find any other significant disputes you've participated in, so it may have simply been a single instance.
The biggest hurdle you'll probably need to get over if you wished to become an administrator would be making policy-related contributions to prove you understand how the Wikipedia policies work. You have a little bit of XfD participation but I don't see any contributions to other policy venues such as Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or the policy talk pages themselves.
In summary, you are an excellent contributor and have done a lot for your favorite projects. However, your general understanding of policy is difficult to judge based on your contributions, which would stand against you in a potential RfA. If you were to stand for election in a couple months with more policy-related edits you could probably pass quite easily. --tjstrf talk 23:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/i/Wikipedia%7EEditor_review_Ling.Nut_7b51.html"