Wikipedia:Editor review/AstroHurricane001 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] AstroHurricane001

AstroHurricane001 (talk ยท contribs) Well, it's been over a year since my last editor review, so I'm requesting a new one. Sorry if I'm adding to the backlog. Anyway, I signed up over a year ago, and have over 3500 edits. I may want to request adminship within the next few months, but I'd also like some advice on what I should do around here before I'm ready. I have unfortuneately put off some of the things I've meant to do on Wikipedia, such as finish the articles I'm currently editing, as well as updating my userboxes and archiving my talkpage. I'd also like to know which area of Wiki I should focus on. I also have accounts on many other wikis, and those are accesible from my userpage. ~AH1(TCU) 21:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: now over 4000 edits, close to 4500. ~AH1(TCU) 01:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Update: now over 4900 edits, close to 5000, almost 1000 this month. ~AH1(TCU) 22:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Review by delldot
 Hi AH1! Some thoughts:

  • I'm impressed by your 60 articles, that's a lot more than I've started, stubs included! Of course the more fleshed out they are the better.
  • That's awesome that you have such a diverse array of contributions. Since you asked for advice on what to participate in, I'd say continue with your great mainspace work, expanding and improving articles. It makes sense to me to do that since not everyone is skilled at that or has the particular knowledge needed for the areas you work in, whereas other tasks, like dab link repair or categorizing, don't require as much skill. You didn't mention getting any articles up to GA or FA status in your exhaustive answer to Q1, so I assume you haven't tried that. What do you think about having a go at it?
  • I had a look at Charlie Redstar to get a sense of your article writing. I noticed some copyediting issues, like switching from singular to plural when talking about the subject, and some more serious issues like a lack of inline citations (from a look at some of your other articles I think you may need to be adding more inline citations in a lot of places). I also thought there might be trouble with representing the sightings in an unbiased way, which referencing might help with. Instead of saying "this was sighted here", you could discuss the coverage of it in reliable sources, which would make it less like the article was making a statement about whether these sightings really occurred. For example, take this sentence: April 3, 1976, near Sperling, Manitoba - At around 8 pm, an orange ball of light suddenly appeared over a bridge, about 5 feet wide. I feel like it would be better to say who reported that that happened, rather than to just make the universal claim that it did in fact occur. I also noticed a couple MOS issues, which, while not at all a big deal, might suggest that you could improve your article work by looking through the MOS again. (e.g. numbers and units should be separated with a non-breaking space ( ) so the units don't show up by themselves on the next line. See WP:NBSP.)
  • You mentioned two of your articles got prodded. Which ones? What do you think was the reason? Do you agree with it? I think here, again, use of extensive referencing would really help establish that your articles belong on Wikipedia. In fact, I think this is so important that it's what I recommend focusing your efforts on for the next little while: add sources to articles you care about, either ones you've started or whatever articles you'd like to focus on (since you asked and all; certainly no need to feel overly pressured by me). I think this is such a key aspect of the project that it's important that you understand referencing and what counts as a reliable source before attempting an RfA. I see hints from your talk page and its archives that you may not be totally clear on what constitutes a reliable source. Can you put my mind at rest by briefly explaining what types of publications you consider to be reliable? (Actually, looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silverton Goatman, I get the impression that you do have a good understanding of this)
  • I wouldn't go so far as to say you shouldn't participate in the more peripheral aspects of the project such as humorous essays, but you can see how I might feel that your time is more valuable spent on more central aspects of the project, right? What do you mean in your answer to Q2 that you don't like "when an article gets deleted because it's funny"? I guess this kind of makes me question your understanding of the goals of the project. Can you clarify that for me, and maybe explain what you see as the most important aspects of articles in the mainspace?
  • I noticed you mentioned your edit count a few times. While that's no big deal, certainly not a problem, I also think it's good to acknowledge that we shouldn't be putting too much stock in edit count. I think with the advent of huggle, edit count is even less of a big deal, since a person with a lot of time on their hands can make 1,000 edits in a day. Indeed, that's one reason I think huggle is cool: edit count has never been a good way to judge a user's value, but huggle just further annihilates the idea that it could be useful.
  • I see no evidence of conflict from your talk page or the archives I've looked at! I don't see a great deal of interaction with other users, which is neither a bad thing nor a good thing, just an observation. I didn't get a good sense of how you handle conflict, though, perhaps you could provide me with a diff showing some of the conflict you mentioned in Q2?

Great job with the bulk of your work on the project, you've been involved in a very diverse array of stuff! I encourage you to work on improving and expanding articles, and look forward to seeing what you can do when you go in-depth into an article. I would recommend waiting on RfA until you've been able to demonstrate more clearly a solid understanding of the basic requirements for articles and the features that make them especially good (one good way to do this is to improve them yourself, though your other work, for example that at AfD, is also a way to show this). Definitely give me a holler if you need any advice or clarification, I'm always glad to help, and I think it's a good idea for ER to be a dialog, don't you? delldot on a public computer talk 08:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Replies
Replies to your response here:

  • Sure, participate in DYK if you want! But don't expect to get a lot of feedback on articles that way, they seem to tend to approve them if they meet the very basic length and reference requirements. Also, I think you should focus on improving the articles you have made (though you may be able to DYK some of the stubs if you expand them significantly).
  • I want to re-emphacize the importance of having multiple, reliable, independent sources for an article. The bio of an individual on the website of the company they work for is absolutely not a reliable independent source. If there is nothing more published about them than that they are simply not notable and the material is not verifiable. Be sure before creating an article that there are multiple pieces from sources independent of the subject (i.e. from a publication they're not involved in, so do you see how the site of the company they work for would not qualify?). I strongly recommend that you look back through each article you have started and evaluate whether reliable, independent sources exist for each one. If you decide that they do not, you should get them deleted (A7 would work if you're the only significant contributor, otherwise prod or AfD). This will show your integrity and humility, as well as demonstrating that you hold the interests of the project above your own and that you and your understanding of the project have truly grown. I do understand that a lot of this is already in your past, but I still recommend a thorough check of what you've created. No one will hold it against you, check this out.
  • If you used a book as a source, e.g. in Charlie Redstar, cite the book, multiple times if you have to. You can use {{cite book}} for ease.
  • Excellent job adding references to 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Too bad many of them are not in English, having them in English makes them much easier to check and verify. Otherwise great work!
  • For the plot of a book, it's understood that the book itself is the reference. Yes, the plot summary of Cryptid Hunters is too long, can you cut it down and remove excess detail? Also, the article should involve more about the book than just a plot summary (e.g. reception. Look at featured articles on books for guidence).
  • For user interaction, I mainly just looked at your current talk page and one archive. I could have been wrong in my impression that you don't do much interacting.
  • I applaud your actions with Wheely Willy Guy, it's very very important to protect newbies from being bitten. I can certainly understand why someone would jump to the wrong conclusion there, it's a big cooincidence. But I'm very glad to see that you're looking out for the newbies.
  • AfDs, PRODs, AIV, XfD, RfD, CSD etc all need more participation, but I don't recommend doing it for the sake of doing it, or having it on your record. Just focus on doing what you think will be the greatest benefit to the project. On the other hand, participating in those areas can improve your understanding of content policies.

I have this page watchlisted, reply here so we can keep the thread together, gimme a poke if I miss it for some reason. delldot on a public computer talk 01:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Well, as I've said, I've had over 3500 edits on the English Wikipedia alone. I've created about 60 articles, although only a few of them have gotten beyond stub status. I also have a few hundred edits on other wikis, including the French, Chinese, and Simple English Wikipedias, Wikinews, Wiktionary, Hurricanes Wikia, as well as Wikibooks, Wikispecies, Wikimedia Commons, and WikiHow. You can also check my contributions if you wish, as there are likely many to which I will forget to mention. I've reverted vandalism hundreds of times and am a rollbacker. I've created articles about many different subjects, including newly discovered animals, The Weather Network broadcasters, fiction books, Caldwell objects, meterological phenomena, among others. I've also created a few requested articles. I frequently help out on the reference desk, especially the Science reference desk. I've also participated on the AfD, HelpDesk, Administrators' noticeboard and incidents, AIV, RfAs, Wikiholism test, RFPP, warning innapropriate usernames, placing warnings on vandals' talkpages, Motto of the Day, Wikiproject talk pages, and others. I'm a participant in about half a dozen WikiProjects, and have created one (WikiProject Dinotopia), although I recently haven't been very active in them. I've uploaded several images to improve articles, and am planning to upload them to commons when I have time. I like participating in the encyclopedia in various areas, and often make dozens of edits a day when I feel enough participationativeness (no that's not a word) to do so. I've edited over 1000 different pages in English. Ever since I prompted the edit summary about a year ago, I haven't missed a single edit summary on the English Wikipedia, and usually remember to fill in every edit summary on other wikis as well. I've helped remove a few pages from backlogs that span over 100,000 in quantity, but haven't found the time to do a large number. I seem to be prone to posting long threads (like this one), but only recently learned to split them into paragraphs (should I do so with this one as well?). I've expanded lists like list of solar eclipses, and book articles like the Roman Mysteries' books as well as Cryptid Hunters, which I'm not done with yet. I generally check my watchlist about a dozen times a day, and check every edit in the list for vandalism that I think has the possibility of being vandalism (and I have over 1000 pages in my watchlist). I've made minor corrections to hundreds of pages. I keep every page I either have edited or have edited the talkpage in my watchlist, and even keep some of the pages that ended up in my watchlist as a result of vandalism, except of course the obscene ones like "HAGGER???", "Grawp farted and made global warming. my bad", and "Virginia Tech massacre on wheels". I've also reverted vandalism on pages I've read during research. I've expanded a few articles, cleaned up a few articles, wikified a few articles, added citations to a few articles, added tags to a few articles, added categories to a few articles, corrected a few articles, fixed the tone of a few articles, among other activites. My edit count is almost always near or above 100 edits a month on the English Wikipedia. There's a lot of stuff I should do around here, of course. Oh, and did I tell you my wikiholic score is above 13,000 (and no, I'm not addicted). I'd also like some suggestions on what I should work on, what I should improve on, and what I should help out with or get involved in. ~AH1(TCU) 23:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. 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?
    For the most part, my wiki-stress level has been generally low. However, my userpage has been vandalised a few times, and so have my subpages. My user talkpage was trolled on one time by an anon and another anon who I think was a sockpuppet of the first anon. After that, it was vandalised 15 times by a now-blocked user, and I am thankful for those who revert vandalism to my pages. Some people I know in real life, have vandalised my userspace, created now-deleted articles about me, critisized me unfairly and ignorantly, broken the wiki policies, (and for the most part doesn't care about them) and may also have an abusive system of sockpuppets. Nonetheless, I've tried to help them with stuff and introduce them to Wikipedia when they need it. I've disagreed with many administrative actions, including the blocking of some users, as well as the deletion of pages like BJAODN, but usually I have not intervened. More recently, a user (Mr. Wheely Wheely Guy) was blocked solely on the basis of his username, did not get a warning, and the block was solely based on the assumption that it is likely that he knew about Wikipedia and that the username means he is the vandal. After his user talkpage was deleted and salted, even though he requested a new username, I intervened on the Administrators' noticeboard, told them that his name might just be based on "Wheely Willy", a cartoon dog in childrens' fiction, rather than based on User:Willy on Wheels. The user was blocked shortly after, the admins apologised on his userpage, although I don't think he's edited after that. Anyway, I extremely dislike abusive sockpuppets and trolls. Several users I've known have retired (although a few of them retured) on the basis of trolling (although most of them left because it was time to retire). Recently I may have been editing a little too much, as spending 5 or more hours on the computer on some days for me is no longer unheard of. Also, my actions are not always controvery-free. For example, I've been told not to change things without permission, not to have such a long username (which I've since shortened), and to focus on editing the encyclopedia. I personally dislike it when Wikipedia-namespage pages intended for humour or fun or friendliness get deleted or are put up for deletion, or when an article gets deleted because it's funny, or when one of the articles I've created gets deleted with a prod and I don't get notified (this has happened twice so far). I do not like seeing articles vandalised foolishly or blanked, as this is harmful to the reader, to the editors, and even to the vandals themsleves (as they get blocked). Over the months, I've seen people I've edited alongside with retire, and a few others blocked or banned. One thing I don't like about people getting blocked indefinately is when someone is blocked as a suspected sockpuppet, especially if they have good contributions, but there either is no proof they are sockpuppets, or when the user him/herself could have avoided the block by making the simplest right choices. However, I see most of these things as the run-of-the mill cycle of the wiki, although there are always surprises both on wiki and in the true information I find on wiki. If I do intervene, I do not yell and scream (on wiki, at least) and remain as civil as possible and abide by the policies. These days, though, I sometimes feel as if there are just too many policies and guidelines, or that some of them contradict each other. Anyway, I've encountered some very abusive vandals and trolls over the years, and most of them have a network of sockpuppets. Especially Grawp, who keeps making pages with stupid and freaky titles end up on my watchlist and I have to clear it out periodicly, and Gruntlord6 who vandalises articles like Kelly Noseworthy, which (the article) I created. I find the Wikipedia Signpost and off-wiki pages about Wikipedia interesting and entertaining, but I'm rather annoyed at the fact that websites like facebook and youtube have more attention on TV because of their publicity and their controversies, although I have seen Wikipedia mentioned on TV. I don't like repeated edit conflicts, database lockdowns or screw-ups, or when I edit for so long that my edit gets saved under an IP (and thankfully, this hasn't happened too often). I don't like hearing Wikipedia being called lame or geek-only, or when people critisize Wikipedia as a reference on the sole basis that it is open-source (although I'm not surprised major academia does not allow it as a major source), and I dislike it when people in schools vandalise Wikipedia so much that the entire school board, which often contains thousands of potential contributors, gets blocked for months, and when the block is lifted, someone vandalises it and it gets blocked again. Overall, my stress and conflict level on Wikipedia is still low, and I still get along with the editing. ~AH1(TCU) 23:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)