Wikipedia:Editor review/Billscottbob

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Billscottbob

Billscottbob (talk Â· contribs) Hi, I'm Billscottbob, I've been working on this account on and off over the last year or so. I spend most of my time on recent changes patrol and new pages patrol. More recently, I've done work on AfD. I enjoy familiarizing myself with Wikipedia policy and have tried to get involved with the notability discussion on schools. I've spent some time on articles relating to education. I want to know how I should get involved and how I can improve as a editor. Thanks Billscottbob (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

[edit] Reviewed by Moonriddengirl

Hi, Billscottbob. I, too, am civil but not bold. :) I also have the flu, so if you feel I short shrift you here, please prompt me for follow-up, and I will go over it again when I am less loopy.

First thing I notice in your contributions is a whole lot of AfD, which is good, because we need more people working there who know what they're up to. :)

I say that even recognizing that you misstepped a bit here, but I like the way you handled it there and at the talk page of the creator, and I'll bet that you would not repeat that particular choice. Looking through your deleted contribution history, I do note that you've occasionally tagged articles as {{db-empty}} within a minute or two of creation. You may not have noticed the section of WP:CSD that indicates that "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete". Generally speaking, it may be a bit bitey to tag an article within a minute or two and might scare a new contributor away from finishing a baby article. (I will also note that admins sometimes follow-up and delete articles by A1 and A3 within just a few minutes,too.) Take I League 2007-08 as an example. The same creator who laid the groundwork on 12/18 restarted the article after you tagged it (and an admin deleted it), taking it incrementally from this to this in a matter of hours. That particular example predates your AfD, but it's the best example I can provide of an article clearly under development. More recently, on the 21st, you tagged Lethal Weapon 5: The Return of Sing Ku for speedy, but even though the principle of courtesy to new articles may remain, it's kind of hard to drop an impassioned "Think of the poor creators" in the case of an article like that. :D But you might want to consider using {{expand}} when you hit sub-stub articles that are a few minutes old and checking back later to see if the empty criterion still applies.

Anyway, after that long digression, your usual contributions at AfD, PROD & CSD suggest familiarity with policy and bear up your self-assessed of civility. :) (I offer as a particular example this nicely framed reply and subsequent [up].) I do wonder a bit about your nomination of your article Slackcountry. I've read and understand your stated purpose, but I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to simply discuss the possibility of a merger (or the location of other sources) at the talkpage of a wikiproject or the article with which it was eventually merged. There are less formal processes that might have been utilized there just as successfully, and it seems that there are generally more articles at AfD than there are editors to actually talk about them. :) I was particularly pleased to see that you PRODded the article Mat who is fat. While it was deleted by an admin under WP:CSD#A7, your choice was procedurally correct. A7 does not address t.v. shows, and I'm a bit of a stickler for following the rules. :) You might want to review WP:CSD#G1 and WP:CSD#G3. I've seen a couple of things you tagged as nonsense that were technically excluded, but might have fit nicely under the header of vandalism. I'll note that these two criteria afford a lot of confusion to everybody, and I've seen a lot of articles deleted as one that were more probably the other.

In terms of article work, you seem quite solid. I've looked through some of your more substantial contributions as well as your tagging improvements and vandalism clean up, and you seem very much to know what you're about. Your edit summaries are generally good—descriptive & consistent. (I say generally, because very, very occasionally you omit them, as here, and some people like to see edit summaries used 100% of the time.)

I like your essay. I think you are developing it nicely. And it's not within the province of reviewing your Wikipedia contributions, but I like what it says about your critical thinking skills. :) Good on you, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but also not to buy a pig in a poke. (Talk about mixing your metaphors. :)) I agree that it's quite important to evaluate the contents of every article (or poke or bathtub) before deciding it if it's worthy or not.

Here's where I fear I may be too medicated to be useful. You say, "I want to know how I should get involved and how I can improve as a editor." I'm not coming up with anything specific to you in response. If we were talking face to face, I'd ask what you want to do. Since we're not, I'll take some general stabs.

  • Keep it up. The more you do, the more you'll encounter and learn. You obviously benefit from experience, so it seems a good teacher for you.
  • Consider what other work appeals to you and branch out in those directions. Would you like to write more articles? There's Wikipedia:Requested articles. Want to turn that experience evaluating articles in a different way? Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Perhaps you'd like to take your interactions with other editors in a new direction. You can involve yourself in the much needed areas of dispute resolution, perhaps with WP:3O or with the desperately undermanned WP:RFC. Or you could try helping out some of the folk who address those tags you place. Join one of the wiki clean-up projects, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. Or sit in at the help desk for a while.

In any event, you seem to be doing quite well as you are, but there are a many different directions you could take, depending on time and inclination. :)

I'll be watching this page until I'm reasonably sure you've had a chance to see it. If you'd like follow-up, you can ask here. If it's been a while, you might want to ask at my talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for such a thorough review. It seemed to take a while to recieve a review but this was well worth the wait. I may have some other questions for you later. Thanks again. Billscottbob (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Only one thing I can think of to discuss so far: my nom of Slackcountry was because I was under the impression that if I remove the PROD tag as a clearly involved party it would be proper procedure to nominate it for AfD as a replacement. In hindsight I see that that was a very beaurocratic decision. Could you clarify what the better alternative would be? I feared that a merge tag would not get enough attention but I see how that would be less intrusive on the time of editors at AfD. Billscottbob (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad if it was worth the wait. :) I do try to be thorough, particularly given how long the wait can be. With regards to PROD, a PROD is meant to be strictly uncontroversial, which is why a PROD tag can be removed by anyone, including the article's creator. In fact, even after an article is PRODded, anyone can go to deletion review and request that the article be restored and (unless it contained unaddressed speediable issues) it will be, as a matter of routine. You can simply explain in your edit summary when you remove the PROD or on the article's talk page why you disagree. As far as merger proposals are concerned, I follow the procedures outlined at Help:Merging and moving pages. You post the notice on the page to be merged; post the notice on the page to be merged to, and create a discussion at the page to be merged to. The help page indicates that "If there is clear agreement or silence" you can proceed with the merger. If you really want feedback because you aren't sure yourself, you can always start by tracking down an editor or two that you know to be active on the subject (I usually check contribution histories) and leave a note at their talk pages. You could even start by approaching the editor who placed the PROD with a friendly, "Hi. I see your point and am thinking of merging this material. What do you think?" Of course, you then want to be careful with your subsequent merger proposal not to invite them individually to the conversation, to avoid the appearance of canvassing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I have completed a merger before. I just thought there might be a more publicized way of proceeding but contacting the PRODer and interested parties makes sense as the most effective way to deal with it.
I have a few questions about my essay:
I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that one, as I've never written a Wikipedia essay before and have no idea what the protocol is for moving them to project space. You might want to Village Pump that one. But, looking at Category:Wikipedia essays, I will say that it looks like the essay should remain in user space until such a time as it is substantially edited by others or frequently referenced, as that category header notes that "Essays in Wikipedia namespace that are mostly written by a single person, and not frequently referenced, are generally moved to the userspace of their author". :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that gives me a good summary of what the essay needs to be worthy of projectspace. I've posted it on Village Pump (assistance) last week. I then posted on the talk pages of related essays/guidlines/policies so that it would recieve more attention. I guess I'll just wait a while to see how it pans out. Billscottbob (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you had done the rounds. :) (That's why I didn't link village pump; you already know the way!) I don't remember the specifics of those conversations, since it wasn't a major focus of mine, but if you haven't already, you might want to ask at what point it is appropriately included in the "See also" section of related documents. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that's all for now, thanks again. Billscottbob (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
All right, then. If you think of anything else you'd like to discuss, you can head over to my talk page. I'll be taking this off my watchlist now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I spend most of my time dealing with vandalism using a recent changes filter and sometimes work on new pages patrol. I don't tend to dedicate myself to one article or page but like to diversify and add small bits of information. I work especially on pages that are struggling and that I have personal experience with, for example Round Square, Strathcona-Tweedsmuir School, VHF Marine Radio and Canadian Avalanche Association. More recently, I've been working on AfD.
  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?
    I've had some issues from trying to solve vandalism but in all cases to date, I've had a more experienced editor back me up. I'm civil but not bold.