Wikipedia:Editor review/G1ggy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] G1ggy

G1ggy (talk · contribs) Hi all. I'd like to get some constructive critique on my editing to help me improve. Thanks. G1ggy! 04:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hello Giggy, I thought it was high time someone reviewed you.
User:G1ggy
     run at Sun Jun 3 23:23:37 2007 GMT
Category:       32
Image talk:     2
Image:  66
Mainspace       512
Talk:   192
Template talk:  3
Template:       46
User talk:      590
User:   312
Wikipedia talk: 64
Wikipedia:      364
avg edits per page      1.77
earliest        07:58, 15 August 2006
number of unique pages  1233
total   2183
  • You are always Civil and a positive influence, and your responsible for your edits. You have done some great work with Images, anti-vandailsim and your contribution's are great, you have had an account for a while, but not been active 100% of the time, which may work against you. Keep up the great contributing. You may want to cut down your userspace edits {{db-user}} your user subpages prior to accepting an RfA, personally I don't think it's a problem but may people do. And try to get as much experience in as many area's as possible, try with backlogs, portals, help desks, article review, Xfd's ect. But that's about it. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 23:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Canvassing on IRC – Gurch 22:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Out of curiosity, what am I requesting? :P Giggy UCP 22:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Reviews! Duh... – Gurch 22:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
        • So how can I be opposed for this? Giggy UCP 23:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, you are a great editor, but I have to think of some critism. You need to be more active in the portal talk namespace. MediaWiki talk is another one you are lacking in. So far the only namespace you haven't edited is portal, so I would advise making two edits to that namespace. Lastly, use the minor checkbox a bit more. Only 76 of your last 500 edits were minor. I hate these editor reviews where I cannot think of anything decent :( If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Woo boy, another review. Looks like the canvassing worked :p As for the minor-ness, I generally don't like to mark edits as minor for no reason, so I generally only do it for really minor things like stub sorting etc. (as well as when auto-tools do it). And I plan on making a portal for WP:AUSMUS some time today, so that will be settled too :D Thanks for the review! Giggy UCP 23:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Review by Shalom Hello

I'm happy to honor your personal request for an editor review. Having looked over your recent contributions at WP:AFD, WP:RCP, and elsewhere, I am struck by one overriding impression:

You need to focus on less quantity and more quality.

Your edit rate is very fast, almost bot-like, but I'd like you to try to make more substantive edits with more careful consideration. For example, a few hours ago, you voted on about a dozen AFD pages with about a half-sentence explanation for each. For some AFDs, this is all that's necessary, but in other cases you will help the process greatly by supporting your claim based on content within the article, or the content of a policy (rather than merely the name of the policy), or information from the page history or the world wide web, or some other detail. As a veteran of several hundred XFDs, I know that it takes a tremendous amount of effort by hundreds of users to keep the engine running. Still, try to take one AFD for every session you spend, and really focus on it, and try to prove why your position is correct and consistent with policy, rather than just saying so. The thoughtful comments of User:DGG are a great example to follow.

Also, you do a lot of Recent Changes patrol. I have a great deal of admiration for Wikipedia's first responders, but I try to discourage everyone from spending too much time there for several reasons. First of all, the bots (especially User:MartinBot) catch the worst forms of vandalism. Second, RC patrol is so easy that even a caveman can do it - and it's evident that several IP editors have volunteered themselves as caveman. If you are an experienced editor, you should focus on the difficult tasks that only an experienced editor can do. Third, RC patrol is fishing - maybe you will find a problem, and maybe not. In contrast, Wikipedia has long backlogs, such as uncategorized pages, where there is a definite problem in need of attention. Nevertheless, I do engage in patrol from time to time, but not as much as before. Keeping to the theme above, RC patrol edits are low-quality edits, compared to the contributions you make in your standard article contributions as you listed, and on the Powderfinger Wikiproject.

I could probably write more - I really like the jokes on your userpage - but this is already long enough, and (I hope) helpful enough. I wish you good luck. Shalom Hello 18:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am particularly pleased with the work I have done on Age of Mythology, in (almost) getting it to GA level. I have also done a good deal on QASMT and Dream Days at the Hotel Existence‎, two articles I am also quite proud of. I regularly participate in WikiProjects for Age of Empires and Powderfinger (the 2nd one I started).
  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?
    As noted in my failed RfA, I was involved in some conflict over the Myspace article, but this has since died down. More recently, I was a bit embarrassed (and shamed, and maybe stressed) when I incorrectly passed Inform as a GA, and then was told by Masamage of my mistake (concerning fair use images). This wasn't so much a conflict that stressed me out, but a personal mistake that I was not proud of...to say the least.
  3. What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Dfrg.msc 23:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    I'm actually annoyed by the fair use policies at the moment. Not so much because they are "unfair" (kick ass pun right there ;)), just because I think it's silly that every image needs a copy-paste-able rationale on it, when we could just have an automated/botted method for this sort of thing. I acknowledge the laws concerned, I just think the current process of dealing with it is stupid. G1ggy! Review me! 23:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism test

Vandalism or not?

  1. [1] - Yes, no ref, hence it could be a NPOV violation.
  2. [2] - Yes, nonsense.
  3. [3] - Yes - attacking, etc.
  4. [4] - Not sure, depends mainly on talk page discussion. I'd say it was vandalism, and would have reverted it.
  5. [5] - More of an editing test. Not something worth warnings/big deal.
  6. [6] - Yes, NPOV, plus it's an untrue statement (and hardly measurable anyway).

This was taken from Glen and my Admin Coaching, but I'm sure he won't mind :). Good luck, Dfrg.msc 23:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that #1 should have been reverted, but I don't think it was vandalism. Correct me if I'm wrong. Cool Bluetalk to me 20:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, 0 out of 6 there. The correct answer was you shouldn't revert any of them, because vandalism reversion requires no thought, is only done by immature teenagers, will cause you to fail an RfA, be labelled a sockpuppet and checkusered to within an inch of your life, and ultimately force you to abandon your account and start again – Gurch 23:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am a teenager... Giggy UCP 23:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)