Wikipedia:Editor review/Haemo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Haemo

Haemo (talk · contribs) Hi - I'm Haemo. I've been editing for a while, but I haven't really found any role that feels "right" to me. I do a lot of different things - I like to do the recent changes patrol, and take part in reverting vandalism and warning vandals. I also like commenting in deletion debates, and learning more about policy. I have also worked on repairing poorly written pages, welcoming new users, and patrolling newbie contributions. I've also starting commenting on admin noticeboard recently, after I found out I could do that as a non-admin. --Haemo 04:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

Overall your editing has been very effective, and you are probably within 2-4 months of being ready for adminship if you want it. I will respond to your two main concerns:

  • You have five articles that you have edited 20 times or more, according to the edit counter. That means you care deeply about those subjects, or at least you watchlist the articles. It is good to choose a specific area to focus on just to give yourself a sense of morale and self-esteem. I've only started about fifteen articles, which is low given the amount of time I spend here, but I list most of them on the top of my userpage to remind myself what Wikipedia is really all about, even as I keep my maintenance links (such as editor review) below where I can reach them. In particular, I have edited endgame tablebase more than a hundred times, and added 30 references, turning it from a B-class article into a featured article candidate all by myself. I'm proud of that, and I should be - it was a substantial accomplishment. It gives me the sense that I've improved Wikipedia, and that if Wikipedia still exists after I'm dead (and I have my doubts about that, but never mind), its articles will be part of my legacy to the world.
So if you're looking for a stake in the ground to plant your efforts, you may be interested in finding a good article and turning it into a great article. You are a good analytical writer, and you understand the policy on referencing, so you can help at WikiProjects or the article creation and improvement drive.
  • Your conflicts are not particularly worrisome. I noticed you recently argued vociferously to delete this article which was nonetheless kept. Your posts stayed on point and consistent without making personal attacks, which is good. However, as an AFD regular, I discourage people from getting too involved in any individual discussion. Basically, AFD comes down to one person sitting at the end and judging to push one of a half dozen fictional buttons. Whether you state your point once or ten times is not likely to be a good use of your effort for the admin's judgment. My point is that there are two reasons to avoid conflicts: obviously, they erode the community trust that Wikipedia depends on; and less obviously, they waste a lot of time and effort. You should be concerned about the time-wasting issue in such drawn-out discussions.

Other than that, you're doing very well. I wish you good luck. YechielMan 00:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to make larger contributions (as this is a concern of yours), consider joining a Wikiproject. You might find an article that you can help out with that needs help. After I joined WikiProject Paintball, I saw that the Woodsball rifleman article needed some help. The work I did to that article is my favorite contribution on wikipedia. J-stan 23:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I am, actually, a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics -- but they're currently in a state of flux. --Haemo 00:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


Well, you are doing well so far; but looking at your contributions. You need to make more actual edits, stick with that and you will be an almost perfect editor. The sunder king 15:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I know -- it's hard to always focus on writing, when there are so many other things to do which require attention. I have been focusing on doing some more "real" editing, and copyediting for other editors. For instance, I've recently written articles on Craigflower Schoolhouse, Emily Carr House, and am working on doing a proper article for Craigdarroch Castle. However, I'm on vacation right now, so all my research material is at home -- so it's currently on hold. You can see it in my sandbox, though. I also tend to write up my articles in a sandbox, or in a text file, and THEN post them, so I don't get quite as many "edits" in my contribution history as the work would normally entail. However, I'm not going to change that; it seems silly to do so. --Haemo 22:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    That's just the thing - I can't think of any really notable contributions that I've made. I mean, I do lots of little things that I'm pleased with - but I haven't done anything that I can point to and say that is my best edit. This worries me, because I see this question comes up a lot, and it makes me think I'm doing something wrong.
  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?
    Not really - I'm a pretty easy-going guy, and things typically just roll off me. I think the most upset I have ever been was when I was discussing with User:Shoons relating to September 11 2001 issues on the countering bias noticeboard. I believe that he is a Japanese first-language speaker, so it resulted in a very long and frusterating discussion for me, which I ended up divorcing myself from because it appeared to be going no where. In the future, I would probably distance myself sooner, rather than later - but I'm honestly not sure. I still feel kind of bad about just walking off like that, since he was clearly trying to make some point to me.


Additional Questions from Dfrg.msc:

Borrowed from Glen (talk · contribs), I'm sure he wont mind. These should test you editing skills, and show if you have any weaknesses which you can work on. So, just write your answer next to the Question. Good luck.

Speedy Delete or not:

  1. CSD1
    This one is borderline. I am inclined to keep -- since "up-and-coming boy band" and "fame" might be loosely considered assertions of notability. First I would do some basic checking; see if "Eton Road" is, actually, a new boy band and not just someone's garage band they made up. If they actually seem to exist, and aren't notable, I would go ahead and prod the article instead; it's better safe then sorry. If they are notable, I'd just plain keep it. --Haemo 08:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. CSD2
    This one is a borderline delete per A7 in my mind; it just explains what the company does. However, what they do can be considered an assertion of notability in some respects -- but it's too weak for my liking. Not all assertions are of the form "company X is important because..."; but this one is weak even by that standard. I would make sure the creator had been warned of impending deletion, and then do a quick Google search before taking any action.
  3. CSD3
    I'm inclined to keep this; while the assertion is weak, I stating that your company has an international scope is an assertion here. However, I would be strongly inclined to go ahead and prod it if a Google search doesn't bring up anything clearly supporting notability here. I tend, in areas where there is doubt, to lean on including articles and going for a more through review, with WP:AFD or WP:PROD.
  4. CSD4
    This one is a clear delete in my mind; it doesn't even appear coherent. I'd delete it as G1, nonsense.
  5. CSD5
    This one is also a clear delete in my mind; it never asserts notability, though is very pretty. I would, however, make sure that the creator had been warned, and do a quick Google check before hitting the A7 button on this one.

Vandalism or or not:

I'm just going to tell you that I consider malicious editing to be vandalism, while unconstructive editing to be different; both should be reverted, though, but the manner in which they should be warned, and treated, is different. --Haemo 08:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. [1]
    Unconstructive, at least; probably vandalism -- unsourced insertion of a person's name into the wrong section of an article with a vague, probably false, claim.
  2. [2]
    Vandalism -- inserting, uh, math or something into an article for no apparent reason.
  3. [3]
    Vandalism: inserting "Your mother" or some variant has very few non-malicious uses.
  4. [4]
    Not anything! -- clear edit summary, explaining a content dispute which I am not a part of. Let the talk page handle it.
  5. [5]
    Good Faith Revert -- it violates the manual of style, so it should be reverted; but it's in good faith, and barely even unconstructive. Someone's building, but in the wrong place.
  6. [6]
    Not anything! -- Seems like a valid edit to me; maybe needs some sourcing, but no reason to revert.

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

All done! --Haemo 08:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Q. Can you point out some new articles you've created, or existing articles you've added prose to? --W.marsh 00:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've actually been keeping track of this.
I've created Leslie Satcher and Craigflower Manor and Schoolhouse.
I've basically totally re-written K'naan, Sweatshop Union, Harold Keke. and Market failure
I've largely re-written Pluralism in economics
I've done a serious clean-up of 4Kids Entertainment
These are all the ones I can think of at the moment. I think this list is exhaustive. --Haemo 00:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.