Wikipedia:Editor review/J-stan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] J-stan

J-stan (talk · contribs) Part of an admin coaching task. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • I looked over your contributions, and I'm quite impressed. Aside from quite a bit of vandal reverting, you've got a solid involvement in the XfD process. You also seem quite familiar with the RFA machine. Your edit count is lower than average; I don't really care about this, as I stand by the 'quality before quantity' principle, but other users like to see more numbers, so I'm just throwing that out there. Again, you have a substantial amount of talk and user talk edits, which is good; it shows that you can communicate with other users, rather than pouncing on an issue without warning.

Overall, you seem very well rounded, and I'd say my advice is to keep going strong. Maybe a bit more editing in the mainspace, as knowledge of policy is always useful in resolving conflicts and coaching younger users.

Oh, and did I mention that you're a mirror image of myself as an editor? :P Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share? 04:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really encouraging! BTW, I have already adopted two newer users (one graduate, one inactive). Thanks again for the review! J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem, and good call on the adoptees; I don't want to sound cliche or anything, but I find I learn too when helping other editors find answers. Master of Puppets Care to share? 05:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd start by saying that when you do vandal fighting, you do a great job, always warning the user appropriately allowing them to recognise that what they are doing is wrong, you certainly show a need for the block button and from your edits to WP:AIV, I can see you'd use it well. Mainspace wise, I think you need some more article edits - what you did with History of timekeeping was fantastic, you should really concentrate a little more on article writing because you're great at it. It's also important for understanding our content guidlines. Why not try and get one upto GA status? You're comments in discussion are good, I'd just like to see a few more comments in AFD discussions - it'll really help you understand notability guidlines even better. Looking at your deleted contribs, I see you have a lot of articles you've tagged for speedy deletion - keep that up! All in all, I think you're nearly there - just concentrate for the next few weeks on AfD's and mainspace work and I think we'll be ready to go with a nom! Ryan Postlethwaite 23:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks Ryan! Once I finished the first major edit, I looked at it and realized that this could make it up to GA status! I'll keep working on that. I've started a few AfDs lately (which seem to be exhibiting a pattern of not creating consensus. Odd.), but haven't been doing as much commenting. I'll work on those areas, and we'll see where I am after that. Also, check out my adoptees ER. I'm sure he'd love the input. Thanks again, J-ſtanTalkContribs 00:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably a bit of a nag than an editor's review, but surely a good editor should have a nice looking user page? I think you should sort yours out :) The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You seem to be doing a great job. You are well-rounded (Wikipeda-wise), and would probably make a great admin. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have been impressed by your work on the editor assistance page, where you seem to be on top of things and often the first responder. You should be proud of your work there and the help you provide. From looking at your edits, I would make a few suggestions to help you develop as an editor. Respond to a few requests for third opinions and requests for comment on articles. Helping in those situations will help to teach you how to reach consensus, deal with edit conflicts, and keep your cool while other's tempers are flaring. It will also, as a side effect, raise your article talk count - which I view as a sign of an editor who uses talk pages to work for consensus on articles. I would also, with Ryan, agree that nothing could help you as much as contributing quality content. It really teaches you a lot about what is useful (on wikipedia) and what is not. All the best. Pastordavid (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Just a gentle reminder that a comment as such contributes to (rather than dispels) an uncivil environment. It may provoke rather than help. Civility may be more helpful. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Certainly my vandalism fighting efforts using AVT and Twinkle. I think that vandal fighting is very important to the integrity and credibility of the project, and we should be grateful to have such a tight handle on that. As far as article writing, my recent contributions to History of timekeeping are something I am quite proud of. The EndWar page, even though there isn't much to work with, is a personal project of mine (it looks like it's going to be such a cool game, and I believe it deserves a good article), and I am also proud of those. Also, I help out at Wikipedia:Editor Assistance, and even though it isn't mainspace, I still feel good about helping other editors.
  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?
    Hasn't every vandal fighter worth mentioning? :) There have been a few conflicts, none really standing out recently, and a few disagreements. I find I can generally keep a cool head about things, even when a certain vandal is really getting on my nerves. I help settle disputes at WP:EAR, and I think that these mediation skills I exercise will definitely come in handy if I ever become an admin.