Wikipedia:Editor review/Seicer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] seicer

Seicer (talk ยท contribs) I have edited at Wikipedia for quite a while, creating numerous articles and expanded the wealth of knowledge in my locales. I have also been a vandalism-spot and a mediator or contributor for numerous topics, ranging from numerous highway-naming-convention debates to something as minor as citation styles. I would like to improve upon the handling of certain matters; certain events agitate me easily and sometimes I can make the off-hand remark and would like to see where I can improve on that. I would also appreciate some comments on where I can expand at and expand my role as not just an editor at Wikipedia, but as a broad mediator and guide. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • To add: I've expanded my roles on Wikipedia per above. I've become more active at WP:XFD, while still keeping my eye at WP:3RR, WP:ANI, etc. where I can be of some assitance. My past work with WP:3RR and the whole slew of copyright vios are still handy :) I actually find this quite enjoyable since I haven't had the grandest time to do research for numerous articles. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


Reviews

I reviewed as much as I could manage of your article contributions and talk page discussions. First, I commend you for doing something very few editors here have the integrity to do: search out and cite references that do not originate on the World Wide Web. The articles you listed in your answer to question 1 benefited greatly from those references, as well as the properly formatted images and tables. You might consider nominating the "Cityscape of Louisville" article for Good Article status.

I am concerned about your arguments with other editors. In addition to the example you cited, I found two AFDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unused highway and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink Bridge Incident) where you argued forcefully - and successfully - to keep the articles. Nobody finds it pleasant to see his article on the deletion list, but I think you may have overreacted. It was not necessary to ask for a speedy keep in the former case; once you have argued for the subject's inclusion, you can trust your fellow users and administrators to do the right thing. It can become irritating to other users when you become too involved in a debate, even if your position is correct. In your statement above, you worry about making an "off-hand remark." You are more likely to fall into that trap as you become more involved in a debate - that's what happened with the fellow in the "Louisville Museum Plaza" talk page.

It's heartening to see that you've applied your experience with conflicts to serve as a mediator for others. I don't do such things, so I can't comment other than to encourage you.

You didn't ask, but I'll submit that you're on the right track toward adminship, and you may be ready within a few months if you keep developing your skills in a variety of contexts. I wish you good luck. YechielMan 05:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am partially pleased with how the Cityscape of Lexington, Kentucky has developed over time. The original blurb was nothing more than a paragraph and a stub. I conducted extensive research and found a wealth of information about many notable downtown structures and located many useful trivia and facts. It's one of the more unique pages that I have created and one in my specific field of knowledge. I applied this as well to Cityscape of Huntington, West Virginia and created an off-shoot from that, Pullman Square which features an extensive historical perspective. I have later created numerous articles at Buildings at the University of Kentucky and Buildings at Marshall University and hope to expand upon those a lot more in the future. I also consider [[Ashland, Kentucky], Huntington, West Virginia and Lexington, Kentucky to be other articles of high importance to me. I've edited all three extensively, adding considerable information with appropriate citations and I have been quite pleased that all three have gone from a mediocre or stubby article to something with breadth.
  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?
    One of the only cases in which I have been in severe conflict for such a minor issue was at Talk:Louisville Museum Plaza. The citation style that I chose to use was the Harvard system and another editor wanted to apply the citation templates to which I disagreed. I called the user out on it, citing from numerous policies and guidelines but I also included a short blurb about his past editing mistakes, namely WP:3RR to which he had a case open. I should not have done that thinking back as he is a great editor on Wikipedia, and my actions most likely caused an irreparable rift. As a compromise to the whole situation, I opened up a meiation cabal entry to help bring forth more discussion. A compromise was reached through that. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)