Wikipedia:Editor review/ShadowHalo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] ShadowHalo

ShadowHalo (talk · contribs) I've been an active contributer since October 2006, and I have a little over 5,000 edits. At this point I have two articles (No Doubt and Hollaback Girl) as GA candidates, and I'd like to put the latter up as an FA candidate assuming it makes GA. Since FA candidacy is often quite involved and time-consuming, I'm waiting until after that to do an RfA, so it'd be very helpful to know the areas in which I may be able to improve before I do an RfA. ShadowHalo 11:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hey Drew. Since all the other editors/reviewers appear to be on lunch break. Due to this, you've got me to "review" you so to speak, and that means it's time for the Wikipedia-famous David Fuchs' Don't Do it Man! RfA-discouragement spiel. Basically, I'd ask you just to take a inner look (ooh, deepness!) and ask yourself why you need to be an admin. Are you doing lots of vandal fighting? Do you have a strange urge to clear dusty backlogs and spend time merging page histories? Because there's a reason they call it "the mop." Adminship really doesn't do much except make people come to you with problems. You're a prolific editor, and I'm glad to see you're getting articles up to GA and eventually FA, which editors look for in an RfA candidate, but I'm just asking you to think about whether you need the tools being an admin provides, as it will certainly come up on an RfA. In addition, they'll want to see even more participation in XfDs and RCP/NPP. They'd also possibly hold it against you that you've only been around 7 months, though I wouldn't. Basically, if you were to apply for RfA, it's entirely possible you might pass. But I'm just saying, no offense to you, that you really don't need to be an admin.

Good editing, though. Dåvid Fuchs [talk • contribs] 21:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Drew, having just spotted my recent edits you've corrected me (showing a good understanding of the WP:MOS and other policies) and shown the ability to enter into courteous dialogue with other users. You seem to have a good number of edits behind you, and have worked hard at the articles you've edited. Like David above, I would be interested to know which admin tasks you'd intend to take on (as he implied, you don't need admin tools to be a fantastic editor) but I would have no hesitation in supporting your eventual RfA └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    I think part of it was that by the time David did the review, he was right in that I wasn't doing much admin-related work because I was spending so much time with the FA candidacy and wasn't able to do much outside of the article namespace. A lot of what I've been doing since the article was promoted has been clearing the former backlog at Category:Fair use size reduction request (resulting in an administrative backlog at Category:Rescaled fairuse images); reviewing images for appropriate copyright information like resolution, sourcing, and replaceability; and XfDs (mostly AfDs). ShadowHalo 10:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I've done some work with charts in music articles (and WP:CHARTS), and I've done fairly well so far in cleaning out some of the indiscriminate chart information from music articles in general. I'm also quite pleased with my work with No Doubt and Gwen Stefani in general since I have to actively maintain NPOV for many of those articles, which I think I've done well. I like some of the free images I've uploaded (examples) since they're often an easy way to settle questions about replaceable fair use images.
  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 think the primary one was at the U2 article regarding the picture being used. Around a month and half, maybe two months, ago I started replacing some fair use images with free images from Flickr. Some of these were concert pictures of much lower quality, and another user reverted the change. After going through another pair of reverts, I asked what should be done at WP:MCQ but didn't get an answer until the next day and I ended up accidentally breaking WP:3RR during that time. One of the two users restoring the fair use image asked me about it on my talk page, and I explained to him that I had not meant to break 3RR and upon getting a response at WP:MCQ, I tagged the image with {{rfu}} and started a discussion at the image's talk page. I agreed to do another search to see if there was a better image and found the one that's there now; one of the users agreed not to revert if the image were to be added, and the other felt that the fair use one should be used. After awhile, the image was reviewed by an admin and deleted. Since then, I've tagged many other images with {{rfu}}, but there haven't been any uncivil disagreements, since (I believe) I've maintained good faith and asked another user to get involved when necessary (for example, an anon with changing IPs removed templates and reuploaded deleted images to the Ashley Parker Angel article, so I asked User:Yamla to review). ShadowHalo 11:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)