Wikipedia:Editor review/Vassyana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Vassyana

Vassyana (talk · contribs) I would like to know what other editors view as my strengths and weaknesses as a Wikipedia editor. I would like to improve, so any and all constructive criticism, advice and suggestions are most welcome. Vassyana 13:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

[edit] Jossi (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)

I have came across Vassyana just recently, to ask for his assistance in an article review. From what I have seen so far, this is one editor that is not afraid to jump in the fray and lend a hand in content disputes. That is not always a simple choice, as these voluntary engagements are time consuming and it quite difficult to stay detached from. A good editor in my view is one that balances his wiki-time between chores such as fighting some vandalism here and there, assisting fellow editors with their content disputes without adding oil to the fire, reviewing the work of others with the aim of making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, and editing articles on subjects that he is familiar with. Vassyana seems to be striving to gain that balance, and when he is in doubt, he asks for advise (something that we should all do more often). As for advice, I would suggest that he gets involved a bit more in community discussions in the Wikipedia talk namespace, and that he applies a little bit of his time in RC patrol keeping the hordes at bay, as well as welcoming new users. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Tools

You asked about tools below, so here are few ones I use:

  • Cacycle wikEd Fantastic editor replacing the edit box with many options, search and replace.
  • Firefox toolbar, that includes a built-in spell checker (checks as you type)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ideogram (talk · contribs)

Not a lot of edits yet, so hard to say. I note that your edits are evenly spread between Mainspace, Talk, User talk, and Wikipedia. This shows that you have not really specialized in one area yet, not that there is anything wrong with that. Your Mainspace and Talk edits are concentrated on religious topics and some controversial topics, so apparently you are not afraid of controversy. Your User talk and Wikipedia edits are spread out more, apparently you haven't developed any particularly close relationships or become interested in any particular part of Wikipedia policy yet, which is not surprising since you have only really been active a couple months. (Although I do see a lot of participation in AFD debates -- I don't know much about that myself, so can't help you there.)

I of course know you from your involvement with MedCab, and I would selfishly encourage you to continue with that. My impression of your work there is positive, both your work on individual cases and your attempts to improve the functioning of MedCab as a whole.

Where you go from here is entirely up to you. As I said, you have not specialized in any area yet, and I would not be able to guide you more without knowing what you want from your Wikipedia experience. I see that you have already participated in WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Taoism, and WikiProject Religion. I think you will find working within a WikiProject to be the best way to find other people to work with and determine which areas need your attention the most. You can find more wikiprojects here.

I like the fact that you have more edits on Talk:Christianity and Talk:Mormonism and Christianity than on the corresponding articles themselves. This shows that you are comfortable working in a group, which is a quality many editors lack (most editors prefer to go off and work on an article they can have all to themselves). I quickly read through your comments on Talk:Christianity and I was impressed that, even though the debate sometimes became heated, you consistently asked for civility and calm.

I haven't really noticed any specific weaknesses yet; again, there are many tasks at Wikipedia and you can pretty much work on whatever matches your personality best. Really the most important thing is the ability to work with others, which I think you have.

Responding to jossi's recommendations above, I don't think it's necessary for every editor to be "balanced", some editors only do vandalism patrol, some only create new articles, some only clean up articles written by others. There is more than enough work to go around. Certainly you can take a "buffet" approach; try a little bit of everything and go back for more of what you like. I personally tend to work intensely on one area at a time, but then move on to other areas as my interest leads me, so that over time I have become exposed to most of Wikipedia.

You don't really need to plan your career at Wikipedia, but if you want to look forward, some paths you might consider are:

  • Do you want to be an admin? You will need more involvement in policy discussions. Participating at WP:ANI and WP:AN will help.
  • Do you want to continue with mediation? You can stay with MedCab or move on to WP:MEDCOM or the new Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation (still experimental right now). Following WP:3O, WP:WQA, WP:RFC and WP:RFAR will give you a better sense of the whole dispute resolution process and how mediation fits in with it.
  • Do you want deeper involvement in a WikiProject? Your consensus-building skills would make you a natural leader, any group trying to work together needs coordination.

Sometimes I just click on "Recent changes" or "Random article" just to see what's out there and maybe find something that needs fixing.

You can of course pursue more than one of the above at the same time.

I hope that helps; if you have any questions or need help with anything please do leave a note on my talk page, any time.

--Ideogram 10:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Just a quick note: Community enforced mediation hasn't actually launched experimentally. At least not yet. DurovaCharge! 23:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ElinorD (talk · contribs)

Obviously a very nice person, and a conscientious editor. I hope it won't seem patronising for me to offer suggestions to someone who has been here since October 2005. Here are a few, and they're just suggestions.

  • When someone has a name or username that isn't as simple as Harry or Jane, it would be useful to have something on the userpage indicating gender. Perhaps by adding the page to Category:Male Wikipedians or Category:Female Wikipedians, or by using a userbox. Absolutely no obligation, but it just makes it easier for others if they know whether to say "he" or "she".
  • I understand that the enabling of email preferences is entirely optional, and indeed, I've received emails about cases of Wikipedians, especially administrators, being severely harassed in real life as a result of their identity being traced. If you have a reason for not wishing to make it possible for people to email you, fine, but perhaps it's just an oversight. I understand that one can be an outstanding editor without being available by email, but I believe that it's frowned on for would-be admins not to have email enabled. (If you decide to enable e-mail, I'd recommend, based on what I've been told, that you don't reply to strangers using an e-mail account that gives your full name.)
  • I don't think it's a good idea to use warning templates on editors who aren't new, and I think I've noticed you doing that once or twice. I can't remember the exact context, but I'd only use them for an IP or a fairly recently-registered user who could not be reasonably expected to know that a particular policy exists. So, "Hi, you're in danger of violating WP:3RR at George W. Bush" would be better than a template. Some of the templates can seem patronising, when sent to experienced users. For example, the {{summary}} template tells you that "there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box". (I'm not saying you ever sent that one to anyone. I just saw you using a template, and didn't make a note of which one it was.

Nice that you're so civil to other users, and that you have such a good balance of edits, showing involvement with the community. ElinorD (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am especially pleased with my work on Taoic religion. I am largely responsible for its current form and format. Before I worked on the article, this is what it looked like. It was my first real attempt at a significant overhaul, or really building an article, on Wikipedia. I am proud of the result and have nominated it to see if others think it passes GA standards, though there is still plenty of room for improvement. I've recently become involved in WP:MEDCAB and I am proud of how this mediation is working out. I also wrote a failing review for a GA nominee that was well received (see here and here), which helped earn a Barnstar along with my other efforts.
  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?
    Yes, I have been involved in editing conflicts. Sometimes, I believe I have pushed the issue more than I should have, and I regret that. In the future, I will try to engage in better discussion, seek out dispute resolution when needed, report users as appropriate and just walk away to get frosty if I feel overheated.
  3. What Wikipedia tools do you use, and what methods so you use in applying them? The Transhumanist   20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    You can see what I've added to my monobook. I use the user tabs to get a better sense of who I am dealing with in contentious situations. Sometimes, I use them simply out of curiousity. I love AndyZ's peer review tool. While it is not the end-all be-all and does not replace a human eye, I've found it useful in helping to evaluate pages. The force edit summary is simply a good reminder tool to help produce better edit histories. I am really just beginning to understand how to take advantage of popups and god-mode light, but I tend to use the popups for navigation more than anything else. I am quite open to suggestions about what tools to use and how to best put them to use.
  4. What external tools do you use on Wikipedia, and how do you apply them? (Browser extensions, spreadsheet programs, 3rd-party editors, etc.). The Transhumanist   20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    I tend to use very few external tools. I have various CDs for intellectual/research purposes (journals, Bible tools and the like). I also like the library. ;o) If there are external tools, and uses for them, that you would recommend, I would be happy to take suggestions.
    There are three external tools I highly recommend. The first is Google. It is far better for searching Wikipedia than Wikipedia's internal search engine. The second is Linky, an add-on for Firefox which enables you to load many pages into seperate tabs in one simple operation. The third is a maco program. The one I use is MacroExpress, but a powerful free one is called AutoHotKey. Those let you automate keystrokes sequences, which really help to speed up repetitive operations. For more details, see my tools page (accessible from the menu at the top of my userpage). The Transhumanist   02:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)