Toon05
Toon05 ( talk · contribs) I've been on wikipedia for a good while now, and I'd like to hear some input from other editors as to where I can improve as a wikipedian. - Toon 05 20:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Reviews
- Pat's review - I haven't done one of these in a while, but I'll give it a try. I saw your oppose at Ed Poor's RfA, I thought it was well thought through, thoroughly engaging and very polite. It's nice to see RfA comments like that. Onto your contributions, if you're aiming for adminship, there are some things you should (completely 100% in my opinion, this isn't official or anything) perhaps avoid:
- Try to build articles; adding content, checking news websites for sources etc. etc. Anything that shows that you're contributing in a content form is a very, very strong plus.
- A lot of your user talk edits are for warnings and automated notifications, some people may notice a distinct lack of communication. It's important for some people to have evidence of your civility and for you to show that you can interact in a polite manner with other people (I, personally, can already see that, but some people are awfully picky)
- Try not to use Huggle "too much". Some people find that too "automated" and not "human" enough.
Rather than deleting some of the above, I've actually noticed, looking deeper that you're fulfilling my 1st and 2nd points anyway. Maybe an increase in frequency would boost you even further. I shall continue with the review, looking closer at things tomorrow evening (BST). If you could clarify, are you thinking about running for adminship in the future? See you tomorrow! Scarian Call me Pat! 23:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Content
- Okay, apologies for the delay, I took a look at your content contributions and general article work. This is good; you've identified something that logically can't be sourced and your removal of it shows you know and understand our policies. Your article, Lending Solutions, is also good. It's well sourced and shows that you can create content.
- This is also good. It looks like a lot of effort went into that and it sure looks like it's paid off. However, there are some words in there that aren't really compatible with WP:NPOV. "...was the major highlight for Keegan" - Who says it was the major highlight? We need to be careful about wordings like that. Try and keep writing as neutral as possible. Also, "pipped to the title" is quite a colloquial slang-ish sort of phrase, in my opinion. "Pipped" is an adverb, and, as you know, we should avoid unquoted adjectives.
Okay, to wrap up:
- Produce more content; what you have is brilliant so far, but more would be an excellent plus.
- Watch out for the sneaky adjectives that crop up on all of us every now and then.
- Visit WP:AfC, if you haven't already, familiarise yourself with the goings on there and perhaps create some articles (if you see any that are worth inclusion).
- Keep up the great work. You're a great editor and I would love to nominate you some day.
Best regards. Scarian Call me Pat! 00:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- I mostly concentrate on cleanup-style tasks, such as using HUGGLE to fight vandalism, changing minor errors in grammar, spelling etc.. I've also been doing some WP:SCV work recently, and I also try to help tag spam or non-notable articles for deletion. I am quite pleased with the translated articles I created in the past few weeks, as it is letting me use one of my (few) skills to help out the encyclopaedia. I also did quite a bit of work on the Stadio delle Alpi article, which admittedly still has work to be done, but I consider that one of my pleasing contributions.
- 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 can't say I've been involved in anything serious with regards to edit conflicts; I've had the odd disagreement with certain aspects of a contribution, but I generally try to keep a cool head and talk things out. I suppose the only real conflict would be with regard to the David Beckham article just after his move to the USA, when a couple of newcomers decided that this meant the article should be re-written in US-english. What followed was a whole load of socks trying to influence the debate, but in the end the whole issue was resolved pretty uneventfully. As for stress, I have a pretty calm approach to the project. I can say that (thankfully) I've never been caused stress by anything or anyone on Wikipedia, as in perspective there are an infinite number of things to get stressed about in real life. In the future I would hope to keep an in-perspective view, and discuss any conflicts with other contributors.
Toon05
Toon05 ( talk · contribs) I've been on wikipedia for a good while now, and I'd like to hear some input from other editors as to where I can improve as a wikipedian. - Toon 05 20:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Reviews
- Pat's review - I haven't done one of these in a while, but I'll give it a try. I saw your oppose at Ed Poor's RfA, I thought it was well thought through, thoroughly engaging and very polite. It's nice to see RfA comments like that. Onto your contributions, if you're aiming for adminship, there are some things you should (completely 100% in my opinion, this isn't official or anything) perhaps avoid:
- Try to build articles; adding content, checking news websites for sources etc. etc. Anything that shows that you're contributing in a content form is a very, very strong plus.
- A lot of your user talk edits are for warnings and automated notifications, some people may notice a distinct lack of communication. It's important for some people to have evidence of your civility and for you to show that you can interact in a polite manner with other people (I, personally, can already see that, but some people are awfully picky)
- Try not to use Huggle "too much". Some people find that too "automated" and not "human" enough.
Rather than deleting some of the above, I've actually noticed, looking deeper that you're fulfilling my 1st and 2nd points anyway. Maybe an increase in frequency would boost you even further. I shall continue with the review, looking closer at things tomorrow evening (BST). If you could clarify, are you thinking about running for adminship in the future? See you tomorrow! Scarian Call me Pat! 23:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Content
- Okay, apologies for the delay, I took a look at your content contributions and general article work. This is good; you've identified something that logically can't be sourced and your removal of it shows you know and understand our policies. Your article, Lending Solutions, is also good. It's well sourced and shows that you can create content.
- This is also good. It looks like a lot of effort went into that and it sure looks like it's paid off. However, there are some words in there that aren't really compatible with WP:NPOV. "...was the major highlight for Keegan" - Who says it was the major highlight? We need to be careful about wordings like that. Try and keep writing as neutral as possible. Also, "pipped to the title" is quite a colloquial slang-ish sort of phrase, in my opinion. "Pipped" is an adverb, and, as you know, we should avoid unquoted adjectives.
Okay, to wrap up:
- Produce more content; what you have is brilliant so far, but more would be an excellent plus.
- Watch out for the sneaky adjectives that crop up on all of us every now and then.
- Visit WP:AfC, if you haven't already, familiarise yourself with the goings on there and perhaps create some articles (if you see any that are worth inclusion).
- Keep up the great work. You're a great editor and I would love to nominate you some day.
Best regards. Scarian Call me Pat! 00:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- I mostly concentrate on cleanup-style tasks, such as using HUGGLE to fight vandalism, changing minor errors in grammar, spelling etc.. I've also been doing some WP:SCV work recently, and I also try to help tag spam or non-notable articles for deletion. I am quite pleased with the translated articles I created in the past few weeks, as it is letting me use one of my (few) skills to help out the encyclopaedia. I also did quite a bit of work on the Stadio delle Alpi article, which admittedly still has work to be done, but I consider that one of my pleasing contributions.
- 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 can't say I've been involved in anything serious with regards to edit conflicts; I've had the odd disagreement with certain aspects of a contribution, but I generally try to keep a cool head and talk things out. I suppose the only real conflict would be with regard to the David Beckham article just after his move to the USA, when a couple of newcomers decided that this meant the article should be re-written in US-english. What followed was a whole load of socks trying to influence the debate, but in the end the whole issue was resolved pretty uneventfully. As for stress, I have a pretty calm approach to the project. I can say that (thankfully) I've never been caused stress by anything or anyone on Wikipedia, as in perspective there are an infinite number of things to get stressed about in real life. In the future I would hope to keep an in-perspective view, and discuss any conflicts with other contributors.