Wikipedia:Editor review/Crystallina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Crystallina

Crystallina (talk ยท contribs) It's getting close to one year since I seriously started contributing to Wikipedia. Thought this would be a good time to be reviewed, get pointers, etc. I did have a rather hasty, halfhearted RfA a couple of months (?) ago, from which I withdrew after realizing just how unprepared I was. I don't have any plans to renominate myself in the near future; at the very least, I'd like to get a Good Article.

A list of the WikiProjects/cleanup efforts I'm involved in can be found on my userpage. There's also a link to my original article contributions. On the maintenance side, I do a lot of work with stub sorting, disambiguation repair, wikification, typo fixing, and uncategorized pages, all of which have tremendous backlogs. While doing this, I usually find articles to tag for proposed deletion or AfD. Finally, I participate in recent changes patrolling.

Thanks in advance to all who comment. Crystallina 00:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Answer: I'm proud of the work I've done to Sarah Brightman. At the risk of sounding like I'm bragging, I took it from a poorly referenced, fan-like article (diff) to something that has sources and much more content. It's a work in progress; I recently opened a request for feedback. Other than that, I'm proud of the work I've done in taking down backlogs. A recent example is the uncategorized pages backlog; ever since bots started actively tagging articles, we've gotten over ten thousand a month and are still getting them very quickly.
  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?
    Answer: Not that I can recall. There have been stressful times, yes, but no major conflicts. The best way to deal with the stress is, I feel, to take a break from editing. I'm not talking about a month-long hiatus, usually hours or a day will suffice. When you're upset you're prone to say things you shouldn't; on Wikipedia, those things are permanently recorded for all to see. Stepping back from the situation can help your perspective a lot. At this point I'd try to calmly and civilly resolve the problem. Crystallina 00:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Reviews

  • I just stumbled on this review request. Frankly, I don't even understand why you bother with this process. You are a devoted gnome, and one of the most prolific. You have extensive experience with stub-sorting and categorization (from which I got to know you mostly), experience with patrolling, with AfD and the deletion process. The initial RFA concerns that you do too little talking with other users have vanished. It looks bad because you have such a high edit count but it's also an unfair way to look at things because your contributions are typically edits which require little or no interaction with others. Also, your recent edits (last 10 000) look like this
Statistics for: Crystallina
(Permissions: N/A)
- Total: 9870 -
Main: 8940
Talk: 9
User: 26
User talk: 567
Wikipedia: 247
Wikipedia talk: 23
Template: 14
Template talk: 1
Category: 18
Category talk: 21
Portal: 4
-------------------
Total edits: 9870
w/ edit summary: 9870 (100.0%*)
w/ manual edit summary: 9851 (99.8%*)
Minor edits: 5068 (51.34%*)

which seems to show your willingness to change things. I think it's rather sad that you don't consider re-applying for adminship. People forget how important it is to have admins of different expertise. We often see widespread support for RFA candidates who have been very active with Esperanza or have otherwise made themselves known by their eagerness for social-networking on Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia is successful because people like you quietly do the janitorial work necessary for the project, this often isn't reflected in RFA support. That's not because your approach is wrong. That's because RFA voters don't take enough time to think. Pascal.Tesson 18:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have stumbled upon your edits a couple of times before - mainly because you had stub sorted something that I had edited. You are the archetypal Wikignome. It is a pity that more of your species don't make their voice heard at RFAs which seem to draw a profusion of 10penny 'editors' who rarely venture into mainspace. That said, I'd definately agree that you need to get at least a couple of GAs under your belt or a FA. And maybe you should be a bit more bolder and venture into a more controversial topic just to get a taste of the fights that you'll have to deal with once you become an admin!! Good luck and happy editing! Shushruth \talk page \ contribs 08:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)