Wikipedia:Editor review/Persian Poet Gal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Persian Poet Gal

Persian Poet Gal (talk · contribs) I would appreciate feedback directly from the community on what I can improve on. Any advice, criticism, or what have you will be taken into consideration and I will try to act upon it in the future. Thanks. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Reviews Hello, Persian Poet Gal! I'll gladly review you.

  • First off, you've done a fantastic job vandal fighting. Keep up the good work!
  • I'll start off with the edit count admin stuff. You've got 781 edits in the project namespace. You participate in XfDs which is good. However, RfA goers would probably like to see a little more activity at XfDs to show that you know the policies that are brought up there. Other than that, your edit count is well balanced between Wikipedia. However, a RfA voter might oppose due to the lack of concentration of your edits at the project and talk namespace.
  • Now for the conduct. I couldn't help but notice that you have a lot of awards, which shows your dedication to civility. I am also impressed by your ability to brush off all the random insults that angry vandals throw at you. I don't think I've ever seen a comment of yours that was uncivil (and I've seen your edits in a couple different places). Your article contributions are excellent as well. I'm having a hard time finding a fault for you to correct...you're a great editor overall, and an asset to Wikipedia. Let's see...I think RfA goers and just average users like me would like to see you engaged a little more in the community proper, as it gives you some more chances to be avoid disputes, make friends, etc. I hope my review helped, and I wish you luck for any future RfAs you may have. Cheers, PTO 02:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello. I've seen you around quite a bit, especially in the various deletion discussions; where you seem to be quite active. From what I've seen (and I could be missing stuff - I'm only going on what I've seen here) it almost seems like you just go down the log and vote delete on virtually every deletion discussion. A lot of your deletion votes are like this one, which seems unnecessarily harsh to me. From what I've seen, many of your comments amount to "Delete yucky thing per nom, how could anyone be so stupid as to think that was acceptable". It's not just deletion discussions either; some of your comments on talk pages seem a little harsh too. Also; I notice you don't seem to understand the point of AIV, which is there to report persistant vandals, not inappropriate usernames [1], and [2]. Overall, I think you would do well to put a little more thought into your AFD and talk page comments; remember that there are real live people behind the computer who may be honestly confused. I don't know (and don't really care to know) how old you are; but you seem very young to me. I noticed a couple comments in diffs of your contributions that seem to indicate you are thinking of running for admin. I would tell you that while you probably would succeed in an admin run I for one would oppose you at this time; you don't seem mature to me. I think you have good intentions and are enthusiastic and overall a great asset to Wikipedia; you just need your enthusiasm and intentions tempered by maturity. I hope you find this helpful. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your review ONUnicorn. I appreciate the constructive criticism. Yes I may be more of a deletion voter, in the particular example you cited I believe I was summarizing the issues that the article did have. I would rarily want to be a "per nom" voter and make sure to carefully read every AfD'd article in order to recognize what policy it may not be adhering to. As far as harshness, I really strive not to lose patience, especially in dealing with new comers. I might explain things in a blunt way but hopefully a fair way and still abiding by WP:CIVIL. In regards to AIV, it is a page with many functional uses in reality. Mostly though it should be used for reporting vandalism but often times inappropriate usernames or obvious sockpuppet names have been skipped over and need to be brought to administrative attention. If you see this as a misuse of the page I will directly contact an administrator in regards to any other inappropriate usernames I see in the future. Again, I value the honesty of your opinion and I do truly find it helpful. Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Just make sure that you are not too deletionist with RfA/discussions in general, and I'm sure you'll be fine :) I see no real faults as well. — Deckiller 08:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • First of all Congratulations on your Admin Request.You have done quite a bit of Editing and in saying that I wish to say keep up the good job.You seem to be doing a gud job on your Edit Summary, 100 percent.I always thought you were an Administrator. You are the best Vandal Fighter I know and I hope you continue doing that when you become Admin.You deserve all the Barn-stars you have recieved. You have made really good Contributions to Wikipedia and you have done a good job in reporting vandals as well and pliz just slow down on deletion votings ok and yeah best of luck in your Admin Request and by the way the things are going..you will be made an Admin in no time..Cheers(Sorry if I have written anything wrong because this is my first review)--Cometstyles 09:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • Eh? Wot? You're not an admin?? I was passing through and saw your name, and was reminded of why I always try to be civil to others - it's because when I was an anon user, I noticed that you were civil in even the most awful circumstances. Yep, Persian Poet Gal is my example in striving for civility. That's all I have to say about that. ^_^ V-Man737 09:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Dunstan Baby Language was one of my first non-stub like articles which I created and occasionally come back to from time to time. During the Esperanza Fire I added information about the investigation alongside other editors (shown here, here, and here). I also typed up the bulk of the Dark Cloud plot summary shown here. Some of my image contributions I am particularly pleased with. I have added on to certain articles which were missing diagrams that were beneficial to the article’s content as shown in Tooth (created the Teeth diagram.png), Throat (created the Throat Diagram.png), Burn (injury) (created the Burn Degree Diagram.png), Cat (created the Cat anatomy diagram.png), Thrombus (created the Blood clot diagram.png), and Nervous system (created the Nervous system diagram.png).
  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 have never fortunately been involved in serious editing disputes. A couple times I have been approached with mistakes on Recent Changes patrol. I respond by looking carefully through the diff links to recognize how I might have caused the mistake as well as apologize for the error on my part. The only significant conflict that I really ran into was back in November 2006 with a sockpuppeteer vandal known as JINXTENGU. He repeatedly attacked my user page as well as left several personal attack messages on my talk page. I ended up leaving this Long term abuse report tracking his vandalism along with submitting a checkuser reports. I do not encounter as many of his sockpuppet accounts anymore and whenever I have found evidence of a new one I simply report it, tag it, and move on.