Wikipedia:Editor review/Torchwoodwho

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Torchwoodwho

Torchwoodwho (talk · contribs) Seeking to see where I might improve in my overall wiki contributions. I try not to focus on a few specific areas... I participate in 1. New Page Patrolling 2. Assisting new editors to improve controversial articles 3. AFD 4. Anti-vandlism and 5. General assistance to users seeking help for both disputes and guideline / policy questions. I don't pretend to know everything about the project, but I've tried to branch out in to many areas in hopes of becoming a well-rounded editor. The only area that I'm not concerned with is article status. I believe that my time is better served helping to source and improve the poorest articles instead of attempting to make good resources better. Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

  • OK, I and some others are opposed generally to sysops having no article writing experience when participating and closing AfDs, as writing goes along way into understanding how to improve and also be a bit more considerate when voting on AfD, as well as how much time to give people to improve articles or even (god forbid) chipping in and helping out. A successful Good Article shows folks at RfA pretty quickly that you are able to negotiate with a reviewer and not take criticism personally. So you don't like investing a concerted effort into one article. Well, if you find a reasonalby complete-looking article around 15-20 kb on a non-controversial subject and are able to source it, and with the help of a copyeditor, that should get you a GA without too much fuss. I am stumped as to which out of your top 15 articles in the Wannabe Kate tool would be easiest. If you come up with a few ideas I can help out. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions, but I'm a little confused about your comment regarding being considerate at AfD and helping to improve / source articles. I regularly assist in sourcing and improving articles that are brought to AfD and I also do search for additional sources in my CSD work. I regularly opt to tag articles for improvement over speedy deletion, although many of those contributions end up being deleted before I can find additional sources. Can you elaborate on these aspects of your critique?
Sorry - didn't mean you in general, I just went off on a tangent. I think it's great you are actually helping improve articles there as many editors don't. I find that happens alot, i.e. improvements here and there get snuffed out unless (a) you improve something to GA or FA level, or (b) you are part of a wikiproject and everyone is making a concerted effort to improve articles and help each other out, or (c) the article is so esoteric/unusual that no-one stops by to tinker with it. I must admit my enthusiasm for improving articles at AfD is often lacking for precisely that reason (that they are at AfD) and the regulars turn up en masse to vote delete...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining, it is difficult work trying to "rescue" AfD articles, but I have had some success in that arena (like at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality and Space). The fact that it can be done keeps me willing to try. I appreciate your points about article status and will consider trying to assist in those efforts. A few days ago I lurked at Star Wars as it was undergoing an GA review and I have started small with assisting at Talk:Romeo and Juliet with locating needed sources for a potential FA nomination.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I guess another way of looking at it is this. GA and FA, and to a lesser extent DYK are instant signals to certain voters at RfA of a candidate's ability, a bit like how important it is to be brief in notes rather than 2000 word summaries which no-one will read. If people have to hunt around for the good stuff you've done you may lose 'em. Look at lazy old me, I didn't even check your contribs at AfD but made some wrong assumptions - thus promoting yourself is worthwhile. Good luck, both tohse last two efforts sound good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I honestly don't have one single contribution I can say I am most proud of. I enjoy my work at WP:AFC when I'm able to assist in expanding otherwise poor articles into something that would survive an AfD.
  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?
    In recent memory there were two disputes I can note. The first was with editor User:Zsero concerning the AfD of Citizens of the Several States. There was a particularly difficult editor arguing for keeping the article and at one point there was an apparent editing conflict that resulted in a duplication of the entire AfD. I assumed bad faith on an editor and Zsero corrected me, however he refused to explain what had happened to me all the while proclaiming he knew exactly what happened. I insisted I wanted to understand the situation and apologize to the editor but Zsero continued to refuse assisting me. I took the discussion to ANI and it was quickly resolved by another pair of eyes. I promptly apologized to the editor and everyone moved on. I don't believe I acted with incivility at any point, but I was at fault.
The second instance was over me tagging an article created by User:EraserGirl for speedy deletion. When I saw the article I was on New Page Patrol is was just an infobox with little context filled out and I assumed it to be a test page. Prior to its deletion EraserGirl argued with me over my motives for tagging the page and I insisted that she should keep working on it or place a hangon tag. An admin eventually decided to delete the page and EraserGirl was naturally upset. I apologized to her and suggested ways that she could avoid deletion in the future. Several other editors looked at the situation and agreed that is was not a bad faith edit and supported my suggestions to the editor. Since then the article Harry Froboess has been recreated and is a very robust resource.