Wikipedia:Editor review/Ceranthor

Ceranthor

Ceranthor (talk · contribs · count) I'd like to check in with how others regard my contributions. An RfA in early spring seems to be my preference, but I'd like feedback on how I'm doing just as well! ceranthor 23:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Hi Ceranthor, sorry for the delay in getting a review for you - we're slowly catching up with the backlog! On to my review...

User conduct

Edit summaries: You use them on almost all your edits (SoxRed shows 98% for major edits), and they explain what you have done - what more need be said?
Constructive comments on talk pages: Most of the edits to article talk pages which I saw were connected with class/GA type stuff (very important). The edits I saw when you were commenting were helpful and constructive
Attitude towards others: You seem to be helpful and encouraging (I particularly liked your "All the World's a Stage" to Ottava Rima!) I get the clear message from your messages that you are here to help the encyclopedia, and to help others to do that too

Edits

Automated Edits: SoxRed shows 1905 (12.33%) out of 15,538. Good use of the automated tools, from what I can see
Article vs non-article: A nice spread of edits (about 40% on articles (and their talk pages), 1/4 on user talk, 1/4 on "Wikipedia" space)

RfA

CSD: Your tagging seems to be generally accurate - most of the notifications you gave are for articles which don't exist any more!
PROD: I didn't see too many of these in evidence. It's not a problem, just thought I'd mention it!
xfD: Your contributions are considered, and based on the criteria for deletions. I see no problems here.
ANI/AN: I don't see much contribution here, but I do see lots of useful work at SPI!
Contributions to RfAs: I see you've contributed to 180 RfAs! Looking through them, I don't see the "as per xyzEditor" - although your comments may be short, they are your own thoughts!
Previous RfAs: It's interesting that the percentages for support remained constant for both your RfAs - and even your oppose percentage was only a couple higher on your second RfA. I think you that the main issue raised by opposers was maturity.

Summary

I have seen you about, and what I see of your contributions sre good. You do useful Wikignoming, and also do good article work.

With regards to RfAs, I'm sure that you know that the main issues were your maturity, and appearing to take credit which was not yours. If you should want to run the gauntlet a third time, make sure you have answers to the questions which are bound to be raised following the first two RfAs. However, with support of 62% in both of those RfAs, I see no reason why you should go for it again (although I should point out that should you do so, I will look at your contributions in even more detail than I have here before casting my !vote!)

Keep up the good work, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
Mainly, my primary contributions are the FAs and GAs I've written. I don't like to treat them as text, but meaningful articles, this is why I focus on one corner of wikipedia-earth sciences. Volcanic eruptions and earthquakes are arguably the most devastating natural disasters, and so many articles on major events are missing from this encyclopedia. My goal is not to "bring an article to GA or FA", but to improve it so that it is more than sufficient for any reader, expert or general person, to enjoy it and understand it as well as possible. Of course, getting the articles 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake, Scattered disc, Nevado del Ruiz, and 1968 Illinois earthquake to FA are probably my favorite contributions, particularly Nevado del Ruiz. It's incredible to see what an amazing article collaboration can produce, and that article had crap prose before others came and helped me work on it. I think it's an excellent resource for the volcano, absolutely the best on the internet.

I'm also quite proud of my contributions at WP:QUAKE and WP:SOLAR, two projects which I coordinate. I think my work around them has enhanced others' experience while being involved with work concerning these projects.

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 all honesty, I'm no good at resolving drama disputes, I'm only good at giving advice to both sides and hoping they'll listen. I always strive to be level-headed, even more-so when attacked, and try my best to be completely impartial when necessary. I think that drama is you know, fun and all, but completely stupid when it comes to the internet. *joke*After all, for those drama pushers, when you annoy your worst enemy beyond no return, who is there to oppose?*joke*