Wikipedia:Editor review/SFGiants
SFGiants (talk · contribs) I've been on Wikipedia over a year, even though I haven't made that many edits over that time period. Most of them are minor typo fixes or reverts of vandalism (as you can probably see by my low edits-per-article total of 1.46), but I've made significant changes to a few articles. I always try to be civil, especially to anons that I have reverted, so that they can contribute positively to the project. I also started and help in maintaining WP:WPBBQ. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 19:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Reviews
- Hello SFGiants, how are you doing? Here is my review, hopefully you will find it interesting. First of all, your userpage is pretty interesting and confusing. Kudos for that :-) It seems you have been contributing since over a year, a little every month. The amount of fixes and maintenance edits makes me believe you are what we know as WikGnome, a user who is happy bouncing through articles, fixing headings, wikifications, categories and typos from article to article, staying just long enough to leave his "mark" in the article. I myself am one, so don't feel it is an insult or anything. WikiGnomes are necessary, because they do things other editors (interested more in creating or expanding articles) find boring. I could say wikignomes are a community inside the community, where it is not what one does the important thing, but the sum of all of us. About images: I notice you have uploaded several images. Please, try to upload them in PNG format instead of GIF, as some images look better in that format. Note that you forgot to add the source for Image:KNBR.gif. Also, try to add a fair use rationale for every image you upload. Fair use images need a justification for their use, which is explained through the rationale.
Now, you have a relatively good amount of edits in user and article talk pages. Not bad for a wikignome!
In another note, I see you are participating in deletion discussions, specifically article ones. However, I don't feel comfortable with your justifications. In the last AFDs, your motives were per all, per nom, per all, per nom, per above, per above, per nom, per all, per all, per nom, per all and per nom. Deletion discussions aren't votations, thus the side with the most opinions won't win. Thus, it is the "reasoning" for the opinion that will be considered by the closing admin, not the totals. When you give an opinion, try to justify it. If necessary, review the different Notability guidelines and apply them when necessary. Also, the "per all" gives the impression that you are just joining the "winning side" in the discussion. Even if it is obvious the article must be deleted, try to justify your opinion giving valid reasonings. Remember that the article may have been written by a new user, and he needs to understand why his article has been deleted. Imagine if he finds his article is for deletion, the nominator's justification is "Cruft.", and all the ones below say "Delete per nom". Does this new user learn why his article was deleted? Is that discussion useful for him?
Also, when reverting try to write something more than "rv" or "rvv". New users don't know what they mean. By the way, this is not vandalism at the time of reverting, just a typo or a test.
As a fellow WikiGnome, I suggest you to learn the different manual of styles, so that you can help articles in even more ways. Also, check the notability guidelines so that you can give a more expanded opinion in deletion discussions. Finally, hopefully you will never have to walk all the way you have described in the second question (good knowledge about how to resolve disputes, by the way!). Usually by talking through talk pages most problems can be solved. Good luck!-- ReyBrujo 17:45, 5 November 2006 (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 think that the two things I am most proud of are vastly improving List of state leaders in 864, and deperecating Category:Educational institutions established in the 20th century.
- 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?
- Suprisingly, considering that I have been a Wikipedian well over a year, the answer to the first question is no. If such a conflict did occur, I would immediately assume good faith, until the conditions made it impossible to do so. If it escalated past that, I would ask for a third opinion, possibly that of an admin. If it went even farther, the admin would probably hand down some blocks, and I might use RfC, but I would only use RfAr as a last resort, when all other steps have failed.