Wikipedia:Editor review/Anonymous Dissident

Anonymous Dissident

Anonymous Dissident (talk · contribs) Hello. I am 12 years old, and I have been contributing to the project for approximately 4 months now. My primary interests lie in creating articles, and I have written over 30 articles which have been displayed as part of DYK on the main page (written about 60 in total). I have also worked on the assessment of articles across several wikiprojects from time to time. Additionally, I am the founder of WikiProject Malta, and have created several templates and a user box related to that project. I want a review just to see what other people think of my contributions, and to try and work on people's comments, both the positive and the negative. Of course, like I think almost every editor, I have had problems and concerns during my time in the project, but when somebody does report to me that I have made a mistake, I take the critisism and plan to work and build on what the person has said, as well as trying not to make the error in question again. Also, while I know that this is not really the place to discuss it, I would, sometime in the future, (perhaps in 3, 4 or even 5 months), maybe be interested in adminship, so comments on that subject, and where I might need to improve for such a nomination, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. —A • D ^Torque 01:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

1. I think you are a very sensible Wikipedia especially for your age, you say that you take criticism constructively, again that is a good sign, I noticed you have started to use an edit summary now on all your edits, that too is great! If you are interested in RfA in a few months time, I think if you work your mainspace edits up a little and continue the way you are going you will pass RfA, I'll be proud to nominate you after you have a little more experience and quality edits, keep up the excellent work. Happy editing! The Sunshine Man 16:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
2. I happened to see this just after I've edited your The Battle of Alexander at Issus today, & my comments are really only based on that, though I have seen you around I forget where else. I had no idea you were 12, though I did think you were maybe 17-20. It's a very good effort, though I have re-written it quite a bit (I had done most of the main Altdorfer article). The prose style was not always right for an encyclopedia, & you sometimes said the same thing three times. You were clearly not a specialist art historian of any sort, but that is not itself a problem. The referencing was excellent, but the Web Gallery is a source I would try to use in conjunction with others (which you did with bits from Brittania). But generally a good effort & most impressive at your age. Personally I would carry on as you are - being involved in a project can be very good - & leave being an admin for a fair while. You can get involved in some heavy stuff with very difficult users, which I think you can do without at this stage (or maybe any stage ...). Actually I just had quick looks at "JR" & the Poison (excellent topic!) which both look good, especially the latter. It's a good sign when your work attracts other people to edit it. Keep up the good work! Johnbod 00:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
3. I think you have made a number of good contributions and have responded well to concerns brought up about your articles. I also didn't realize you were so young, and that's a good thing (i.e., your writing abilities seem rather mature). Two ideas: You may want to include a {{Babel}} box on your userpage saying which languages you can read. (I notice you have written a number of articles seemingly based on German and French sources). See WIkipedia:Babel for an explanation. Even if you can't (or can but poorly) read any foreign languages, you may want to put the boxes on your page and mark them with the 0 skill, so a respondent doesn't assume language abilities that you don't have or would need help with. Secondly, you've changed your signature several times since I've been seeing it, and it's a bit distracting and makes you harder to recognize. Also, according to Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, some people would vote against an RfA because their sig was too elaborate. (I wouldn't, and I've never seen it done, but it probably has happened and that's why it's there.) I would just select one, preferably one that uses your full name (not the A • D, it's harder to associate with your name in an edit history) and that doesn't take up too much space in the editing window. Rigadoun (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Anonymous Dissident (talk · contribs) is a steadfast contributor, and a valuable editor on the project. Contributions I have observed and related articles are always very, very well sourced to reputable citations. Anonymous Dissident also has shown to collaborate well with other editors, in concentrating on improving articles' quality, both by contributing positively and politely in talk page discussion, and interacting heavily in WikiProjects. My only point would be to delve a little bit more into WP:AFD and WP:RFA, or other types of related "XFD" experiences, to gain experience in areas other than Main Article and talk page space. With a teensy bit more of this type of experiences, this user could contribute greatly to other areas of the project. Smee 07:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
5. I find the behaviour relating to the AFD nomination & argument at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dutch_Australian problematic. Nominated article 4 minutes after creation, not allowing an inexperienced editor time nor others to improve article. Paul foord 14:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

• View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

   Well, I am proud of several of my articles: History of poison, Bombings of Heilbronn in World War II are probably the best, but others, like Johannes Rebmann I am also quite pleased with. I am happy with History of Poison because it covers what I believe is an important topic, and I because I have put a lot of hard work into it. Bombings of Heilbronn in World War II is another one which I am happy with. This is because I think it has fair coverage of the topic, and is relatively complete.There are others I am happy with, please see my userpage for some others. (Most of my best were written last month; see my DYK section for my best articles.)

3. 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?

   Yes. I dealt with it by trying to see the other persons point of view, and listening to people who I knew had more expierience than me. I realise, as I look back now on several of my early, petty conflicts, I realise I was mistaken, and I try and work on that. I feel that keeping a level head is the key to staying out of arguements, and this is how I will avoid and deal with the above. Also trying to see where the other person is coming from, as aforementioned, can always help. —A • D ^Torque 12:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)