Wikipedia:Editor review/IShadowed

IShadowed

IShadowed (talk · contribs · count) Hello! I am IShadowed, a rollbacker on Wikipedia. I joined in January, but took a nine-month wikibreak because of unfamiliarity of how wiki works. I generally want to know what other editors think of me so I can know how to improve.  IShadowed  ✰  02:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I generally work in WP:NPP and often use Huggle. I've been told that I "don't edit articles" enough, so I recently got my first WP:DYK, and I joined the WikiCup, which has encouraged me to edit articles more often than automated edits. Although I'm happy with most of my edits, although I'm especially proud of my {{helpme}} monitoring and welcoming users, sometimes even extending help and possible WP:Rehab to vandals. I believe that letting new users know you care is important, because when I first join in January, I really did not feel all that welcomed, although when I re-united (so to speak) with Wiki in November, I was happy to see that quite a few editors seemed and acted a lot more understanding towards newbie confusion, possibly accredited to WP:Newt.

3. Have you been in any disputes 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've had my hare of conflicts, yes. I have had specific users cause me stress throughout the past 2 months, mainly over disagreement of opinions that went a little to far and rose into a minor fight. I've never been involved in a Revert War. I generally deal with this by either apologizing once I calm down if I am at fault, or ask a second opinion on a Wikipedia IRC channel or via WP:Wikiquette.

Reviews

• I've known this user since I first started becoming an active editor, and we had a few minor quibbles, but overall, they've resolved themself as a result of both of our inexperience. I think that she has grown a lot in the past few months and has become more active in content creation (good work with the DYK). I think we get along fairly well now, and it's been nice working with her. I know there's a lot to learn still, but she's getting involved with a lot of different areas of Wikipedia, and my overall impression is a rather pleasant one.  fetchcomms☛ 03:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• I can't say much outside the usual "more content edits, please." But it's obvious you're trying to work harder (congratulations on your first DYK!). Special:Random is there for a good reason - if you wish to pass the time, click it and try to improve the article that comes up. It will most likely be a stub with a few readily noticeable grammar errors or other glitches that you could easily fix. If you're not much for writing content, it's one more way to contribute to mainspace. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪ How's my driving?} 04:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Seems to be solid considering work so far. Maybe a little too friendly, though. ;) Keep up the good work. ceranthor 21:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Forgive me in advance. I never was to good at providing constructive criticism. You seem to be much better suited for vandalism reversion, new page patrol, and welcoming new users, all very useful tasks. But all things that have plenty of people doing them. Might I suggest branching out? Edits like this are good. Two comments about that particular edit. First, and most pedantic, is that you used the <reference> tag, and not {{reflist}}. The latter is recommended, and a smaller template, if I remember correctly. It is also more flexible, allowing multiple columns, and even then, they can be tweaked further. I suggest its use. The second is this: when you make an edit fixing one thing, however noble, leaving obvious errors is still a problem. The current revision has problems that you would of seen, having set up the references. The links are all faulty (having an extra '[]'), and there is a chunk of text under the references that are supposed to be a further reading. I think. Moving on, I suggest you try branching out. If you like what you're doing, keep on keepin' on, but you might enjoy other things as well. Might I suggest new file patrolling? Or maybe helping up clear an ever-growing backlog? A couple suggestion. There is always work to be done with files and images. I suggest looking into. P.S. - Work in AfC is always appreciated, so many thanks there. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• I'd use a Proposed Deletion instead of Speedy for anything which looks like it could be the least bit credible when patrolling new pages. Your percentage of article contribs is pretty low vs total contribs. Branching out is good - see Wikipedia:Peer review for a place where editors are keen for feedback on their work. The good thing about this is there is no structure so is a good place to begin reviewing or auditing content. Even just skimming to see if there are any you are interested in reading about. Can't understand a word or sentence? Suggest simpler wording. Note something not covered already or something which sounds funny. Also, writing a GA is a good idea too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Based on your responses and those of other reviewing editors, it seems clear that you've felt pressure to work more on articles, and your string of DYK nominations shows how willing you are to follow that frequent suggestion. You've done a really nice job in submitting there, although I see it was suggested you might be a bit overeager in that department. That's certainly not a sin; in my own editor review my tendency to get a bit excited with Huggle came up - I think it comes from channeling all that energy into a new pursuit faster than you can learn the ropes. Contrary to others, I think you should slow down the pace on article creation a bit, see how much you actually like it after you've gotten some more experience. I see nothing wrong with an editor working in the areas that are most enjoyable, and if you like fighting vandals I'm all for it. We certainly need more writers around here and I'm happy to encourage that in you, but do it because you want to, not because of outside opinions. I didn't find any evidence of the "heated" discussions you've had, but a good thing to do when involved in a content dispute is return to the old reliable WP:V and WP:N - if it's in reliable sources it should be in the article. Policy can create a layer of separation between you and the article, making it easier to step back when appropriate, and gather consensus when you find it's in your favor.--otherlleft 21:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• You seem like a very well-meaning person, so I'll give you my best advice, which will echo some of that above: edit more articles, and edit less userspace. Both the latter and the former refer to your stats from WikiChecker, which show that 58% of your non-deleted edits are to Usertalk, and only about 26% are to articles. When narrowed to your last 500, the stats are better, but keep working on this. For me, content is (or should be) king here. And an "editor review" should focus on that, and very little else. Best, UnitAnode 23:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)