Wikipedia:Editor review/J.delanoy

J.delanoy

J.delanoy (talk · contribs) I have done a heck of a lot of vandal-fighting, and I have done some minor article writing, particularly on John Rutledge. I am kind of down after noting that the page about Rutledge will almost definitely not pass its GAN, so I guess I just wondered what you all thought about my contributions to this encyclopedia. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

• Overall, I see you have excellent contributions to the project, expecially your recent spike in editing levels shortly after your decline in editing levels, which is amazingly high IMO (your edit counter will NOT load!). You've contributed significantly to almost every major namespace in Wikipedia, and you also have a good edit summary usage (but mathbot is restricting my access). I've noticed your wide participation in tasks such as CSD, AIV, ANI and others, and your good use of vandalism-reverting tools such as Huggle, Twinkle, and others (which my browser do not support). I think I've also seen you around quite a lot, and you also have contributed to many areas both to articles and to many of the other areas around Wikipedia. All I can say is, keep up the good work. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• No time to do an indepth review right now, but I want to second the user above me and say that in my opinion, your contributions are excellent and extremely valuable. Not all of Wikipedia is about generating FAs, and the sheer volume of vandalism that you've dealt with is simply awe-inspiring. Apart from the unpleasantness revolving around Category:American criminals that you mentioned below, I can't see any major problems or flaws in your editing. As above, keep up the great work! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC).
• Not may flaws in this user compared to myself, and the vadalism reverting you've done is a good thing. I enjoyed the read of Rutledge, and I think, that with a bit more TLC, it could become a good article. Keep up writing articles like that, and do not get too caught up in the vandalism reverting to ignore your talent of writing. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 17:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• You're an excellent editor and vandal fighter with a wide array of edits. You have a sizable Flickr gallery and good contributions to John Rutledge. Very impressive edit count. If you become an admin, you'll need to make many close calls. One of the hard parts about reverting vandalism is determine good/bad faith (I sometimes have trouble myself). In general, aside from "whack-a-mole" reverts like "f*** wikipedia u suck," it's generally a good idea to assume good faith; try talking to the user and asking them to provide an edit summary if they remove content without explanation. In closing AfD discussions, it is important to remember that consensus can change. For example, even if a bunch of "delete" !votes are loaded against an article, if there is a single "keep" !vote at the end after the article has been improved (e.g. with the addition of reliable sources), it's worth a relist. With more controversial cases ... well ... I trust you to use your good judgment; it all depends on the situation. Good luck! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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

Or, if you don't feel like waiting for it to count my edits, you can just look at the talk page J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I won't fully review, but I think that the next step for you on Wikipedia is to start expanding articles. The interests you have on your userpage would be a good place to start expansion. :) One other suggestion is to participate in 2-3 XFD's per day to get even more experience there. Malinaccier (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Did You Knows? for a start? ;) I appreciate your efforts in answering question two, and you might need to note that being a very active vandalfighter, one has be prepared in facing a lot of conflicts, and remember what the positive reflections you have in mind for your experience so far. - Mailer Diablo 17:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I really don't know how to answer this question without sounding like I am lauding myself, so I guess I'll just plow right in and hopefully it won't seem too self-appreciating...

   Undoubtedly my best contributions to Wikipedia are in the area of vandal-fighting. It is what I have done almost since I started actively editing, and it remains (and likely will remain) my area of expertise. I have also done some article writing which I am proud of. Despite the fact that it will not pass its GAN, as I stated above, I am still pleased with my additions to John Rutledge. I also wrote a fairly short article about Thomas Boone, who was the Royal Governor of South Carolina when Rutledge came on the scene.
   
   

   EDIT I completely forgot about User:J.delanoy/flickr. I have uploaded quite a few images to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, and I think that some of them have substantially improved the respective articles. /EDIT
   
   

   In addition to actual contributions to the encyclopedia itself, many people have posted on my talk page asking me for help in various areas. I am happy that I was able to answer their questions in most cases. Also, although she didn't initiate the conversation, I am particularly pleased that I was able to fix a personal template for User:Moonriddengirl, as it involved fairly complex use of template markup.

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?

   Many times vandals come to my talk page and ask why I reverted their edits. While incidents of this have been significantly slowed after I made User:J.delanoy/reversion, I still get quite a few. I do not consider these to be major conflicts, as most die down after one or two comments be me.

   Unfortunately, I was involved in a rather large arguement with User:John celona about Category:American criminals. I am not in the least proud of my actions. Two things that encounter taught me are

   1) Do not let first impressions cloud my judgement and

   2) ALWAYS assume good faith.

   The experience has helped me to (as far as I can remember) not get myself into another conflict.

   I was involved in another conflict when a user accused me of sockpuppetry. The comments on my talk page, his talk page, and ANI were very interesting, to say the least. That conflict did cause me some stress, but I used "show preview" a lot more than normal, and more than once, I simply left my computer on and went to do something else before I saved the page.