Wikipedia:Editor review/Lankiveil

Lankiveil[edit]

Lankiveil (talk · contribs) Based on the fact that I was recently granted rollback access without even having to ask for it, I thought I should poll the community to determine how my contributions are viewed, and what areas I can improve in so that I can be an even better contributor to the project. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

I think it's great that you have your sights on GA and FA for the articles you're working on. For Brisbane, you'll probably get trouble for having text squished between images (I hate making shallow comments about minor MOS points and the pictures, but you know you'll hear about it because it's the first thing people notice). Speaking of minor, content-irrelevant MOS points, I noticed inconsistency with punctuation before and after ref tags.

Yes, unfortunately I think that the article needs major revising before its going to make the mark. The current strategy is to get it to GA before going to FA, but even that's going to be difficult. My thoughts are that there are simply too many images in parts of the article, and some of the sections are a bit aimless. Its easily the worst of the Australian capital articles, which hurts my pride a bit as a parochial Queenslander, and fixing it will be a big job, but nobody ever said writing quality content was easy!

Bless your heart, I identify because I'm facing similar troubles at the article I'm working on. Be bold my friend! delldot talk 03:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that you're working on articles on important topics.
I hesitate to bring this up because I'm kind of jumping to conclusions here, but about this and this, done within two minutes of each other: are you taking time to review candidates fully before opining on their RfA? I think you owe it to the candidate and to the whole project to have a thorough look before participating. It's my personal belief that you should look beyond the RfA itself to voice your opinion, and should base your !vote only on things the candidate has control over (so I'm against !votes in protest of other votes: think how easy that would be to game). I do see more time before !oppose votes, this is good. As I said, I can't say you didn't thoroughly review these, maybe you looked at both candidates and then !voted on both, or maybe you knew them well. But I'm also seeing rapid-fire !votes in deletion discussion (e.g. starting with this one, comments two and three minutes apart). Either you're a very fast reader, or you're not reading the article and checking sources. OTOH, your reasons are sound and it looks from them like you did check sources. I can tell you're familiar with policy from these.

With regards to the RFA votes, I usually read over the nomination, do a quick check of the user's contribs, and then think about it for awhile. Because there is no real time pressure at RFA, I don't see that there's usually any hurry to put a vote down (you'll notice I rarely get into the first twenty votes, unless I personally know or have had interactions with the candidates). My criteria for adminship are also a lot looser compared to some other users; if there is a clean block log and no history of any untoward behaviour I will usually support. The actual part where I actually make the votes comes right at the end of the process, but I put more than a couple of minutes thought into each one of those votes, even though I usually batch them all together.

Ah, apologies for jumping to conclusions then. delldot talk 03:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about that particular oppose vote is taken. I have come to believe that that particular user is no longer contributing anything of value to RFA (which is a shame, as he's made some insightful arguments in the past). I would not change my vote from Oppose to Support or vice versa just to spite him, but at the same time I think it's necessary to point out how unconstructive I think his contributions are.

I don't think it's necessary to point that out. Surely you're aware of the massive amount of pointing that out that's already taken place, right? Whom are you hoping to inform? Ignore him--no doubt the closing 'crat will. Therefore his non-contribution is harmless--unless we create drama by paying attention to him. Just my take. delldot talk 03:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the XfD !voting, again, if it's contentious I'll probably spend awhile thinking about it before jumping in with an opinion. In that particular string of votes, many of them were very similar articles (on proposed Metro lines in Sydney) which probably should have been grouped under one nomination, so after looking at the overall picture I was confident in making those votes. I agree that rapidfire "per nom" votes have no value, but if I can make a sound argument and do it quickly, I see no reason not to do so.

But do you really think you're doing the article justice by only looking at it for 2 or 3 minutes? Are you reading the whole article and checking at least some of the references? Maybe I'm just slow, but for me that's not even enough time to verify that the subject really exists, let alone figure out whether it's being true to its sources and so on. OTOH I guess I could make decisions on the real obvious keeps or deletes in that amount of time. And I didn't look at any of these, maybe they were all really easy calls. It's good that you're making a sound argument, clearly, but doesn't that argument have to be based on sound research? Otherwise, to me, this would just be a sound-seeming argument. delldot talk 03:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're using talk pages to contribute constructively to discussion, looks like you're reasonable and willing to compromise.
From your interactions with other users you seem easygoing and easy to get along with. You listen to others in discussion and are willing to change your stance and compromise. You seem careful not to offend and you're friendly. You admit fault when you think you should, and you're quick to forgive. All of these are outstanding traits, I wish everyone on the project was as good as you with interaction!
About this and the discussion which ensued on your talk page, you understand what the issue is with using rollback to rv non-vandalism, right? It's the edit summary (e.g. if I roll something back but provide an original edit summary [as you can do with huggle], no problem; it's not with the tool itself). OTOH, I can easily see myself rving that with huggle, it was a very borderline case, so no big deal. It looks like you're good at leaving personalized messages for people, doing that preemptively to explain why I've reverted someone's edit has served me very, very well in my time on the project; I recommend it.

Yes, I understand now. Not that it's any defence, but at the time I was new to Huggling and still coming to grips with what all of the buttons did. That said, I should have advised the user better on why I'd done it. I would like to say in my defense that there has been no further complaints about my Huggling or vandal-fighting since then, and I've been taking extra care in reverting since that incident.

Good work! Probably a lot better than I'd do if I used huggle regularly. Anyway, as I said I think you're doing great, and I certainly didn't mean to come across as overly harsh in any of my comments. You are the perfect example of why I like participating in ER--you're working hard, doing a great job and are awesome at getting along with people, and I never would have gotten the chance to look at your work in detail if I hadn't undertaken the review. I'm glad to keep this discussion going if you like. delldot talk 03:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I think you're doing great, both with editing and user interaction. Be sure you take time to get a thorough understanding before participating in discussion. delldot talk 02:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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've created what I feel are good articles on a few obscure topics, such as Section 44 of the Australian Constitution and Australian-Zimbabwean relations. My current project is creating articles for all of the locations within the Moreton Bay Regional Council's jurisdiction, with Mount Mee, Queensland recently being selected for a DYK. There is an (incomplete) list of articles I have created on my user page.
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?
There have been no major conflicts. There has recently been a minor dispute with User:Peter phelps, but the situation has recently calmed down, the user is making decent edits, and I'm optimistic that we'll be able to work together on Australian politics articles in the future.