Wikipedia:Editor review/Lithistman

Lithistman

Lithistman (talk · contribs · count) STATEMENT LHM 03:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I've done some recent changes patrolling, and have attempted to improve many articles across subjects that I find interesting. I'd like to think I focus mainly on literature and history articles, but in all honesty, I don't. I get easily distracted by the multitude of articles we have here, and find myself wading into the ocean of information with some regularity. I've recently decided to attempt to bring more focus to my editing efforts, and have created several sandbox articles, two for rewrites of existing articles, and one for a new article.

3. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I had managed to avoid any major kerfuffles until I stumbled across Generation of Youth for Christ, while doing some RC work. Ironically, I restored an unexplained removal of content with my first edit to that article. I say "ironically" because eventually I became the target of much ire from people who actually agreed with my first action there. This has been, by far, the biggest "editing dispute" I've found myself in to date. During it, I've tried to remain calm, and express only my views on policy and the article. I would like feedback relating to how I've conducted myself in this particular dispute, but also in all areas of my editing in general. I highly value improving the encyclopedia, and interacting with other editors in a civil and collegial manner. I feel like I've tried to accomplish these goals over my time here, but have begun to question myself somewhat. I'd like an outside view of my contributions, particularly since I'd like to stand for adminship at some point. Best, LHM 03:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought is might be useful to place my Soxred93 edit counter here, for easy access, if people value such things when reviewing. LHM 23:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

Review by Fuhghettaboutit

• Some good participation at AfD, with considered points raised. If you want to stand for adminship people will look for AfD participation so keep that up. I do notice that a few people have managed to get you a bit riled. Nothing way over the top that I saw, but some. Most people struggle with this and I am not guilt free but if you let it all wash over you—just make good points on your own behalf or address the logical flaws in other people's points and completely ignore the rancor, bad tone or ad hominems in other posts—you will look better and your argument will be stronger.
• I see only a few article ever tagged for CSD. I am pointing this out because again, you have stated you want to stand for adminship, and experience in this area with proper tagging is often central in passing AfD. However, there is a two-edged sword here in that bad tagging is a common oppose reason. There are many sand traps in the area and you fell into one with SRAM si DRAM: CSD A2 is only for articles that are not in English and exist on another Wikimedia project. The tagging was declined on that basis. As a side note, if you had searched Google you would have discovered that the article was a copyright violation and could have tagged under CSD G12. I'm thus saying, experience in the ares is important but make sure you understand the criteria very well. Consistently notifying creators is also important (suggested notification markup will be in the deletion template for you to copy and paste; if you use Twinkle it will notify automatically). A smattering of other common pitfalls: CSD A7 (the most common criteria), does not require topics within its ambit to have shown notability, but only requires a mere indication of significance or importance. It only covers a very specific subset of things, viz, real persons, individual animals, organizations (e.g. band, club, company, etc. but not schools) and web content. Many people, when they start, go outside this list. CSD G4 is only for articles that were deleted after debate, such as at AfD—it does not apply to articles that were deleted after prior speedy deletions or prods. Do not tag articles under A7, A1 or A3 moments after creation since the person may not have finished adding the initial content. A minimum of ten minutes is suggested. This is just a few pointers. Check out Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion.
• People will look for consistent edit summary usage and you have 100%!
• Moves are a bit of a specialty area for me. You don't have many, and few people would notice this, and it's minor, but (you knew there was a but coming) when you moved Billy Ray Smith to Billy Ray Smith, Jr. you did not fix the category sort. This is a good place to learn about cleanup procedures upon page moves. Oh, I just noticed: are you sure that the move of Ell Roberson to Ell Roberson III should have been made? Our canonical article titling policy is WP:COMMONNAME. Quick Google Book and Google News Archive searches indicate that this move was against the common naming policy and pretty clearly so (43 verses 3,560 news hits).
• I have not looked at your article edits in depth at all, and I'll leave that for someone else. Just note that some people like to see significant mainspace contributions at RFA.
• If you have questions or need assistance and think I might be able to help, feel free to drop by my talk page anytime. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Review from Fastily

Fuhghettaboutit said it well: good participation at AfD, you're off to a fantastic start learning the ropes of WP:CSD, and you're using edit summaries well.

• I would like to compliment you on some of your RC work - looks good, keep it up!
• I read one article you started, Song of the Trees, and I found it to be fairly cohesive, especially for a stub.
• If you're interested in adminship, my advice to you - start actively !voting in WP:RFA, put that page on your watchlist and try to comment in every new RfA/RfB, if you don't already.

I think that's all I have to say that hasn't already been said. Keep up the excellent work, and happy editing! Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of reviews

I just wanted to leave a note here thanking Fuhg and Fast for their reviews. I think the most difficult thing for me to implement will be participating at RFA. I lurk their a lot, but it's hard for me to sit in "judgment" (for lack of a better word) on other editors, which is what RFA feels like to me, but I understand the advice, and will do my best to implement it. I've already had some discussions with Fuhg about his review, and areas where I can improve. LHM 19:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)