Wikipedia:Editor review/RayAYang

RayAYang

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

RayAYang (talk · contribs) Ray^Talk 21:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been here on Wikipedia for about half a year now, and I was wondering whether people think my contributions have been helpful generally. I've been a little scattershot and all over the place as I've learned -- initially at new page patrol, at uncategorized patrol, at AFD, editing random political articles that catch my eye, math articles, and the like. I've been wondering -- where do people think my future efforts should be directed, and where do people think I should to change my style?

Reviews

• Looking over your contributions, you're doing great on Wikipedia. You make good, solid contributions to articles, and also do work in collaborative areas of Wikipedia such as WP:XfD. Continue on this work, and you should be on a solid path to adminship. Keep it up! -download | sign! 23:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks, but I'm not sure whether I'll try for the admin thing anytime soon ... it would complement some of my patrolling and the like nicely, but there doesn't seem to be a shortage in those areas, and I'm starting to develop the belief that somebody should only get admin if they have something to contribute with it. Ray^Talk 17:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Good job earning a barnstar and never being blocked. Regarding [1], please keep in mind that the topic is one that has been written about in reliable sources (hence why it was ultimately kept). With this, notability is a subjective criteria. It is obviously notable to people in the real world who created, worked on, read, and defended the article in question. This one, well, just think of ways to improve, narrow the scope perhaps? Make a more clear inclusion criteria, but per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE, always keep other options in mind. Here we have calls for improvement that should be encouraged instead of redlinking. Finally, with this, please note WP:PERNOM. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  Wow. Thanks for that very detailed overview of my AfD contributions. My conception of notability for Wikipedia has been changing over time -- I started out with the belief that, barring great coverage, we should stick with things more likely to be found in a traditional encyclopedia. I think my position has shifted somewhat since then, although I'd be hard pressed to say exactly where I'm going. The "humongous and haphazard list" is one of those knottier questions. When I say "delete," I usually expect that some helpful admin will be willing to userfy and/or save the data therein, for inclusion into a less humongous list -- but that trying to change the list's criteria for inclusion, and title, in an AfD is likely to be more confusing than helpful.

  As for WP:PERNOM, that's one of those essay points that I think is at variance with the actual reality of AfD discussions (similar arguments apply to RfA). They may not formally be votes, but the weight of majority opinion counts for a lot. In those cases, "per so-and-so" is a way of saying "I have reviewed so-and-so's arguments, and find them compelling and decisive on this point, yea, even in spite of what may or may not have been said since then," and that contribution still has impact on the overall discussion. Ray^Talk 17:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have a comment about RayAYang's user conduct. When commenting on RFC's he seems not to read the evidence presented. Eg: [2] which is patently false: [3]. I hope he wont ignore clear evidence/diffs when commenting on RfC's in the future. Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• View this user's edit count using X!'s counter

Questions

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

   I'm particularly pleased with obstacle problem, since creating it required me to parse some fairly difficult math, which is my day job. I've also spent a lot of time uploading images of mathematicians from the Oberwolfach Photo collection of late. Aside from that, the patrols I mentioned above, and AfD, introduce me to material I wouldn't otherwise have come across, and I like to think my contribution there has been positive.

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?

   A fair number. I have rules lawyering tendencies, and I have trouble letting go of things that seem wrong to me. Anchor baby was one where I finally decided the stress on my soul was not worth the point, and left the article altogether. WT:Words to avoid has an ongoing discussion over terrorism, which at times threatened to get quite heated, but I think extended pause over an issue this intractable has been helpful to everybody.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.