Wikipedia:Editor review/Atyndall

Atyndall
I edit Wikipedia in my free time, doing a variety of tasks including article writing, XfD participation, RC partrol and page tagging. My account has been registered for several years, I know my way fairly well around Wikipedia policy and guidelines but I have only started serious Wikipedia editing since the start of 2008, since then I have made over 3,000 edits in that time, I have reported 43 vandals to be block and stopped two copyvio infringers. I would like an editor review because I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing and would really like to know how I can improve as an editor and if I am doing anything wrong. Thank you for your time. Atyndall93 |  talk  06:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Hosts Huggle downloads, and is therefore useful -- Gurch (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your review you did was brief, so I'll keep this one brief too. I really, really appreciate that you're able to admit fault, e.g. with the lookinhere thing, and learn from it.  It does look from your talk page like you've managed to avoid anything similar. You're polite as far as I see, and you seem friendly. Your answers were good.  I asked about the citation guideline because I felt like reverting straight out was more in line with  policy violation than a guideline.  So it's good that you're clear on that now, and you've said you wouldn't do that any more, so that's great. I also noticed that the next time I saw you pointing someone to a guideline, you actually explained what part of the guideline you were thinking of, which I think is more helpful than just linking the page and shows a true willingness to help the user understand.   Furthermore, I see you helping multiple users with technical questions and problems, which is great. it's great that you have the technical knowledge and that you use it to help out the project. I also see a willingness to help newcomers, which as you know, I'm a big fan of.   Good work on the GA, have you considered doing any more or working further on that article? What's up with the image noices on your talk, have you straightened out whatever problems there were? Overall i think you have goodwill, you're a hard worker, and you'll go far with the project.   delldot   talk  11:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for that glowing review, I may consider doing more work on BootX (Apple) but from the sources I found online, it doesn't look like it would be able to expand past GA. The image problems are all solved, I am just waiting till next month to archive them. Atyndall93 | talk 13:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

 Comments 


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

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I turned BootX (Apple) from stub-class into a well written, ilustrated and referenced good article (from stub quality to this)  because I gathered most of the information, pictures etc all by myself and compiled it all into a good article. I am also pleased with my contributions to the RC Patrol; I have been preventing vandalism from entering Wikipedia, AfDs; I have been helping the administrators determine the consensus on what should be done on certain articles, and the Medication Cabal; I have been helping to resolve other peoples disputes to help keep everyone happy. I am also currently writing AtyndallBot a PHP bot that will fill a niche somewhere in the Wikipedia world.
 * 1) 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?
 * I was in a conflict with User:Lookinhere over the citation usage of James_Rogers_(soldier). I reverted the citations User:Lookinhere used as they were [website link] instead of tag citations, I explained my actions to the user (here) but was ignored/not noticed. After becoming frustrated at the fact that Lookinhere was questioning my knowledge of the subject (even though that is in no way related to reverting an edit), showing that he/she hadn't even been listening to what I had been saying I yelled at him/her at the bottom of here, this was also ignored. Finally After accidentally adding a CSD tag to the user's talk page using Twinkle Lookinhere brought the event to the AN/3RR (here) calling me vicious and believing that I had malicious intent when I accidentally added the CSD tag to Lookinhere's talk page, I calmly apologized at his talk page (here) and that was how the matter ended. I think that I could have handled the situation much better, instead of just removing his contributions I should have taken the matter up with Lookinhere before he/she became angry and started ignoring my postings, I should not have resorted to yelling at Lookinhere as that was a serious brech of Wikietiquette and possibly inflamed Lookinhere even more, I needed to keep a calm head when this happened, which I did, but then lost at the end. Since then I have delt with several other people who have insulted me with nothing but a calm response (here and here) and will continue to do so in the future.
 * 1) Do you think that your attempt to have Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars (script) speedy deleted under CSD G1 was, in retrospect, a mistake? If you were to nominate it for deletion in an AfD, what rational would you use? Would you do a Google News search beforehand? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do believe this to be a mistake in retrospect, it did see very unlikely that Lucas would have made a movie called Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars (it seemed very hoaxy and Sci-Fi compared to the other movies) but yes I should have used Google/News/Search Engine beforehand to check, generally I do when I am unsure. If I were to nominate this article to AfD I would definitely look into its notability more (I obviously would not nominate it if I find evidence of notability) and say something like:
 * "Article X talks about a Indiana Jones script written by George Lucas but I suspect it is a hoax (thus against our policy against hoaxes) because The name Saucer Men from Mars does not fit into the I.J. genre in that it sounds too Science Fiction. A Google News search only turns up Y amount of results, I would think that a script like this, being from George Lucas, would have some coverage in the media." Atyndall93  |  talk  11:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Judging fom the recentness of the Google news hits, this story just came out. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That would explain why I haven't heard about it on the news yet. Atyndall93  |  talk  11:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree that you handled the Lookinhere situation poorly, so I'm very glad to see you acknowledge the errors and have learned from them! Not to be an ass and continue to harp on something you've already admitted fault with, but there were other problems with your handling of that situation you didn't mention.  Why did you revert a good faith edit rather than just converting it to the cite.php format yourself?  At the very least, you could just have added the ref tags around their citations.  And this was a brand new user, is it really fair to expect them to understand a procedure that even gives seasoned editors trouble? heh, and their sockpuppets too. How would you approach that editor now if you had it to do over?  Would you use templated messages?  How about offerring to help?  Also, what is your understanding of a policy or guideline about the way to cite sources?  Is cite.php required? Again, I'm very glad you learned from this experience and have owned up to your mistakes.  delldot on a public computer   talk  10:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (Sorry about the wait, I'm been busy with work) Not just fixing the references was another of my failures with that particular user (it was suggested here) it honestly didn't occur to me at the time, stupid, I know, until it was suggested in the previous link. User:Lookinhere had removed all the references and I was going to put them back in proper format but then User:Tedickey wrote that the references should be discarded so I dropped the issue (BTW, the article now has beautiful citations, don't know who put then there). I did not realize that it was a new user but I should have assumed that, if I could replay the situation again I would have just fixed the citations, contacted the user on their talk page and explain all about ref tags and how to use them (I would DEFINITELY not use templates, their just so cold). As for policy talking about using cite.php, cite.php is not required (it can be supplemented by author-date referencing and shortened notes and [linking] ) but on the embedded citations page it says that However, because of the difficulties in associating them with their appropriate full references, the use of embedded links for inline citations is not particularly recommended as a method of best practice which I interpreted as a recommendation to stay away from them if you wish to make a good, well referenced article. As I talked about in question one, since then I have improved dramatically; I don't bite. Atyndall93 | talk 05:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Ooh, another one: have you done an editor review for someone else here? Can I see it?  That will... uh... influence my decision about whether to do one for you.   delldot on a public computer   talk  10:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't before hand but I have now reviewed this user at your suggestion and if I lodge another ER later on, I'll remember to review someone as well. Thankyou for giving some of your time to review me. Atyndall93 | talk 05:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (Sorry about the wait, I'm been busy with work) Not just fixing the references was another of my failures with that particular user (it was suggested here) it honestly didn't occur to me at the time, stupid, I know, until it was suggested in the previous link. User:Lookinhere had removed all the references and I was going to put them back in proper format but then User:Tedickey wrote that the references should be discarded so I dropped the issue (BTW, the article now has beautiful citations, don't know who put then there). I did not realize that it was a new user but I should have assumed that, if I could replay the situation again I would have just fixed the citations, contacted the user on their talk page and explain all about ref tags and how to use them (I would DEFINITELY not use templates, their just so cold). As for policy talking about using cite.php, cite.php is not required (it can be supplemented by author-date referencing and shortened notes and [linking] ) but on the embedded citations page it says that However, because of the difficulties in associating them with their appropriate full references, the use of embedded links for inline citations is not particularly recommended as a method of best practice which I interpreted as a recommendation to stay away from them if you wish to make a good, well referenced article. As I talked about in question one, since then I have improved dramatically; I don't bite. Atyndall93 | talk 05:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Ooh, another one: have you done an editor review for someone else here? Can I see it?  That will... uh... influence my decision about whether to do one for you.   delldot on a public computer   talk  10:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't before hand but I have now reviewed this user at your suggestion and if I lodge another ER later on, I'll remember to review someone as well. Thankyou for giving some of your time to review me. Atyndall93 | talk 05:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't before hand but I have now reviewed this user at your suggestion and if I lodge another ER later on, I'll remember to review someone as well. Thankyou for giving some of your time to review me. Atyndall93 | talk 05:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)