Wikipedia:Editor review/Basalisk

Basalisk
I've been around for about 9 months and thought I'd get a bit of feedback on how I'm doing. Please be honest and constructive with your criticism! Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 09:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I mainly work on new page patrol, cleaning up new articles and nominating speedy deletion candidates, and in AfDs. I also perform gnomish tasks and do a bit of copyediting. I don't create much content as I don't consider it to be my forte, but I have created one or two articles such as Elective (medical), and have done a lot of work on others such as Eva Rausing.
 * 1) 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 have been in a few content disputes in the past and I am passionate about my editing. I think I'm always civil in discussion, even when frustrated. Over time I think I've become better at staying cool in disputes, and I think I have learned when it's best simply not to reply to goading and to walk away from a debate to allow it to reach a conclusion without further input from myself.
 * I have been in a few content disputes in the past and I am passionate about my editing. I think I'm always civil in discussion, even when frustrated. Over time I think I've become better at staying cool in disputes, and I think I have learned when it's best simply not to reply to goading and to walk away from a debate to allow it to reach a conclusion without further input from myself.

 Reviews 
 * I'm just going to comment on your speedy nominations. Your error rate is around 5%, and the trend is towards improvement. This is acceptable, but not optimal--you should aim for 98%, which is as good as most of us manage. Your errors are mainly of two types: either you forget that the criterion only applies to a specific kind of article, or you place the deletion tag too early. In particular, you should never place a no content or no context   tag on an article that is still being actively worked on, and you should be very hesitant about lack of importance  in the early versions, unless it's totally clear it will never be otherwise. You might do better going from the back not the front of the unpatrolled backlog, If you do go from the front, tag only those which are totally impossible for reasons of copyvio or vandalism or abuse or nonsense. And remember to carefully check any article on a person or organization that seems coherent for copyvio: find & check their whole website; don't rely just on google.   Always notify people, unless they're a troll, and  be helpful when they question you. Don't get impatient at beginners, not just recite the rules--explain the actual specific problem in that particular article.  DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I tend to take a dim view of editors who primarily focus on deletion. Deletion is fast and easy and quickly pumps up an editor's stats compared to spending the time to research and write encyclopedia content; I notice many editors who have so gotten into the habit of deletion that they are much more willing to delete hours' worth of effort in the form of content others have researched and written rather than spend a few minutes of their own time to achieve the same goal, for example when pursuing balance in an article.  I haven't looked closely enough at your editing history to see whether you exhibit this behavior but I would say that you ought to put a fair percentage of your time into creating content to Wikipedia standards if you are also going to be spending lots of effort evaluating and deleting the work of others.  -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 20:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)