Wikipedia:Editor review/Chunky Rice

Chunky Rice
I've been actively contributing to Wikipedia for a little over 4 months. Over that time, I've slowly been expanding the kinds of tasks that I partake in. I started out hanging around AfD and trying to clean up geek hobby articles. Then I became active in Recent Changes Patrol. Recently, I've been trying my hand at writing articles from scratch and uploading GFDL photos. Basically, I'm just looking to get a feel for areas that I might be able to improve on or perhaps activities that I could be helpful with, but am unaware of. Further, I've been contemplating an RfA in a month or two. I realize that this isn't quite the forum for that, but any advice would be welcome. Chunky Rice 23:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * You're a user in good standing. Your use of Twinkle and vandal fighting is nice. I would recommend that you get into some more deletion stuff, like looking at speedy deletion and some more XfD's. You might also want to take a look at the WP:RFA page and the admin noticeboard to see admins at work. Good user, good start. You will be on my mental list for people to nominate.  bibliomaniac 1 5  BUY NOW! 00:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A late comment, sorry, hope it's still of use. I see little to critique in your editing, lots of productive edits, good edit summaries and you've already got thoroughly involved in a WikiProject. To Court the King looks like a great first article with sources, infobox, picture etc, and if you're seriously interested in running for the mop in future, creating a few more good-quality new articles will probably stand you in good stead with many 'voters'. I note with interest from your user page that you've found the legal articles in good shape compared with the hobby ones, as I've had precisely the opposite impression with my own real-life specialism. Is there any way you can use your real-life expertise to contribute to the encyclopedia's legal coverage, perhaps by reviewing articles that are featured candidates or by using your expertise to respond to requests for peer review? One piece of advice about running for adminship (not that I've ever done it!) would be to look carefully at responses to other people's RfAs to see what criteria people use, and perhaps start 'voting' yourself. Espresso Addict 00:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello! Well, I don't really want to talk about RfA here because bibliomaniac has already done that (I suggest WP:ADMINCOACH though). Instead I'll actually talk about editing (the purpose of this place :P).  So anyway, based on your work at Transformation playing card...well done.  In one month you've taken a red link to GA class, something I certainly couldn't do!  The current article (in its GA state, obviously) follows Wikipedia policy, guideline, and the rest quite well, so congratulations on your excellent work there!  This is the first ER that I've commented on, so I'm not really sure what depth you're supposed to go in to or whatever, but a quick glance at your other work is quite good.  Give it a few more months, make another 2000 edits (not WP:EDITCOUNTITIS on my behalf, but 4000 is generally seen as a safe level for RfA.  3000 at least!), and you should breeze through an RfA.  Good luck, and happy editing,  Giggy  UCP 04:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 


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


 * View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I guess I'm mostly happy with the work that I've done with WikiProject Board and table games. I don't think that I'm a great article writer, but I believe that I've been able to make significant improvements on articles like Rio Grande Games and Through the Desert.  I've written my first article from scratch, To Court the King and I have a couple more in the works.  Outside of board and table games, I think that I did some good work at Critical Mass in making the article more NPOV.
 * 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?
 * Of course. I don't really experience stress from dealing with the people that I encounter during recent changes patrol.  What do I care if some random vandal wants to deface my user page or calls me names.  No, it's the good faith editors where I can tell that we both want to do what we think is best for the encyclopedia that I experience stress.  Primarily because I feel like it's a failure on my part that I'm unable to properly explain my position.  I've employed a variety of methods to deal with this.
 * At List of miniature wargames, I used dispute resolution. I talked it through with the other editor and when that failed, initiated an RfC.  The RfC favored my position, so I made the edits.
 * At Pedophilia, I argued for my position, but ultimately decided to just walk away. Partially because the other editor was so adamant and partially because I found the subject matter distasteful.
 * At Critical Mass, I was able to reach an agreement with the other editors on the talk page and implemented the plan that we agreed on (tagging, waiting and then removing unsourced POV statements). I was particularly pleased with this instance because we were able to reach an agreement.
 * At Critical Mass, I was able to reach an agreement with the other editors on the talk page and implemented the plan that we agreed on (tagging, waiting and then removing unsourced POV statements). I was particularly pleased with this instance because we were able to reach an agreement.


 * Ultimately, what I've learned that helps me deal with content disputes is that, while it is important to argue your position, it's not important that it be done right this very instant (with the possible exception of BLP concerns). I find that if I stop worrying about fixing things right away, it's a lot easier to keep my cool and avoid things like revert wars.

Additionals from Dfrg.msc

Borrowed from, I'm sure he wont mind. These should test you editing skills, and show if you have any weaknesses which you can work on. So, just write your answer next to the Question. Good luck.

Speedy Delete or not: 


 * 1) CSD1 - Quick search turns up no results.  Speedy delete under A7.  No assertion of notability.
 * 2) CSD2 - A quick search turns up a couple potential sources.  Might try to clean up the article.  At worst, might redirect to Voice over IP, no need to delete.
 * 3) CSD3 - There's kind of an assertion of notability with the 90 markets thing.  A search doesn't turn up much that I'd be inclined to use, though.  I'd probably go with prod/AFD instead of speedy.
 * 4) CSD4 - Speedy delete under A1 or G1.
 * 5) CSD5 - Probably the best looking article of the bunch, but absolutely no assertion of notability and searches don't turn up anything either.  Speedy under A7.

Vandalism or or not: 


 * 1)  - A quick search for Maggie Stapleton and pokemon turns up no information.  Definitely should be reverted and user warned.  Possibly not technically vandalism, but it wouldn't bother me to call it that, either.
 * 2)  - Vandalism
 * 3)  - Vandalism
 * 4)  - Regardless of whether the removal was correct (probably was), appears to be a good faith edit, so not vandalism.
 * 5)  - Probably a good faith, if bad, edit.
 * 6)  - Original research, but appears to be a good faith edit, so not vandalism.

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Response:

1. 100% Correct.

2. 100% Correct.

3. 100% Correct.

4. Good understanding of policy.

5. 100% Correct!

_

1. Good!

2. Correct!

3. Correct!

4. Correct!

5. Yeah, borderline vandalism and an unhelpful edit. Test 1 and Welcome.

6. Great!

Sorry for the long wait. The CSD'ing was absolutely excellent! Great job there. My results were almost exatxly the same as yours, see at User:Dfrg.msc/Admin coaching. The important thing is "all Edits are Effort'. And when you destroy that effort, have a good reason. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 02:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)