Wikipedia:Editor review/Deon555 2

Deon555
My first (serious) request for the mop was just a few months ago [1] and it just failed to achieve consensus. Obviously the first reason would be the lack of mainspace edits. But at the end of the day, the discussion at RfA is meant to be whether or not the candidate is likely to abuse the tools not whether or not the candidate has created 10 featured articles by him(her)self today. I don't really see myself re-applying for adminship soon.. but you never know in this wiki-world. Thanks &mdash; D e on555talkdesksign here! 02:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews  Review by delldot: Hey Dion, I think you're doing a great job.
 * You seem very friendly and I haven't noticed any conflicts with other users. You weren't very specific in Q2, how have you dealt with the minor skirmishes that pop up?  How do you plan to deal with larger ones if they do come up?  You don't seem like you're likely to get into any trouble, I noticed an instance where you were apparently discussing a disagreement about speedy deletion with a newb and you were very friendly.  You thanked them for contributing, helped them out with understanding guidelines, softened statements to be diplomatic, and backed down when you saw you were wrong.  To me, this shows you work well with others and deal with potential conflict well.
 * Don't take RfA too personally, it's a very brutal process for all candidates. I think that Distance Education Centre, Victoria is a very nice article, certainly better than many.  The picture looks really good, too, are you a pro photographer, or do you have some photography training?  I ask because the photo has very nice use of color and perspective.  It would be awesome if you could contribute more of your photos to articles that need them.  You can check out Requested images to see if you have anything you can contribute.  Also a lot of photo-less articles are in need but not marked there, so just look around.  Articles listed at cleanup, WP:IFY, etc are frequently in need.
 * OK, am I just hopelessly dumb, or are there no links to your talk page archives on your talk page? If not, you should link to them.  If you don't archive your talk page, you should consider starting, it helps people when they're looking for something.
 * You do some vandal fighting, which is great.
 * Edit summary usage is very good. Some of your edit summaries could be more informative, e.g. when you !vote in XfD's it's helpful to have slightly more than just the name of what you're discussing.
 * Looks from your contribs like you're good about discussing stuff on talk pages.
 * You don't do much article writing, but I don't see that as a big deal. If you help out, to me it doesn't matter what areas you do it in or that you don't help out in every area.  If you do want to start participating in the article space more, it would of course be helpful.  You could start small WP:IFYing pages, sorting things out from CAT:NOCAT, or copy editing.  You don't need to be a pulitzer winner.  On the other hand, if this doesn't float your boat, I think your current participation is fine.  On the whole, great job!  delldot | talk 01:18, 1 February 2007 (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've only really created a single article, and that was DECv. It was pointed out to me on my last RfA that I [..] find it disturbing that a self-nom's answer to [your pleased contributions] is what amounts to a really long stub article. So yes, I was pleased about that contribution (my first article), but apparently its not good enough... Nevertheless, I'm pleased that after ~1,500 edits I actually wrote an article.. even if it is "just a long stub"
 * 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?
 * No serious conflicts. I mean, you get into little things all the time, but nothing serious.
 * No serious conflicts. I mean, you get into little things all the time, but nothing serious.