Wikipedia:Editor review/Diez2

User:Diez2
I am requesting an editor review. I feel that I have done a lot of newpage reviewing and AfD deleting. Diez2 04:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Hi Diez2. Your dededicated contribution on the undesirable tasks of Wikipedia is greatly appreciated! Just a few note for you though:
 * When you have spare time, contribute to some actual articles...you know about that! =)


 * Beware of nominating articles on AFD with bad faith.. I just searched some of your listings and I found the follow two very controversial:
 * Articles for deletion/Mohammad Kaykobad
 * Articles for deletion/Erivan Haub

But overall, you are doing great on these tasks! On a side note, remember to fill in your edit summary, it might reduce some of the conflicts. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 19:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
 * I cannot say I am particularly impressed with Diez2's work on AFD. The example I encountered by chance, is Articles_for_deletion/Abba_Samuel_of_Dabra_Wagag (which I have never edited). Diez2's nomination reason was This is almost utter nonsense. Also, the only source is in Latin, so no one can really verify it. Finally, this could be a possible violation of WP:HOAX.
 * The article is about a hagiography, with some fairly standard miracles. This is not nonsense; it should be phrased from an out-of-universe view, but that's another question.
 * The source is in French, as the title shows. If it were in Latin, there are Wikipedian Latinists.
 * The existence, and scholarly publication, of the source are readily verifiable in online university library catalogues.
 * Careless AfD nominations in fields the nominator does not understand are not a help to the encyclopedia; they are a waste of AfD's time. (A check of other nominations suggests that he is generally careless; he should consider how often AfD has overruled him. Given the amount of fluff in NewArticles patrol, mere randomness would produce better results.) Septentrionalis 22:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * May I ask how randmomness would produce better results? Diez2 00:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not advocate placing new articles at random on AfD (although it's an interesting idea); but doing so would be likely to nominate fewer keepable articles and more cruft that Diez2 seems to. Septentrionalis 16:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Abba Samuel looks interesting, however, and I would not have encountered him otherwise; so I do thank Diez2 for his error. Septentrionalis 22:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, you could put a bit more effort and research into your AfD nominations. Your deletion reasons generally seem to be along the lines of "non-notable, fails WP:SOMETHING utterly, etc." without any detail of how the subject or article fails that criterion, or to demonstrate that you went to any effort to ensure that the article did not actually meet a guideline or policy (e.g. no Google hits, no listing on AMG/IMDB, only self-referenced). I'd recommend you also learn a bit more about deletion policies and notability guidelines, and be specific in your nomination reasons instead of saying "NN, doesn't meet blah", give reasons why it doesn't, and proof.
 * See for example:
 * Articles for deletion/Arpwatch (I found 3 non-trivial references in major books on Google in less than a minute)
 * Articles for deletion/Ann Burbrook (has a role in one of Australia's most popular and long-running TV series, and substantial roles in several popular Australian films, a fact you use to support your assertion of non-notability)
 * Hope that helps! --Canley 10:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I have not done much actual article editing, sadly. I would have to say that Separation of Church and State would be my favorite edit, but it wasn't much of one. Most of my time has been devoted to newpage filtering and working heavily on the CAT:NN backlog (which is huge, might I add).
 * This would appear to be the adding of Controversy1 back in September. Septentrionalis 22:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 have been in many a conflict with users over the placement of db tags or prod tags on their articles. Very rarely, an administrator sides with them. I think that this tells me that I have good judgement here about what articles I have edited. To deal with these conflicts, I just let them slide over. If I am indeed wrong, then I will apoligize and move on with life. To be honest, they don't cause me all that much stress.
 * I have been in many a conflict with users over the placement of db tags or prod tags on their articles. Very rarely, an administrator sides with them. I think that this tells me that I have good judgement here about what articles I have edited. To deal with these conflicts, I just let them slide over. If I am indeed wrong, then I will apoligize and move on with life. To be honest, they don't cause me all that much stress.