Wikipedia:Editor review/Dusti2

Dusti
It's been about a year since my last review, and I would like to see where the community stands on viewing me as an editor. I'm not necessarily looking to go to RFA, in fact I'm thinking I'm going to stay away from that for awhile.  D u s t i *poke* 00:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I feel my best contributions have always been in reverting vandalism. I do also do a lot of work at AFD, and I feel my work there has actually been getting better. I recently started working with the Ambassador program, and I look forward to helping out there as well. I do also do work with Articles for Creation
 * 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.
 * In the early stages of my editing yes, as I was new, and not sure about Policy. Now, that I have matured in my wiki editing, I feel that disputes are second nature to me, and I always try to discuss them thoroughly and try to come to some sort of an agreement, if possible.
 * In the early stages of my editing yes, as I was new, and not sure about Policy. Now, that I have matured in my wiki editing, I feel that disputes are second nature to me, and I always try to discuss them thoroughly and try to come to some sort of an agreement, if possible.

 Reviews 

Chzz
Following off-wiki request to review, some comments;


 * As discussed, check on E. F. Schumacher Society that you AfD'd, a) for any copyvio, b) if it could be stubbed rather than deleted. If an article is N, unless literally every single word meets CSD deletion criteria (ad, copyvio, whatever) then 'stubbifying' is usually more appropriate
 * Same with Capital Institute - a) copyvio? b) can be stubbed? (But if it does fail WP:ORG / WP:GNG, then fair enough, no problem)
 * As discussed, consider logging CSD's so you can easily check through them - User:Chzz/CSDmod
 * Also, as I mentioned, I suggest asking some admin(s) to check over your CSD'd things for you
 * As discussed, anything in another language, always add a translation/explanation in English
 * You said you'd not created much, so OK, I checked the articles you have. Maybe worth checking them for issues, and seeing if you can improve them.
 * Rushville Consolidated High School - not bad; maybe you can update it a bit? And I'd be concerned about "Helen J. Murphy" - no ref for them; see WP:NPF. And the principle - Matt Vance.
 * Indiana Soldiers' and Sailors' Children's Home - check referencing. Lots of unref'd claims, in the 'lede' and all of "Closure". Also, could use more independent RS. And it could do with laying out better; the lede should be a summary, and all details should be in a section or two. But not too many; sections should have at least a couple of paragraphs. See WP:LEDE.


 * More content work always helps; I don't know if you've done other things. Have you considered writing a few short articles, maybe? It isn't all that hard. Maybe just long enough for DYK. Also - and I do appreciate you said you aren't that much of a content editor...but, it does help...if maybe you get involved in a GAR and/or FAR or two - just commenting, adding thoughts, helping out. It helps to better understand the processes, and also serves s a good reminder of what Wikipedia is really all about - ie writing articles
 * AFC Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Millican declined as 'v' but it does have this which looks like RS? Consider adding a comment when you decline things like that, to explain more clearly. Because, the template message says "We're sorry, but we cannot accept unsourced suggestions or sources that are not reliable" - and I think what you probably need to say is, that we need more RS. Be careful over-relying on templated messages, don't be afraid to add your own comments.
 * This was a bit snippy; it'd be better to have just walked away from that one. I appreciate that the other person might've been very wrong, but there is no need to retaliate; be careful. Note, this is not really bad...just a suggestion. Keep calm, have tea, and think carefully before writing things like "I have other more important things to do" - that comment isn't going to help solve anything.
 * When you revert, consider using other messages than the standard "appears to have been unconstructive". For example,  - the alternative warning about the need for RS might have been better, there
 * I'm a bit concerned about the sheer volume of 'clean up via AWB'. If you are doing 3 per minute, you can't really be checking them much. Random examples,
 * seems pointless
 * Even more so,   - removing a space
 * (They do no harm, of course...but I don't think they do much good, either - unless you're actually cleaning up other things at the time)

 Chzz  ► 09:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: When you accept at AFC, if the article is big enough, consider submitting to DYK. E.g. Newport News Public Library. (Hint; that also helps show more 'article' editing, and you'd get a DYK credit)
 * You listed at UAA; I'm not convinced that warrants UAA, unless there is some other reason - and I see no contribs. It could just be a foreign name. I don't consider it blatant enough for a UAA.