Wikipedia:Editor review/Dweller

Dweller
I've been here for a while now and am aware of some shortcomings, but (being the kind of person who responds well to well-intentioned criticism) would love guidance. Some shortcomings I'm aware of are I don't use preview enough, I create a lot of stubby unreferenced articles and my grasp of policy is underdeveloped. Specific pointers where I'm going wrong on the latter are particularly valuable. Dweller 12:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * I've got my eyes on you buddy - User:Blnguyen/RfA
 * I guess there isn't really much more I need so say about your article writing ability, since I saw you work on the three cricket FAs and they went really well. And congratulations on the Ipswich Town FC as well. Apart from that, the creation and FA side of article writing is fine. The thing I really like to see more from established quality sports editors like yourself (or any type of editor), is a more assertive approach towards article content, not just writing one's own articles, but to take the initiative in cleaning up bad articles especially for POV. As far as List of Test cricketers for example goes, there is basically only one (or no editors) on a daily inspection there for mediocre edits which increase POV and unencyclopedicness. It's actually a lot of work for one person to do a sweep by themselves to maintain the articles on a daily basis. I went on a systematic NPOV a while ago . Not many people do it because they are easily scared off by a content dispute, but I feel that if a person knows something about a topic they should help demonstrate their NPOV, V, RS, and BLP skills. I would suggest to everybody to become more assertive in this manner. At the moment I basically see personal article writing and clearcut vandalism reverts. Sport articles are generally plentiful for this. As for WP stuff, I see you are really active and good at helping people at the Ref desk. This is great, as its good to be able to explain and guide other users. As for AfD, the participation and debate is good, but showing initiative is better. I didn't see many trips to the AfD log to start AfDs. I think the club cricket category or any local sport cat would be a source of clean up jobs. I didn't spot much image work, but image policy is hardly understood by anyone on Wikipedia, and its also where the biggest cleanup backlogs are - CAT:NT. It's quite straightforward to use - just add nsd for unsourced images and Category:Image_copyright_tags for the rest of them. Its important to know when fair use is not valid, and to remove things when necessary, such as for fair use replaceable or when articles and their pictures do not meet the criteria. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that pointed and helpful review. You're right - I tend to focus on article writing (I'm not planning on stopping at 4 FAs), helping people (in a broad sense, Ref Desks and calming disputes) and fighting vandalism. I'm also a "dipper in" to debates at AfD, ANI, AN etc. I find the process of creating an AfD a tedious pain and so rarely do it. I don't have a huge amount more time to devote to the project, but I like your ideas and will try to begin implementing them. I've recently improved my knowledge of image policy, following the Cricket World Cup Main Page debacle, which I helped resolve, and my first uploads to Commons (I have a few there). Generally, I want my main focus to be on FAs. I tend to agree with some of the criticism of this site and think that generating a lot more FAs is one'' of the ways to counter it. It's a way that many people are deterred from, because we've (rightly) raised the bar so high, so I'm happy to get stuck in. Cheers! --Dweller 08:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * FAs are always required, although I think that there are many articles which are left in an appalling crufty state for far too long. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 
 * I am beginning reviewing process. I will post a review when I am complete. Sorry if it bad. It will be my first review. Also, I want to point something out first. I have way less experience than you. If you ever thing I am being hypocritical, please let me know. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  03:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on user's talk page --Dweller 11:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummmm this may seem silly, but what exactly do you want reviewed? I am looking at the things you have done and I do not know what you want me to comment about. Can you please give me some certain thing you want me to review? Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  03:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on user's talk page --Dweller 11:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Review: From what I can see, you are a good user. Many of the links you provide link to the basis of an article and not to the specific section you want to show. You may want to fix this in the future with these links. Nice article you wrote on Ted Alletson. You seem to be a good, calm person, but as I said before, the links link to the basic area and not the specific area of it that you want to show. I may add more info later. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  17:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The comment about the wikilinks is very useful. It's something I was dimly aware of... having it brought up makes me more likely to do better. That's exactly what this process is good for! Thank you. --Dweller 11:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen your comments on various Wikipedia talk pages and have come to respect your well-reasoned and thoughtful posts, even if I don't always agree with them. From the posts I can tell that you work hard here and put in work that others are unwilling to do.  I thought this was an awesome way to respond, and it supports my belief that you are pretty great. From the above I'd say that you're doing an excellent job, though I haven't yet takent the time to look at your contributions closely enough to give you a proper review.  delldot | talk 17:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ''That's very kind... I do try to use reason when communicating with others or !voting (or even voting, when appropriate) You made me smile with your generous remarks. I welcome further feedback, especially constructive criticism. --Dweller 11:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to comment here for months, and have finally gotten around to it. I've run into you only a few times on the wiki, but it was always in a positive way. Over half a year ago I gave you a barnstar after you did some really solid editing, and it's good to see that you've kept it up. A quick glance at your user page shows that you have contributed to 4 FAs, and you've very nearly overtaken me in edit count. Aside form that, you're involved with a bunch of wikiprojects, help at the reference desk, have experience with anti-vandalism, and an empty block log. Even at 1:41 in the morning I can tell you that if Blnguyen doesn't beat me to it, this will be a blue link some time in the future. Ok, now if you'll excuse me, I think I need some sleep, see you later and keep up the good work. --Michael Billington (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, now, that's too kind ;-) Your barnstar was hugely appreciated at the time, and it might surprise you, it was influential in keeping me as active as I have been. Cheers. --Dweller 10:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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?
 * Ted Alletson, an article started and largely written by me. Norwich City player of the year was very hard work, especially when I changed my mind and reversed the chronology to make it easier to use. Helping Chess retain FA status. A lot of work on various castles articles (see my user pages). And currently, with User:The Rambling Man, trying to get West Indian cricket team in England in 1988 up to GA status. I also got a wonderfully smug satisfaction that having saved It's a Hard Life from being merged, I got it DYK'd and thereby to the main page. A mere trifle, I know, but such crumbs sustain nerds like me.
 * Update West Indian cricket team in England in 1988, an article I created and then worked on largely in collaboration with User:The Rambling Man has recently reached FA status. The collaboration has continued with Paul Collingwood (close to FA) and Adam Gilchrist (currently at Peer Review on way to FA). I'm really proud of the way I've led a concerted drive to improve some cricket articles to the highest standards, in advance of the World Cup.Dweller 11:33, 26 February 2007 (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?
 * Yes, of course. Just last night, I was aggrieved with an admin over (in my opinion) and incorrect use of speedy and poor etiquette on their part. Usually, I try hard to remain more than civil... I might have overstepped the mark. My usual technique is to leave the issue alone for a bit. That helps me stay cool, as when I had a scarcely concealed accusation of homophobia in a dispute at Chess. A very recent example of my trying to stay cool in a disupute with an admin can be seen on my talk page here. How did I do? --Dweller 13:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Just last night, I was aggrieved with an admin over (in my opinion) and incorrect use of speedy and poor etiquette on their part. Usually, I try hard to remain more than civil... I might have overstepped the mark. My usual technique is to leave the issue alone for a bit. That helps me stay cool, as when I had a scarcely concealed accusation of homophobia in a dispute at Chess. A very recent example of my trying to stay cool in a disupute with an admin can be seen on my talk page here. How did I do? --Dweller 13:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)