Wikipedia:Editor review/FlyingToaster

FlyingToaster
Hi! It's been about a month and a half since my first RfA, which failed essentially because of mistakes made while new page patrolling. After that, I was tempted to just back off of NPP before my next RfA and avoid the issue, but decided instead to do tons more NPP and thus gain the trust of the community. So, I'm very appreciative of any feedback left here and will use it to improve. Thanks so much.  Flying Toaster  10:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

 Reviews 

Since it looks like this is what you wanted feedback on, I looked at your deleted contributions and your CSD tagging. If you only failed your first RfA because of this, you will have no problem passing should you choose to run again at some point. Since your RfA, (assuming that you always tag pages using Twinkle) you have had only two CSD tags outright declined and neither of those tags were really incorrect. (Some of your tags ended up as redirects, one or two are at AfD now, and many were declined by... you.) There was also this, but I'm going to assume that was a script error ;-)

In that time (since your RfA), you have racked up around 800 deleted edits, and at least 725 of those are CSD/PROD tags. Even if I assume that fully half of those deleted contribs are PROD tags (it's not even close to that), you have a CSD accuracy rate of just over 99.5%.

As far as your article writing goes, I am not a very good judge of the quality of articles, so I didn't look very closely at that. However, I did notice how frequently you will tag a page for deletion, then make four or five edits improving/sourcing the article, and remove your own CSD tag. I don't mean to sound condescending here, but that is an extremely good attitude to have about CSD tagging. I wish that I had done that more in the past... J.delanoy gabs adds 15:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey J.delanoy - thanks for the very thorough and thoughtful review - I really appreciate your time. Though you did not mean it as criticism, I wonder if the whole CSD - improve - remove CSD thing can be confusing to newer users.  This tends to happen when I see something that's eligible for speedy deletion and mark it... then look at the clock, see I have five minutes free, and see if as a personal challenge I can't identify the subject and wikify it.  Perhaps in those situations I'd be better off using an under construction tag.  It's worth trying anyway. :)  Flying  Toaster  16:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You have a simple but interesting userpage, its quite effective and good work on not being blocked. Your working really well in the vandalism area, your reverts and speedy deletion tagging is good. Your moving pages alot, Which is good when you are wikifing titles etc. Overall I think you are doing a brilliant job editing wikipedia, and I hope you keep it up! - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email 05:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using X!'s counter

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I'm proud of the span of my edits, which generally fall into two categories; content protection and content creation. On the content protection side, I've been Twinkling, new page and recent edit patrolling, wikignoming, and reporting vandals and sockpuppets.  On the content creation side, I've been creating requested articles (123), adding disambiguation pages, making bold edits, fixing redirects, editing images (123), and taking photos for articles.  While lately I've been getting involved in a few projects such as WikiProject Northern Ireland, I see myself as editing for Wikipedia as a whole rather than any part specifically.
 * 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 can't think of a serious conflict I've had with an established editor. I'm fairly low-controversy because my edits tend to arise from either vandalism, obvious article problems, missing information/citations, or requests.  This means that my work tends to fall over a wide range of subjects that I'm fairly detached from emotionally.  Thus, rather than go into depth on the subtle points of an article's subject, I tend to fix basic article problems and then move on.
 * I can't think of a serious conflict I've had with an established editor. I'm fairly low-controversy because my edits tend to arise from either vandalism, obvious article problems, missing information/citations, or requests.  This means that my work tends to fall over a wide range of subjects that I'm fairly detached from emotionally.  Thus, rather than go into depth on the subtle points of an article's subject, I tend to fix basic article problems and then move on.


 * As a result, most of my conflicts with users arise when newer editors are upset because an article they created has been marked for deletion. They often feel singled out or insulted if their topic has been marked not notable.  In these instances, I aim to AGF and explain Wikipedia's policies for notability, NPOV, what WP is not, etc.  Often, these early editors are far from vandals, but simply unaware that articles need to meet certain criteria.  Plenty of them go on to be valuable editors, so we have every reason to err on the side of not biting.