Wikipedia:Editor review/Giants27 (2)

Giants27 (2)
I've been here for almost three years, have almost 40,000 edits, 8 GAs and probably around 70 DYKs now. It's been over two years since I was reviewed and almost two years since I took a stab at RfA, which failed due to an incident where I called someone an "asshole". Since then, I went inactive and came back in April 2011. When I returned, I returned to editing roster templates for the NFL, updating player pages, and expanding the occasional article here and there. I also nominated two articles for GA, which in all honesty, were not entirely ready. I'm contemplating another run at RfA in the coming months and basically, I would like to have some reviews on how I am doing since I returned. Cheers,  Giants27 ( T  |  C )  02:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * Looking back on my previous RfAs, I believe that Joey Hamilton or Nathan Horton have been my best contributions to the encyclopedia. While I have six other good articles, I just feel as though those two were my best piece's of work. Sean Bennett and Andy Hedlund would be two that I'm not ecstatic about, but yet, know that it took some work to dig up some references on those two, which I am pleased about. Primarily, I spend my days editing roster templates for the NFL nowadays and updating pages based on recent transactions. Occasionally, I'll welcome a new user/IP or hop on Huggle and revert some vandalism.
 * 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.
 * Recently, no. However, as shown in the RfA I linked to, I have been in the past, but I like to think I've learned from them.
 * Recently, no. However, as shown in the RfA I linked to, I have been in the past, but I like to think I've learned from them.

 Reviews 


 * Civility towards the community: You barely talk in the user and Wikipedia talk namespaces. As for template talk, well, you only seem to edit DYK templates, so I can't really judge you on the civility you show towards others. I believe, however, that you have learnt your lesson regarding the "asshole" incident and that you are now leaving it behind you.
 * Article contributions: I think you do a terrific job at keeping articles, and templates, update. However, I think you can take this way further by getting stuck into more GAs and FAs. I suggest that you collaborate with someone on Joey Hamilton and take it to FA.
 * Edit count analysis: Wow, you spend some time editing template, which is a bit strange for me. Besides that, I think you have a good pie chart consisting of finely-balanced mainspaces.
 * RfA-worthiness: A major criterion regarding RfAs is that the nominee has too participate in behind-the-scene admin-related areas, such as AfDs, and know something about CSD, PROD and the like. You have done a good job at AfDs -- according to this, 74.1% of your stances are spot on; however, that can be improved. You can improve your chances at a potential RfA by doing some new page patrolling so people can judge you on your understanding of CSD, PROD and the deletion policy (and also to help with the backlog). Other than that, I think you're all good.
 * Final thoughts: I think you are a good content creator, but I'd prefer it if you engage others in dialogues more often, ie giving people cookies, barnstars etc, so newbies feel that someone is looking out for them feel acknowledged for their work. Also, give me an FA, woudl you? :) --Sp33dyphil © • © 07:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)