Wikipedia:Editor review/Jenova20

Jenova20
I don't know what to write here really. I try my best and i like to be bold. I sometimes struggle to spot neutrality.  J e n o v a  20 15:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

 Questions

 Reviews 
 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I like to correct mistakes, easy spelling mistakes while learning about random things. I also like to search randomly and then try to improve articles i find that interest me. I'm pleased with the work I am doing on Citroën C3 Picasso as the main contributor and hope to eventually get it a a featured article stage. I'm dyslexic but i'm coping well since i was mentored and i've picked up a lot of tricks and am still learning.
 * 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.
 * I've been in a few! I've learned now to ignore most of it as some take the bait of a response to say worse things and cause me more aggrovation. I openly identify as gay on my userpage and the choice of articles i sometimes edit is in this field, which i think attracts people who may then try their luck against me, especially the opposing side who don't agree with homosexuality.
 * 1) I can understand that you might not know exactly what to ask for in this review, but, say over the next year or two, what kind of goals do you have for yourself as an editor? I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!)
 * I aim for either another Good article or C3 Picasso at FA status. That's it really, i intend to be ambitious in that respect even though it takes a lot of edits to improve it. That's because some of it is quite technical for me though and i can get onto easier stuff when that's done. Not that i don't enjoy doing it anyway, i just want something easier next. ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) You said in your introduction that you like to be be bold. Has your approach to being bold in your editing behavior and interactions changed, particularly when you have received certain permissions such as rollback, or during your time with your mentor?  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!)
 * Not really, i changed the entire layout of Android version history a few days ago in a very bold edit. No one has said they hate it though and it's still there. Wikipedia may not be about winning or losing but when good faith additions to the project are lost then it's clearly a loss. ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Are you interested in being an administrator? ("I don't know right now" is a perfectly acceptable response, BTW).  If you are interested, what do you think you need to do before an RfA?  If you're not interested, why is that?  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!)
 * No, i want to add content to Wikipedia, not become a janitor or pen pusher. It's like comparing writing and reading to me. If i want to write i don't become a librarian, i become a publisher. I like this side of things and Wikipedia doesn't need more admin, it needs editors. ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really, i changed the entire layout of Android version history a few days ago in a very bold edit. No one has said they hate it though and it's still there. Wikipedia may not be about winning or losing but when good faith additions to the project are lost then it's clearly a loss. ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Are you interested in being an administrator? ("I don't know right now" is a perfectly acceptable response, BTW).  If you are interested, what do you think you need to do before an RfA?  If you're not interested, why is that?  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!)
 * No, i want to add content to Wikipedia, not become a janitor or pen pusher. It's like comparing writing and reading to me. If i want to write i don't become a librarian, i become a publisher. I like this side of things and Wikipedia doesn't need more admin, it needs editors. ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, i want to add content to Wikipedia, not become a janitor or pen pusher. It's like comparing writing and reading to me. If i want to write i don't become a librarian, i become a publisher. I like this side of things and Wikipedia doesn't need more admin, it needs editors. ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * By TSU

M I really the first one to do this? I hope you won't mind few comments from me :) I'm running out of time and have many things to attend, perhaps, I won't dig in too much. From an overview, everything looks okay. You are a hardworking content contributor and that is what I liked the most about you. Your work at Citroën_C3_Picasso is awesome with a total of 740+ edits (Congo for the GA). Your editing has been consistent and 38% is dedicated towards the main space and there is nothing wrong in it. You have improved with time and are one of the best students of WTT according to me. Its always good to see someone learn from an experienced editor but I just think that there are just way too many edits at WTT's talk. You have 360+ edits on your talk page while it is 730+ on WTT's. It is more than double to yours which I feel is a bit too many. No doubt that your comments do help and others were to take advise; some of them I feel were not so helpful. I'm not asking to stop that but try avoid getting into anything often which is of less utility. At the closing point, I really don't think that edits on WTT is a issue; I just pointed out which I felt. From your archives, I don't see any big trouble and you have mostly been drama-free and always have behaved in a civil and jolly way. Plus, going through that, I see that you've improved with time. There is a bit lack of admin related work, however, since you don't aim it, it isn't really problem. Above all, you are a great, tireless and dedicated editor who is always cheerful and polite. You are having good tempo and I hope that you keep it up. Cheers!  TheSpecialUser TSU 04:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I don't see why the admin stick is so important, especially since more admin will kill the project. The project needs editors, not people being criticized for not using their admin powers regularly so they can't edit as they like. It's strange no one else ever says this as it seems so obvious. I also respond to every message on my talk page and chip in on WTT's talk page occasionally, although mostly i'm sure my edits there are asking questions so that i don't need to watch the help desk. I've always thought of his page as a brilliant example for how an admin should be and the greatest tool for editor retention. Thanks for the review TSU and have a nice day/evening ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Review by
Hey Jenova. Been putting this off as long as I had because I was hoping other editors might review you first - I didn't want to influence anyone. The reason? I'm hardly going to be impartial - in my opinion, you are one of the editors who has made the most progress on the encyclopedia in the past two years - I regard you as an absolute success story. However, I will attempt to do an impartial review of your contributions. Otherwise, my main advice for you is to keep going. You're doing a great job, and the more you get involved, the more people will be asking you to get involved. Worm TT( talk ) 14:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The obvious place to start is the Citroen C3 Picasso, an article you've taken from a redirect to a high quality article. I find it amazing that you've found enough to write about in 870 edits regarding a car, but you've done an excellent job. It has improved even more since the recent peer review, but perhaps could do with a copy edit - just reading through I've spotted things like the "C3 Picasso Facelift" section, should not have a capital F as it is not an official name. Indeed, I think you should find out what the updated version is called and change it to that (even if changes to "2012 styling" or something like that).
 * You've spent a lot of time working in LGBT areas, and it is clear from your comments that you do have a bias there. I am very impressed with the improvement you've made over the past few years in adhering to neutrality, but there is always room for improvement. Keeping a NPOV at the forefront of your mind whenever editing in these areas is a necessity for you.
 * Oddly, from what I've seen, the other area where you seem to have a hotspot is Android topics. I've never really succumbed to the operating system wars, but again keeping NPOV in mind when you're working in the areas is essential.
 * As TSU mentioned above, you've made an awful lot of edits to my talk page. I personally really appreciate them, you are generally adding helpful comments to editors who have questions - and that is without a doubt a positive way to spend your time. Since you are clearly quite so good at it though, could I recommend you spend some time at the cutting edge of helping editors? Areas such as the help desk, the teahouse and adoption are always crying out for good editors who want to help.
 * Anyone can edit the help desk? I really didn't know that...Thanks for letting me know.
 * I think i've had an issue where i can only really offer good advice to noobs or people still in adoption, after that they surpass me.
 * C3 Picasso shouldn't have took that many edits but there was a few policy issues i learned about and i've actually learned since starting that my dyslexia is a bit of a bigger barrier than i thought, and it takes ages to reword some sentences because of that.
 * Your review means a lot Dave and from it i can see what i need to work on. Thanks and have a nice day ツ Je no va  20  (email) 14:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's all a learning curve, and if making lots of edits on one article helps you do better on the next, I don't have a problem with it. As for the help desk, yes, anyone can edit it and it's generally very new editors who ask questions there. The teahouse generally expects people to sign up as hosts, but you don't have to - it just adds to the friendly atmosphere. As for the "only offer good advice to ... ", don't do yourself down. I think you know morer than you think you do. Worm TT( talk ) 14:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure i can do "morer" than i think, it's just applying it. Thanks a lot for the review, it means a lot. Have a nice afternoon! ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Review by
First off, my apologies in the delay of this review. Thanksgiving snuck up behind me, which normally wouldn't be a problem, but I was without internet access for the whole week. (Also Worm, I purposefully have not read your review above in an effort to give a fresh perspective here).

OK Jenova, here are a few things I've noticed while perusing through your edit history. I was particularly interested in this exchange on your adoption page. Granted, this was a year ago, but I think it's good to show some contrast to how you act now. In this exchange, Christian was basically accusing you of bad faith and having a bad attitude. It's not really important for me to regurgitate the context for this, so I won't, and it's not really central to my point here. You went back-and-forth with Christian for a bit, trying to show the editor that 1) their arguments were wrong and that 2) you felt harassed and Christian not really buying it. I think it was interesting exercise in refuting the basis for their opinions and avoiding commenting on the editor, but I think it would have been best to call this kind of discourse off early. It's not as thought I think you were overtly defensive, but insisting on replying did not seem to achieve much, and might suggest you were trying to win something not really winnable. I think a single response, much like how Worm responded, would have been sufficient.

In contrast, I think this reply was a great way to address the concern of the editor, to let them know they can change the problems in the article, and that you'd help them do that. (I also note this section on Christian's talk page, which was a nice gesture).

So in essence, I'd like to say that I think your interactions with editors have gotten better. I know you are mostly focused on article content, but if you want more practice dealing with frustrated editors (which I think is just a generally good skill to have), you might consider answering some moodbar feedback or checking the Q&A section of The Teahouse.

I noticed few articles I noticed you were working on in your userspace. Some comments about them:
 * User:Jenova20/Homophobia_in_the_media: This interesting, but I think it has the potential to be uncontrollably large and too broad in scope to be useful.  You might consider splitting these pages into particular kinds of media eventually (TV, Newspapers, Online Media, etc, radio, etc.)  It is also important that some rationale for inclusion be determined.  I realize that lists do not require all items to be sourced, but because the definition of homophobia is tenuous, it might be good to have a reliable source or commentary suggest that the included item is a reflection of that attitude.
 * User:Jenova20/Resident_Evil_Creatures: The organization here is hard to gauge.  The monsters are sorted alphabetically, but the actual categories do not always reflect the names of the enemies themselves (e.g. under the "J" column, there are lots of enemies that do not start with J).  RE is a notable franchise, and I think this list should be able to stand on its own, but I would be wary of how detail is put into the "notes" section.  Keep it to a minimum to avoid problems of WP:OR or being overly reliant on primary source.

I'm also really glad you are involved with the LGBT WikiProject and check up on it from time to time for issues of style, adding articles to the project, and keeping up with some discussions. I hope you will continue to keep up with that when you can. You have a strong interest in LGBT-related issues, though I've noticed that this sometimes can lead to kind of snarky remarks to problematic editors on the those pages. Do your best to keep your cool when tackling the comments of other editors there, even if it is obvious to you they are tendentious or otherwise unconstructively.
 * Thanks for your review. Me and Christian are fine now, the past is the past and North is a special case, which was taken to ANI. I do have an issue with people making vague personal attacks to me and expecting not to get one back because i'm sometimes pretty blunt like that. If i'm honest, i don't intend to change that, although i realise i could be the bigger man and ignore it. I suppose i don't see it as fair to play by the rules and have others break them, expecting no retaliation.
 * Regarding side projects in my userspace: Homophobia in the media will take about a year or two to be ready as i'm adding to it occasionally while i work on other things. At the moment it is just a list of examples waiting to be used to create an article around and nothing more.
 * Regarding the Resident Evil creatures, they are currently linked only by type and i was writing the article as basics, before later finding the sources, or usig the games and books as sources if i struggled with that. (I even bought a £25 guide for that).
 * Complaints? I don't like dealing with complaints, i'm more of an offer help kinda guy, and after being to ANI recently, my opinion has actually been damaged greatly against the process, viewing it as broken and open to abuse, especially by editors harbouring homophobic views, which cloud their judgement against obvious violations. And that includes admin after what i've seen.
 * Thanks for the review Jethro, it was much appreciated and i'm very grateful ツ Je no va  20  (email) 20:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)