Wikipedia:Editor review/Kylohk

Kylohk
I would say your 'Counter-vandalism' skills are non-existent and your English is also poor. You should not edit anything you know nothing about.80.169.135.226 17:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm requesting a review about how I handled a tense discussion some time ago. A user request a move for the page MTR 4 times and failed. He then listed a table classifying the people who supported and opposed the move, elaborating most of the opposers' are from Hong Kong. There was a tense atmosphere between the user and others. So, I tried stepping in, explaining why most opposers are from Hong Kong and applying peer pressure against the user's actions. However, the other user insisted that he had a right to debate with a harsh term. He also accused me of not assuming good faith and have many fallacys etc. The argument was only stopped when I presented evidence (which the users at Wikipedia talk:Attribution agreed with) that the other user stopped replying. Although the discussion has ended, I still believe I must have done something incorrectly in the process, so I'd like some feedback on it. The discussions are located here and here. Kylohk 08:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Hmm... an editor review just over a single article? OK...
 * Looking through your comments in Talk:MTR I see no incivility on your part, although you are quite frank sometimes ("IF you want proof, do you want us to travel to every household in Hong Kong, and ask, "Do you prefer to call our metro system MTR or Mass Transit Railway"?" is not something I'd have dared to say.) I won't comment on whether the current title of the article is appropriate. Resurgent insurgent 16:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to read the entire MTR discussion, but you imply that the argument became convincing only after evidence was provided. I've found it a lot more productive to argue with reliable sources rather than to argue about policy or the manual of style, because policy and guidelines can be interpreted in many different ways. This has a benefit of being able to add those sources to the article itself, making it better.

The MTR discussion took a wrong turn when the table was made to highlight HK users. Obviously there are going to be a lot of people interested in HK on that talk page, and they are probably more familiar with what the MTR is called than other users. Recently I saw an AfD, I forget where, in which a table was made of Western Australian users !voting keep against established users !voting delete. That discussion got really long as well, and this requested move (not even deletion) should have been a lot more tame compared to something like that.

Since you've been behind 2 FAs already, I recommend focusing on article writing more than taking part in drawn out debates. I don't mean to not respond to comments on talk pages, but you can make your replies more concise and to the point. Then, if they still disagree, there's in no point repeating the same arguments repeatedly. Again, it seems easier to convince people by appealing to external sources and by improving the article itself. Unfortunately WP:BLP has become a very touchy subject so even verifiable, seemingly neutral facts are questioned. –Pomte 19:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.


 * View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * The contribution I am most pleased with is my improvement of The Bus Uncle. The article was created last year, and brought under AfD since it was not notable. It survived because a large number of newspaper articles sprung up to cover that event, establishing notability. Having improved the article, it was the first one ever that I have managed to promote to Featured status. It is also noted about the hilarity of the subject at hand. So it shows I can follow process in Wikipedia (while having a good laugh about it!)
 * 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?
 * The most significant conflict was described above, and I'd like some feedback on how to improve in this matter.
 * The most significant conflict was described above, and I'd like some feedback on how to improve in this matter.

Additional Questions from Dfrg.msc:

Borrowed from, I'm sure he wont mind. These should test you editing skills, and show if you have any weaknesses which you can work on. So, just write your answer next to the Question. Good luck.

Speedy Delete or not: 


 * 1) CSD1
 * 2) CSD2
 * 3) CSD3
 * 4) CSD4
 * 5) CSD5

Vandalism or or not: 


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)