Wikipedia:Editor review/Lwalt

Lwalt
The primary purpose in asking for an editor review at this juncture is to assess my effectiveness in contributing to Wikipedia for the last six months. The articles that I have contributed significantly to as an editor include James Brown, Seung-Hui Cho, Academy of Art University and, to a lesser degree, Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls and Tomi Rae Hynie. Articles that I have created up to this date include Charlene Drew Jarvis (currently, a US-politican stub). Although I am not quite a beginner anymore, but not yet an expert (at least, in my self-assessment), I am looking for feedback on my contributions to date and how I can add to, improve, or even enhance editing performance for articles in the English Wikipedia.

 Reviews 

Based on your extensive answers, you are the best judge of your own contributions. I am impressed by the quality of James Brown, and based on a first impression of the top screen, I think it has an excellent chance of becoming a featured article. Having tried to develop an article (endgame tablebase) myself, I can tell you that reaching FA is much harder than it would seem (though WP:GA is somewhat easier). Don't stake your wiki career on the chimera of promoting one featured article. Ultimately, the many people who read the articles you have developed - and believe me, there are thousands of readers - don't really care what we think of the article, as long as it inform them.

I am impressed by your thorough use of edit summaries, which parallels your thorough writing style in general. One good way to avoid conflicts is to explain yourself thoroughly. A favorite essay of mine is WP:WOTTA. I am guilty of using funny acronyms like everyone else, but when you are dealing with a newbie, a clear explanation is the best kind, since the policy pages themselves are notoriously labyrinthine. I don't think any of your past conflicts is a major concern.

I see that you have become more active in vandal patrol. Ironically, I discourage some users from spending too much time there - not because it's unnecessary (although the bots usually catch the worst of it), but rather because your efforts are needed elsewhere. It's good to help out on recent changes every now and then, and to check your watchlist, so please continue to do that. However, since you are a good writer, your primary focus should remain on writing.

I wish you good luck. Yechiel Man 00:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been repeatedly impressed by your attention to detail in adding citations to the James Brown article and properly formatting other editors' citations (including my own), as well as your diligence in reverting vandalism to the article. InnocuousPseudonym 03:10, 6 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?
 * I was particularly pleased with the James Brown article, which was my first significant contribution on Wikipedia. When I first read the article and read the accompanying comments on the Talk page in December 2006, I decided to undertake a significant rewrite of the James Brown article (for example, fill in missing parts of the biography, copyedit grammar and punctuation, conform reference format and style, and so on). Another editor, who was also apparently pleased with the changes to the article, nominated "James Brown" as a featured article for the Music Portal. "James Brown" was one of the featured articles that appeared on the Music Portal in February 2007. Since no other editor has taken on on this task, I plan to add this information within the coming months, and then have the article reassessed in a Featured Article Review (FAR), given that the article is currently rated in the A-Class.
 * 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?
 * Particularly with controversial issues, I typically present the issue on the article's Talk page present my concerns, or in some cases for a specific revision by a particular editor, I post a comment on that editor's Talk page, as indicated in this example. In most cases, I either leave the change for another day (sometimes, the same issue is reiterated by another editor), while in other cases after some time has passed, I make a slight change to the section. My most contentious experience with another editor was when the other editor wanted to add information from personal sources for Academy of Art University, based on that editor's personal history and involvement with protests against the school. In that case, I was compelled to point out to the editor the unacceptable use of a personal website to support addition of information to the article (the issue of protesting against the school is a recurring one for this article). The editor, obviously upset, proceeded to push for POV, accusing me at the same time of being an agent of the article's subject. The only thing I could do at that point out (and restate) why the submission went against Wikipedia policy. I mentioned that the editor could add the information to the article if reliable, independent sources were used to support the statements, and I also referred the editor to resources on Wikipedia that could help him resolve his issues with the type of information he wanted to add to the article. After another editor stepped in to reiterate what I had already told the editor, the "argument" subsided at that point. For minor points of disagreement with other editors in other cases, I simply leave the issue as "agree to disagree," rather than allowing the issue to escalate out of proportion. Upon reflection, when I look back at the exchange, I bit a little too hard, particularly since the other editor indicated newness on Wikipedia after everything calmed down. Perhaps, I could first hold off on the reply until I check more into the editor's history and, if the editor is new, engage that person in a "quieter" conversation.
 * Particularly with controversial issues, I typically present the issue on the article's Talk page present my concerns, or in some cases for a specific revision by a particular editor, I post a comment on that editor's Talk page, as indicated in this example. In most cases, I either leave the change for another day (sometimes, the same issue is reiterated by another editor), while in other cases after some time has passed, I make a slight change to the section. My most contentious experience with another editor was when the other editor wanted to add information from personal sources for Academy of Art University, based on that editor's personal history and involvement with protests against the school. In that case, I was compelled to point out to the editor the unacceptable use of a personal website to support addition of information to the article (the issue of protesting against the school is a recurring one for this article). The editor, obviously upset, proceeded to push for POV, accusing me at the same time of being an agent of the article's subject. The only thing I could do at that point out (and restate) why the submission went against Wikipedia policy. I mentioned that the editor could add the information to the article if reliable, independent sources were used to support the statements, and I also referred the editor to resources on Wikipedia that could help him resolve his issues with the type of information he wanted to add to the article. After another editor stepped in to reiterate what I had already told the editor, the "argument" subsided at that point. For minor points of disagreement with other editors in other cases, I simply leave the issue as "agree to disagree," rather than allowing the issue to escalate out of proportion. Upon reflection, when I look back at the exchange, I bit a little too hard, particularly since the other editor indicated newness on Wikipedia after everything calmed down. Perhaps, I could first hold off on the reply until I check more into the editor's history and, if the editor is new, engage that person in a "quieter" conversation.

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.


 * OK...here are the best answers that I can come up with at the moment. The answers are posted here. → Lwalt ♦ talk 22:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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) justin lawyer wants to marry oprah