Wikipedia:Editor review/Melsaran


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

Melsaran
I've been around for about 6 months, and I'd like to hear what other people think of me as an editor.  Mel sa  ran  16:10, 17 July 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 am not really a good article writer, but I like helping with cleaning up vandalism, doing some copyediting with AWB, participating in XfD and RfA, occasionally cleaning up some backlogs (like Special:Newpages), etc. I like the community aspect of Wikipedia. I can also help with translating articles from the Dutch Wikipedia.
 * 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 haven't had a real conflict yet, but certainly some minor frictions with other users. I believe I generally handled them pretty well, although I have occasionally been accused of incivility. That is something I'll have to work on.
 * I haven't had a real conflict yet, but certainly some minor frictions with other users. I believe I generally handled them pretty well, although I have occasionally been accused of incivility. That is something I'll have to work on.

 Reviews 

The first thing I noticed was that less than half your edits are to the mainspace. We have to remember that the main reason we're here is to build an encyclopedia. I did also notice your high number of edits to User Talk, which shows excellent communication with other editors. I went through your last 1000 edits and saw that you have a great handle on policy and procedures and do a good job removing POV, slang, and other things that creep into articles. Also a very good job reverting vandalism and have reported users to AIV many times. Overall, you're a very well rounded editor and an asset to the Wikipedia community. I'd like to see more work done to the mainspace, but that's the only thing I see. Keep doing what you're doing. Useight 19:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your review! It is true that I don't write many articles, partly because English is not my native language, and because I am not really good at it. I prefer just to browse through articles for information and occasionally correct an inaccuracy or copyedit a section.


 * I am currently a member of WikiProject Netherlands, which is not very active, and Wikipedians Against Censorship, which is not about editing articles, but for discussion etc. I am considering joining another WikiProject which focuses more on article building, so I get a little more experience in the main namespace. Again, thank you for your comment :-).


 * By the way, what would you think of me applying for adminship? I'm not sure if I have been around for a long enough time (I became active in February this year), though.  Mel sa  ran  19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect to your question about adminship I would echo the sentiments of Useight with regards to what you're doing right. You're clearly committed to upholding wikipedia's principles and are knowledgeable about the fundamental areas of policy. I don't believe the time you've been active to be an issue, although there will inevitably be a few RfA reviewers with different opinions.


 * Whilst I don't believe your lack of mainspace editing should be an automatic detriment to an RfA attempt, demonstrating that this can be compensated by a sound and actively used knowledge of what makes a good article would help. In other words, have you participated in a lot of peer reviews? If so, I would suggest dedicating some space to mentioning this on your userpage. If not, perhaps this is an avenue to consider. Peer reviewers can give a good analysis of what work needs to be done on an article, even an FA candidate, without needing to demonstate strong writing ability. BeL1EveR 14:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea indeed. To be honest, I am not really familiar with FAs/GAs/Reviews yet, so I'll try to participate in a few peer reviews soon. Thanks for your comment!  Mel sa  ran  12:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

almost''  Singu  larity  19:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be a very well-rounded editor. Participating in discussions and helping out with some of the backlogs are some of the good qualities of an admin, and I think you have them. Working on mainspace is good, but you don't have to force yourself. All is well for you so far. ''Sr13 is

AfD nominations

 * Having seen at least two XfD nominations from you, on subjects that demonstrated a focus on hyper-technicalities over common sense, I'm concerned that you may be too focused on the rules, and not aware enough of the pragmatic value of doing what's best for Wikipedia. I think you'd be well-advised to consider whether or not your approach is the right thing.  I do recognize that you did at least recognize one of your mistakes, but I think you need to process it at a deeper level.  As far as adminship goes, I don't think that would be a good idea without further corrective action on your part.  Or at least, more demonstration of good sense.  I also think you'd be better off working more on articles if that's your goal, since some people might be troubled over that.  FrozenPurpleCube 12:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And please don't remove comments in an editor review because you don't like what feedback someone has to say about you. I was polite, and trying to be constructive.  Your removal is highly mistaken, and will not make you look better.  If you disagree, the wise thing to do is to say so, or otherwise reply to me.  Not censor me.  Do you think that's going to assure me of anything?  No, it's going to convince me that you don't realize your mistakes.  And please, don't revert this either.  That'd just be compounding the error.  If you truly believe there's a problem with my comments, then maybe you should ask someone else to look at it. I don't seen that I was uncivil or failed to assume good faith, I was actually hoping to help you with what I saw as a problem.  And you'll note, I in no way mentioned any particular disputes I had with you.   FrozenPurpleCube 13:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, to be frank, you're not commenting on my general actions as an editor, but on one or two specific AfDs. Saying things such as "I'm concerned that you may be too focused on the rules, and not aware enough of the pragmatic value of doing what's best for Wikipedia" looks like another way of saying "your AfD nominations were in accordance with Wikipedia policies, but I personally don't think that you were right". And saying "As far as adminship goes, I don't think that would be a good idea without further corrective action on your part. Or at least, more demonstration of good sense" is not constructive at all, because when you disagree with my views on deletion, what has that got to do with adminship?  Mel sa  ran  16:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm commenting on your conduct as a user, and once may be happenstance, but twice? Builds up into a pattern.  There is a reason why I mentioned two.  I could look for more, but one bad incident is enough for some folks to decide to oppose on an adminship.  It's also a problem for conduct as an admin.  There are numerous times where you'll see an admin resign because they made one little mistake in conduct.  And if you get any impression that I believe your AFD nominations were sound, I think you are presuming too much.  I'm being polite and not overly focusing on the incidents, instead assuming good faith and leaving them as sound on the surface, but I think it's quite clear I believe them unsound, otherwise I wouldn't be mentioning the problem.  It seems to me you're grasping at straws to defend your actions, and not looking at the problem I've expressed to you.   And if you're asking what good sense has to do with adminship, then it's quite simple, being a good editor requires good sense.  Not having good sense means you get into unnecessary conflicts, create problems and otherwise make for more trouble on Wikipedia.  Sure, there are times when it's time to kick an Ant-hill(none of the cases where I've seen you do it apply, but I don't presume you've never done it appropriately), but if you want to be a admin, I don't think it's unfair to say you should be a good editor.  Believe it or not, the rules are not an end of themselves, but a means to a goal.  It seems to me that you don't have as firm grasp on the policy of WP:BURO or WP:BATTLE as you should.  Take here, I offered a civil bit of advice.  You remove it, without even asking me.  That's not a good thing, especially on Editor Review.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll leave the comments there, but still, I think that if you have a problem with my views on deletion, you should take it up with me, instead of saying "you have no common sense". Let's agree to differ. Of course, I like every bit of constructive criticism, I'd love to improve as an editor in general :-). Do you have anything else that you think I could improve on, or any tips in general?  Mel sa  ran  18:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahem, I did take it up with you, with a politely worded expression of concern that you needed to use common sense more in your actions. This lead to you removing it.  That increased my concern, as the removal of the criticism shows a resistance to receiving feedback because instead of taking it as good faith advice, you took it as an attack.  In terms of what else you should do, I think you should at least consider recognizing that you made a mistake trying to censor my feedback of you.  Do you see  why it was a bad idea on your part?  FrozenPurpleCube 23:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First, with "take it up with me", I mean "tell me on my talk page / in the AfD debate why you disagree with my views on deletion", not "say YOU HAVE NO COMMON SENSE in an editor review". Secondly, I'm not "censoring" your feedback at all, I like every bit of constructive feedback. However, I don't call this "feedback", but rather a disagreement, which does not belong here. Again, do you have anything else to comment on?  Mel sa  ran  02:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I was going to note it on your talk page, but then I saw your editor review and decided it was more appropriate to put it there, since my problem was a general concern not with the issues of the deletions involved (since those had already been resolved, there was no real reason to be concerned about them anymore), but rather your general actions as an editor. I thought the editor review was quite clearly the appropriate place to take it.  I'm still not sure why you find my actions so hostile, but it seems you do.  Really, is it not the place of an editor review to say what you think about an editor?  And your claims to the contrary, I didn't say you have no common sense, I gave a longer, more-detailed explanation.     Trying to boil it down to a few words might be your problem, since from your choice of wording, it seems more like an attack, rather than what I meant which was good-natured.  It's the difference between "I don't feel that's the best idea" and "I feel your idea is stupid" .  Try to put my words more into the latter than the former category.  FrozenPurpleCube 04:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I know that you disagree with my views on deletion, let's agree to differ. Do you have any other feedback about my general actions as an editor?  Mel sa  ran  12:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you'd be better off not putting words into other people's mouths. I haven't said anything about your views on deletion (since I don't know them fully, I really don't have a view on them), but you continue to focus on that issue, instead of the point I brought up.  Perhaps you need to be more receptive to criticism?  FrozenPurpleCube 16:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any other feedback about my general actions as an editor?  Mel sa  ran  18:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see my comments have been removed, again, Perhaps that was a mistaken reversion on your part, but I really suggest you be more careful in the future if it was an accident. FrozenPurpleCube 02:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, I don't know what you're trying to do, but it's making these comments disappear, so just leave it alone or tell me what it is you think you want, and we can try to decide if that's appropriate to do. FrozenPurpleCube 15:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove any comments, see history. Now, do you have any other feedback about my general actions as an editor?  Mel sa  ran  15:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They stopped appearing on the page. Looks like removal to me.  Perhaps you didn't *intend* to do that, but since you've offered no explanation as to what you intended, well, perhaps you might try to improve your relations to other editors by explaining your actions more explicitly?   If you do something, and other editors object, it would probably be better if you at least tried to explain what you were doing and why.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any other feedback about my general actions as an editor?  Mel  sa  ran  16:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It'd help if you were more communicative with other editors. Right now, it's like you're not even communicating with me at all, but instead just throwing up a wall with this same repetitive question.  What is your reason for doing that?  It doesn't indicate you're receptive to feedback, but is rather more passive-aggressive.  Makes me feel like I'm talking to a wall, not with somebody who is hearing what I'm saying.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I just ask whether you have anything else to say to me. I know that you don't like my views on AFD, so be it. If you have no other feedback, then please don't post here, and talk about any concerns about AfDs that you might have on my talk page.  Mel sa  ran  18:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, did I mention anything about AFD in my previous remark?  I don't think so.  Ny remark was about your lack of communicativeness.  Different subject, not necessarily directly connected.  Certainly xFD is meant to be a discussion among editors, and communication is important there, but there's many other things where you might be better off improving your level of communication with other editors.  For example, here, you could have told me what you were trying to do earlier when you made my comments disappear.  Perhaps if you'd expressed what your intent was, I'd have been able to help, or at least been reassured that you had a good reason for your actions.  Instead, you didn't explain it, but jumped back to your question.  How do you think that comes across?  FrozenPurpleCube 19:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'd rather you not move my comments to the bottom, but if you want to move the questions and the tools to the top, that would be acceptable.  However, I do feel that the comments should be kept in one place.  It's just fairer that way.  Otherwise, I feel like you're trying to bury my words.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.