Wikipedia:Editor review/Orangemarlin

Orangemarlin
I have been seriously editing since December, 2006, and I have been mostly editing controversial and difficult articles. However, I managed one article to GA status, and I am strategizing to get it to FA status. I'm looking for feedback on both editing, and as I realize, my rather pointed conversations with POV editors. Orangemarlin 23:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 

I admire you immensely for your insistence on high standards in writing articles for Wikipedia. You may or may not have realized by now that not everyone cares about high standards, as long as the article winds up sort of okay. This really is one of the major sources of conflict.

I have my doubts about the scientific accuracy of the theory of evolution, mainly because my religious beliefs dictate that all creatures were created by God. This is not a contradiction in and of itself, because God may have chosen evolution as His mechanism of creation. However, I have read and pondered too much about this question to be sure anymore.

How does this affect my treatment of evolution on Wikipedia? It doesn't. I don't write articles about controversial subjects because I don't have the stomach for the silliness you tolerate daily. Instead, I prefer mindless tasks such as categorizing articles and welcoming new users. However, I am happy that evolution, an article on one of the most controversial subjects in intellectual history, recently became a featured article. It shows how people with vastly differing points of view can work together to hash out the scientific and cultural truth.

Regarding your desire to push an article from Good Article to Featured Article status: it's harder than it seems. I assume you are familiar with Peer review - it's a good place for a reality check before submitting your article to WP:FAC. Generally there are two groups of commenters at an FAC: the regulars such as User:Gimmetrow, who faithfully offer their advice regardless of the subject matter, and the watchlisters who take interest in your specialty. You have to satisfy them both, i.e. to develop an article that informs both a general audience and a specialist expert.

Regarding civility, I was bothered to read your recent comment on your talk page, "Good luck with your edit warring." I know trolls can be frustrating, but do not feed the trolls. Try to be a little more patient. You have already recognized this attitude as a concern, so you're on the right track to settling down.

I wish you good luck. Yechiel Man 23:26, 18 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 can't remember how I ended up reading Minoan eruption, it was probably clicking on wikilinks, which is a favorite pastime when I read any article. When I first found the article, it was a mess.  It read like an essay.  It had a lot of original research.  And it was poorly written.  I slowly edited over a few weeks, trying to improve it, finding references, and actually getting to know something about volcanoes.  I went over to the Volcano wikiproject page, where someone told me that each project grades articles.  That's when I found out about getting an article to a GA status.  Well, that became my goal, and I sat down over several days getting the references right, finding new ones, and cleaning up the writing.  I believe I tried three times to get GA status, learning a lot from the process.  And it made it.  Next step FA!!
 * 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 usually edit articles in the biological sciences, and I have been involved in the Creationist vs. Science wars (OK conflict). These are tough articles, with a lot of very difficult POV editors.  Usually, I try to assume good faith, but that's usually tested quickly.  I have been burned a few times assuming that good faith, and ended up writing up sockpuppet complaints against these editors.  I try to stay on this side of civility, but I admit of crossing the line sometimes.  I get a lot of email advice from respected editors, all of whom have gone through the same issues as I have, and they have given me some sage advice.  I try to deal with the POV editors respectfully, but strongly, and getting support from other editors who might find the issues problematic.  Recently, we ran through a series of issues where POV editors took the Jesus as Myth article and ripped it apart while no one was watching.  That got very contentious, but several editors came in and helped clean it up.  I am a rather direct human being (that's probably as a result of being a corporate CEO, an MD, and ex-military officer), so I've tried very hard to be as cool as possible with these individuals.
 * I usually edit articles in the biological sciences, and I have been involved in the Creationist vs. Science wars (OK conflict). These are tough articles, with a lot of very difficult POV editors.  Usually, I try to assume good faith, but that's usually tested quickly.  I have been burned a few times assuming that good faith, and ended up writing up sockpuppet complaints against these editors.  I try to stay on this side of civility, but I admit of crossing the line sometimes.  I get a lot of email advice from respected editors, all of whom have gone through the same issues as I have, and they have given me some sage advice.  I try to deal with the POV editors respectfully, but strongly, and getting support from other editors who might find the issues problematic.  Recently, we ran through a series of issues where POV editors took the Jesus as Myth article and ripped it apart while no one was watching.  That got very contentious, but several editors came in and helped clean it up.  I am a rather direct human being (that's probably as a result of being a corporate CEO, an MD, and ex-military officer), so I've tried very hard to be as cool as possible with these individuals.

Additionals 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 07:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)