Wikipedia:Editor review/Shirik

Shirik
I am asking to be reviewed just to see where I am and how I can improve. I am a strong believer in the theory that nobody is perfect and that one of the best ways to improve is to have others point you at what you're doing wrong and how to improve&mdash;generally trying to judge yourself poses a conflict of interest, even if only subconsciously. I know that I've made mistakes, but I think I'm doing OK as well. I would like to think that eventually I could make a good sysop, but I also admit that if I were to !vote on someone like myself, I'd give them a WP:NOTNOW right now. I think I am beginning to learn the CSD criteria based off mistakes I have made (which is a great way to learn), but I don't have it 100% yet. I would like to see if, although people will probably agree with me on that point, if I'm on the right track or if there's things I should spend significant time correcting. Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 21:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

 Questions

Optional Questions from Doc Quintana
 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I spend most of my time doing three things: recent change patrolling, WP:AfD, and copyediting. I am a rollbacker, and the majority of my edits likely come from huggle. I am also working on a new collaboration tool and bot, CollabRC. On the actual writing side, I have created and maintained two articles, North American blizzard of 2009 which was featured on WP:ITN and Super Saturday which was featured on WP:DYK. Beyond that, I take copyediting very seriously and generally spend literally hours on pages when I get a request. Basically, I focus primarily on maintaining the quality of Wikipedia. While I don't produce as much content as other editors, I think that what I've done behind-the-scenes is just as important, even if it comes with rare recognition. I don't really care about the recognition so much as I care that I am doing what I can to keep Wikipedia running strongly.
 * 1) Have you been in any disputes 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?
 * Everyone gets into a minor dispute every once in a while and I am no exception. One AfD nomination I made sparked off a little dispute between the creator and I, which started in the discussion there. I later left a note on his talk page asking that we try to focus on the content, and this discussion eventually went to my talk page. After some time I decided to take it to WP:WQA just to get an intermediate party involved in an attempt to cool tensions. After that we actually resolved it independently, and we seem to have no hard feelings; we both left notes at each other's talk page after the conclusion of the AfD nomination (which I withdrew). I think, while it didn't go as well as I had hoped, the right move was to try to get an uninvolved third party in on the discussion, as I did. In the future, I think I would probably do the same, as introducing an uninvolved third party is generally a good way to relieve tensions, though perhaps a better choice of words would prevent it from escalating so quickly.
 * Everyone gets into a minor dispute every once in a while and I am no exception. One AfD nomination I made sparked off a little dispute between the creator and I, which started in the discussion there. I later left a note on his talk page asking that we try to focus on the content, and this discussion eventually went to my talk page. After some time I decided to take it to WP:WQA just to get an intermediate party involved in an attempt to cool tensions. After that we actually resolved it independently, and we seem to have no hard feelings; we both left notes at each other's talk page after the conclusion of the AfD nomination (which I withdrew). I think, while it didn't go as well as I had hoped, the right move was to try to get an uninvolved third party in on the discussion, as I did. In the future, I think I would probably do the same, as introducing an uninvolved third party is generally a good way to relieve tensions, though perhaps a better choice of words would prevent it from escalating so quickly.
 * 1) Why did you come to Wikipedia, and what do you get out of it? Doc Quintana (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Like most others, I first came to Wikipedia for research. I needed to know things for schoolwork, general hobbies, or whatever my mind was on at the time. Over time, I not only realized how useful Wikipedia is, but also how important it is for contributors to participate, because without those contributors, it could not be where it is today. As a result, I finally registered an account a little over a year ago now and made some very minor changes and corrections. Eventually I really got into Wikipedia because it had become so useful I felt I deserved to give it something in return. I eventually found my place in maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia; unfortunately, I do not know much about history or most content around here, so while I do contribute content to some technical articles on computer science topics, I generally help out maintaining quality through anti-vandalism efforts, copyediting,and reviews. By maintaining that quality, I help ensure that both the information I need and that which everyone else will need will be right there for the taking whenever it's needed. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 05:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

 Reviews 
 * This guy keeps taking down all of the legitimate edits that I am making to pages. I edited the articles on sea and sealand and the edits were taken down under false pretences. This is the kind of thing that is killing wikipeidia. People are trying to expand articles and constructive information is being deleted by editors like Shirik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.167.243.189 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 1 January 2010
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but unfortunately it was quite evident that your edits, such as those here and here were neither constructive nor fit for an encyclopedia. I hope you take some time to review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines which should give you a little more insight into what should be included in an encyclopedia. Thanks! -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 06:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good anti-vandalism work. Every one of your reports I've seen at WP:AIV so far have been accurate.  Keep it up! -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 07:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Very impressive number and amount of edits. Your new page patrolling is impressive and your AIV work demonstrates that you have a keen eye for spotting vandalism. Keep it up! Basket of Puppies  00:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wonderful user, great work all around, helps a ton in IRC. No complaints :) Just keep up the good work.  fetch  comms  ☛ 04:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments, everyone. I'm really glad to see that I'm on the right track. On that note, does anyone have any concerns or ideas on ways I can improve? -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just looking at a convenient edit counter, there are plenty of WP and UT spaces edits made, but I think it might be prudent for there to be more discussion via WT. WP implies that you can report people (I'm seeing massive amounts of AIV)/AFD !vote, and UT implies that you can deal with people personally (though I suspect a number of those are warnings), but nothing which says we can plop you down in the middle of a conversation about notability or with hashing out stuff about a WikiProject's guidelines. --Izno (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insight. I've done a little bit of talking on a WT page when a discussion arose out of one of my AFD !votes regarding the notability of schools, but aside from that I haven't done too much centralized discussion of policies, etc. I will try to be more active in this area, thanks. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 09:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)