Wikipedia:Editor review/Sp33dyphil 2

Sp33dyphil 2
Hello. I'm here again to for any constructive critisms or compliments about my editing since August 2010, when I had my first editor review. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble  08:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My contributions primarily revolve around aviation, since I'm an aviation enthusiast. I mostly perform constructive edits to airline(r) articles, my prowess, and I take a lot of pride on my contributions to Airbus A330, rapidly expanding the article from late-January to late-February. From there, a number of editors had helped my promote to GA status, and it is now on its way to receiving the star. I also fight vandalism through patrolling the recent changes page, especially since my receipt of rollback rights from user Toddst1. I'm also a reviewer. I participate in RFAs, and I'm now beginning to have more dialogue with other users.
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * I've never had a great dispute with any editor because my work doesn't evolve a lot of communication with other users. I've had a few minor nudges with other Wikipedians, although I can't recall any from the top of my head.
 * I've never had a great dispute with any editor because my work doesn't evolve a lot of communication with other users. I've had a few minor nudges with other Wikipedians, although I can't recall any from the top of my head.

 Reviews  So, here goes:
 * Article creation: Good job here, you seem to be in a neck-to-neck race for the WikiCup, which is producing many articles without any sacrifice of quality. You might want to check out WP:FOUR and WP:TRIPLECROWN
 * Admin related work:Not a lot of work in the Wikipedia namespace, but i can't comment on CSd as I don' have the ability to view deleted edits.
 * Civility No problems here, IMO.
 * Pie chart Large focus on articles, which you should try to slim down (maybe bring the Wikipedia section up to 10%?) Buggie111 (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

 Review by SwisterTwister 

Civility: I see you've given many users barnstars for contributing, and I think giving barnstars is a good gesture and helps a user feel appreciated (I specifically liked the Halloween greetings, but I guess there wasn't one last candy apple for me?).

 Article contributions: A large amount of your contributions are formatting/cleaning which is good, I also see you've participated in vandal fighting. I like the thought of a user contributing in multiple ways (i.e. vandal fighting and formatting at the same time), it shows that you help Wikipedia in many ways.

RFA-worthiness: I think you could be a good admin, but perhaps contributing more on the vandal fighting would be good though, but other than that your contributions are good.

 Final thoughts: Keep doing what you're doing. SwisterTwister  talk  04:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

TCO review:


 * Great work putting content into the airplane articles. They are very high view.  And they need the work.  Doing the fundamental research and writing is the most important thing.  Just keep working and learning and getting better here.  Seriously...this is super important...makes you better than the moderator wannabes.  Good job with Milhist coordinator also.


 * You know a lot about Wiki markup, etc. and are fine to get GAs done. You need to work on your capabilities to get FAs done.  Don't just keep dumping stuff into the queue and expect everyone to fix it.  You need to start learning from the FAs.  Need to get those things more polished before they go in.

A. Omit needless words (buy Strunk and White...it will explain that). Run the Tony exercises. It will explain that.

B. Omit SOME of the details. Learn which ones. Think about it.

C. Don't listen to people that just hate plane articles. The articles are not too technical sounding. They are fine to exlain the airliner development. But they just need some honing. honest, they will still be a bit boring. But do what you can. not everyone will like them...but you can still bring them up some.


 * Learn more about images. At least interact with the graphics lab and have them improve your images.  Find out who the good ones are and develop relationships with them.  Also, think about trying to get some other types of images into your articles (flow charts, graphs, bar charts).  People like a variety of images.  Also, not just plane pictures, but also see if you can get photos of parts of the plane, people (designers, CEOs, etc.) or factories.  Just see what you can do.  Really you are doing good.  But I am teaching you how to take it to EXCELLENT.


 * Don't mouth off when you ask for help. And drop the chip on the shoulder with Malleus.  Just interact with him as a content creator and as a good wordsmith.  Don't get into the whole RFA/Chazz's sock/reform/blabla drama.


 * As for RFA, I honestly think you need to grow up some and toughen up some. I love your energy and such.  And love that you do content instead of kissing ass in IRC or boring gnome crap.  But...you are goinng to be interacting with 40 year olds who start improper articles about their company and such as an admin.  You need to carry yourself like an adult when you end up deleting their crap.  Just give it some time.  I'll be fine voting for you when you're 21.  And besides...RFA is for wankers.  FA is for studs.  And ARBCOM and 'crats are even worse.  SEriously...write the articles...don't get into the wannabe moderator thing.

Net/net: really good editor. Better than the average bear. Don't run after RFA for now...and be a little more diligent to figure out FAC.

71.246.144.154 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC) (TCO IP editing)