Wikipedia:Editor review/The Earwig

The Earwig
I am requesting this editor review because I have been on Wikipedia for a while now and I am curious as to how the community views my contributions. In the future (maybe a year or two) I plan on running for adminship, so I would like to know how I am doing on that path. The questions below, especially Q1, should sum up my contributions to Wikipedia. The Earwig (Talk &#124; Contributions) 02:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * It's really nice to see article writers who go after such a small, specific topic and really make a difference. As you said, you bumped it from 5 to 87. That's awesome. Plus, you also do really nice reference work, and that's something I love to see, out of respect for the project and love for it as well, so that's cool. I also love doing menial, and possibly trivial work. So that's cool too. You also do a lot of MfD, which is good. AfCs are better, and receive a bit less attention, so it's great you're dedicated to that. I'd suggest a bit more article work, just because you're hitting around 32% and I'm sure you could do make some great contributions if you worked at it a bit more in that regard. Still, it most definitely makes up for it that you're putting a lot of time into other regards as well. Nice work, and happy editing. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! Yeah, the 32% thing is definitely something I want to work on. It used to be much higher, but I got held up by so much other stuff that I've been unable to sit down and just write an article. I'll get back to doing more of the article work soon, though. Again, thanks! The Earwig  (Talk &#124; Editor review) 23:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My primary contributions to Wikipedia up until a short while ago was a series of stub articles related to earwigs that I had been writing. I wrote one DYK entirely on my own (except for the help of one contributor who made minor changes), and created a grand total of over seventy articles relating to the insect order. I effectively expanded Category:Earwigs: it contained five articles when I started, and now it has 87. I also spend time reverting vandalism (I have the rollback pemission), commenting on AfDs, reviewing Articles for Creation submissions, and working with the Account Creation Tool (I have the accountcreator permission also). Recently, I began working with bot programming, a topic which I find rather interesting and I've enjoyed doing this very much. If I have to point to one contribution I have made that I'm especially pleased with of, it would probably be the DYK article that I mentioned earlier: Archidermapteron martynovi. I'm pleased with this in part because it was my first serious contribution to Wikipedia. I also find the fact that an article that I mostly wrote was displayed in part on the homepage of the seventh-most popular website in the world to be rather amazing. I also consider this to be a difficult feat because there is barely any information about the species on the internet, so it wasn't easy to research.
 * 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?
 * Despite doing vandalism-cleanup work, it's hard to point to one situation where I had a user running after me, screaming my username, and cursing, nor have I been in any edit wars. However, there have been multiple times when I feel like I did something wrong or didn't think carefully enough about what I was about to do. An example of this is an experience I had with a user only a few weeks ago. The user in question is, what happend was that I was browsing newly-created articles, and I came upon this one. It struck me as not notable because there was no mention of signifigance in the article. While the article was certainly verifiable (the user had put excelent sources in the article), I was a little unsure of the subject's notability, so I brought it up at AfD. In retrospect, discussing it with the author would have been a much better option, but this did not occur to me at the time for some reason. Contrary to what I had hoped, the user destroyed my argument, and then threatened to quit Wikipedia. As you can guess, this was a severe blow to me. I thought that I had just made a user quit Wikipedia&mdash; obviously a terrible feeling&mdash; all because I thought that the subject wasn't notable. Fortunately, it ended on a happier note, and the user still contributes today. Looking back, I'm concerned about what led me to do this. The article was clearly notable... wasn't it? I can only hope that I don't do something like that again.
 * Despite doing vandalism-cleanup work, it's hard to point to one situation where I had a user running after me, screaming my username, and cursing, nor have I been in any edit wars. However, there have been multiple times when I feel like I did something wrong or didn't think carefully enough about what I was about to do. An example of this is an experience I had with a user only a few weeks ago. The user in question is, what happend was that I was browsing newly-created articles, and I came upon this one. It struck me as not notable because there was no mention of signifigance in the article. While the article was certainly verifiable (the user had put excelent sources in the article), I was a little unsure of the subject's notability, so I brought it up at AfD. In retrospect, discussing it with the author would have been a much better option, but this did not occur to me at the time for some reason. Contrary to what I had hoped, the user destroyed my argument, and then threatened to quit Wikipedia. As you can guess, this was a severe blow to me. I thought that I had just made a user quit Wikipedia&mdash; obviously a terrible feeling&mdash; all because I thought that the subject wasn't notable. Fortunately, it ended on a happier note, and the user still contributes today. Looking back, I'm concerned about what led me to do this. The article was clearly notable... wasn't it? I can only hope that I don't do something like that again.