User:Dgw

Dgw (talk · contribs) I've been editing Wikipedia pretty much continuously since last Spring. I've been making a lot of minor edits, mostly vandal reversions using Popups and spelling/grammar corrections, for most of that time. While I have little interest in becoming an Admin at the present time, I would like to know if there is anything I should change about my editing. Style changes, things to ignore, etc. And while my signature is kind of long (to preempt this comment), I am currently researching how to keep the appearance and make it shorter. Any suggestions are welcome as part of this review.  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}  03:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this has been around a while, and I've gotten some useful feedback. I'm thinking about my edit summaries more, and I've shortened my signature. Barring any reason not to, I'll probably move this page to a subpage of my userspace in the next month or so. Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 18:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just remembered a reason not to move this page. It has lots of inbound links from my signatures. Though I could use AWB to rewrite them all, using a list from Special:Whatlinkshere, but that's probably unimportant. For the time being, this page stays here at Editor Review. Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 18:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews
Review by delldot:

• You apparently don't do much interacting with other users in the user talk namespace: I noticed on your talk page no one had left you a note for over a month. On the one hand, this is good, in that you're not starting any fights or controversies. On the other hand, you may not be discussing important changes with other users enough. (Although you did mention that most of your edits are minor, so this might be why you're staying under the radar). You've also only made 612 edits, so you may not have caught many users' attention yet.
• You do a fair amount of discussion on article talk pages, and what I looked at was civil, so that's good.
• Be sure your edit summaries couldn't be seen as incivil, since it's more difficult to get rid of those. You don't want people to think you're attacking them or their edits. I thought this one was a little mean. I didn't see anything else in your contribs that I thought was problematic this way though.
• Excellent use of edit summaries, both in consistent use and informativeness of the summaries themselves.
• You mentioned that you'd like reviews of stylistic stuff, sorry to be unable to give you much help in that area. I didn't find any problems other than what I mention here.
• When you're categorizing articles, you don't need to put them into both a subcategory and a parent category (e.g. here); the subcategory is in the parent category, so putting Category:genetic disorders on an article automatically puts it under category:genetics. Keeping cats to the minimum and most specific helps prevent broad categories like genetics from getting too full and difficult to navigate. A very minor point, I know.
• Thanks for helping with chores at Wikipedia:Requested articles.
• Did this user give you permission to edit his page? It's generally discouraged to edit others' user pages without permission.
• As you say, you do a lot of minor cleanup like spelling corrections, etc. I'd love to see some substantial content contributions from you, e.g. creating articles. It looks like you may be in college, do you have any areas of expertise?
• All in all, nice work! I'd say the biggest problem I saw was that potentially incivil edit summary. Other than that, you appear to be an asset to the project. Thanks for all the gruntwork. delldot | talk 04:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm actually a sophomore in high school. I know some about several areas, but they're all either documented on WP already or I don't know enough about them to start an article. Maybe over the summer I'll research something and write an article. Thanks for taking the time to review me; not many people did, obviously. ;-)

Just FYI, that user did give me permission to edit his page. We know each other in real life, and we were usually in IM communication at the times when I edited his page. He's also helped me with my page; see this edit for an example of that.

• • As for that edit summary you mentioned...eh-heh... Oops, I suppose I wasn't thinking on that one. I'm avoiding those now. Thanks! -- Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}  22:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello Dgw, since you requested my input I'll be glad to give it. Delldot pretty much put the thumb on the majority of things you can work on in the future. My only suggestion would be to participate on Wiki-space a bit more often, particularly some more XfD participation. Also, I believe Delldot brought up a good point about civility when leaving edit summaries. I caught this edit summary in your past contributions which is a bit bite-ish in my opinion. Whether vandal, established editor, or otherwise its better to avoid insults and keep your cool ;). Hope these brief suggestions help you.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, especially for being so quick. I'll start taking a look at XfD debates, and I'll try to avoid such bite-ish edit summaries as "kind of dumb vandalism". That one just slipped out ;-). I've also read the links you posted, and I'll take them into account for later participation. Thanks again! -- Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}  23:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is not a valid reason to base keeping an article. Simply treating AfD as a vote will get your opinion struck or discounted in the final overview. Also, basing the argument on "inclusionism" is a bit divisive to the community. Please red through WP:AADD --Wafulz 18:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Your signature is 433 characters long. While I generally don't have any problem with excessive coloring, WP:SIG recommends that each signature should be less than 200 character long to avoid making discussion more difficult. Please shorten it. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the fact that it is indeed way too long, it is also very confusing that you use a completely different name in your signature than your actual username. Fram 15:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have shortened it since this review was posted. As for the username, I've been using it since I started. If I change now, it might be even more confusing, and my signature would be longer. Any suggestions are welcome, though. Thanks for the comments, both of you! — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 00:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Emperor Walter Humala:

• Hehe you might get many enemies if you keep telling others what to do, only a few like that. So for your own good...be careful with your comments. Cheers --– Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( shout! · sign? )} 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see where you're coming from, but I was expressing an opinion and making a suggestion. If you feel I was telling you what to do, I am truly sorry; my intention was only to bring a potential annoyance to your attention. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 04:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Bagel7

• Hey, just wanted to say that although your edit summaries may seem a bit "bite-ish" or insulting, I appreciate a fellow Wikipedian with a sense of humor, which is something that is needed at stressful times. :) - Bagel7 07:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that. I actually try to avoid bite-ish summaries. Which ones in particular are you referring to? I'd like to avoid those in the future. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 01:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just looked at your edits that were previously mentioned, such as this one and this one, and I used the words of Persian Poet Gal with "bite-ish." The quotation marks were supposed to note my subtle disagreement with the hyphenated words. I just thought they were funny. - Bagel7 01:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, those. Glad you find them humorous! Subtle disagreement, huh? :P — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 02:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Seraphim ^Whipp

• Hello. I have only encountered you today, so my comments will only be about the mfd nomination of Comrade 47's user space. While I agree that there may be a problem with his userspace, I think sending it to mfd was a little hasty. If this user had only made edits to his userspace and his account had been created a few months ago then it's a different story, as that infers that they are only here to make a web profile. I remember when I was new, the first edit I made was to my user page. Some newbies like to read over the policies and guidelines before they make any edits, some like to get straight in. I think the important thing is not to assume bad faith, which can be easy to do as the user had made a hoax article, but as you surely know (from being a vandal fighter), lots of vandalism isn't necessarily malicious, a lot is just new people making test edits. In terms of being an admin, I think your attitude is great about how you take critique :) but I would also think it best if you were calmer when you write edit summaries (in reference to what Bagel7 said) as edit summaries are indellible and so are admin logs. And what I'm trying to say is that you could make a good admin one day so hopefully you will consider it for the future :). Seraphim ^Whipp 12:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes! Six months with no comments and finally I get another! Thanks! After reviewing the comments you and others left on my latest MfD nom, I've withdrawn it. I, like Jonny-mt, did not think to check when the user joined. I'll read up on the policies and guidelines mentioned and (hopefully :P ) learn from them.
  • Regarding edit summaries, have you seen any recent examples of BITEing in my history? I've been working on that, and I don't think I've let anything slip, but one's own judgment isn't always objective when it comes to personal critique (hence this page).
  • Finally, I'm glad you think I could make a good admin someday. As I say on my userpage, I'd like to pick up the mop someday (probably not until the end of the school year), and I'm heartened that someone thinks I'll do a good job with it. Thanks for the comments, and tell your friends about this page. ;) Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 18:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SGGH

• Courteous and receptive to openly discussing queries of his housekeeping work, good stuff. SGGH ^speak! 11:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Dusti

• First of all, good job on the edits. Most seem to be productive, and I can see that you enjoy using Twinkle.
• Secondly, after reviewing the previous comments, you haven't seemed to have improve on talking with other users. Looking through your contribs, I see little, if any, talk on userpages other than warnings.

Thats most everything that I have noticed so far. Your doing great and keep up the good work. Happy Editing, Dusti^talk 20:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have found the problem with fighting vandalism. Most of your user talk page edits would be warnings if you ran huggle (I don't use Twinkle much for vandal patrol anymore) six hours a day. :) On the other hand, I don't tend to use Wikipedia as a social network, as my friends with accounts don't edit much at all. Other users are hard to connect with, though I have had conversations at length with a couple. Certainly people have left me messages within the last month, yes? Delldot's comment is from way back... Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 05:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
• I'd just like to say, outside of my statement, that I feel more like a WikiGnome than an editor.

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

   I don't really have any "favorite" edits. I like them all, though my favorites are reverting major vandalism.

3. 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 can think of only one edit conflict/war I have been involved in. It's in the Gmail article, and is still continuing. It centers around the amount of storage Gmail offers, and many anon users have kept changing the storage numbers incorrectly. I just deal with it by fixing the edit if it hasn't been already. In the future, I plan to do the same thing, and discuss the problem through a member of the Mediation Committee. That is, if I can't get the other user to talk to me directly.