Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Hey guys (again for some). Previous editor reviews: 1 2 3. Once again, I'm just looking for general feedback - if you want to RfA orientate that'd be fine, but I also would like some feedback on my editing habits, etc. Yeah, I'm sure the experienced reviewers will have some idea of what I'm talking about :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews
- Hey H2O. Since you say you're thinking of running again, I wanted to look through your contribs specifically for article writing, a concern brought up in your last RfA. You've been doing a great deal of writing, but you seem to have slowed down with the vandal reverting and AIV reporting. Try to pick that up. Also, you might want to do some more CSD tagging and AfD work. You seem to have addressed the writing concern amazingly, but have left some admin-related areas. You are a hardworking, determined editor. Barring mistakes of Vandalbot on wheels proportions, You'll have my support. Happy hoaxing! J-ſtanContribsUser page 04:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Blah blah blah, run for adminmnnmn I would support, actually I'm nominating? Didn't know about that plan but I hear that's how it's going. ;) If you don't want to do anti-vandal stuff, don't bother, plenty of other people do it. Doesn't hurt, of course. Might want to have a look around CSD and AfD still, just to see which way the policy trends are going these days. Obviously the article-writing stufff is going awesomely and it's all improved mightily. Keep a check on the sense of humour and remember that you can take a joke too far if you're not careful, and if the other person has humour failure. ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 07:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Our exchanges have been positive. You have the edit count should easily meet everyone's minimum count standard. Your good and featured articles demonstrate that you care about the project and that you definitely have writing skills. You've done several DYK articles. While a broad experience base is important, but you probably have what most people are looking for. You are well-versed in several areas. Plus you have a cool name that shows that you understand science well! I would support you if I saw you come up on RfA, except if people came up with some damning diffs. Keep up the good work. Keeping a check on your sense of humor is unfortunately important. People have a tendancy of taking humorous comments wrong because they are not expecting humor. I've both given and received humor that have been taken the wrong way. I try to be polite and gracious instead of humourous. Royalbroil 13:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The main things I look for when reviewing or when voting in an RfA are generally speaking non-technical. I'm basically looking for good behaviour, good judgement, restraint when needed and a tendency to not pour fuel on fires, and clear explanations of positions. The key things I look for in an admin are - can they get on with others? do their actions suggest problems down the track? do they understand policy, can they understand the reasons behind the policies (often key to ensuring the spirit and not strictly the letter is enforced) and can they pick good edits from bad ones? I have not specifically reviewed your contributions but if you or others can provide a reasonable collection of recent diffs to demonstrate these points, I think you'd go a long way to convincing me and others to vote for you. In general I have seen nothing that concerns me in the last couple of months. Be careful with sense of humour as others have said as a joke in Australian English may be an insult to a non-English speaker unfamiliar with the idiom (look at a current AN/I for example with a Dutch user claiming someone threatened to kill him when they were just using a time-worn cliche.) Orderinchaos 09:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't initially going to respond here, but since I'm in somewhat of a dispute now I figure I'd bring up some diffs so I don't forget them. I reverted the (repeated) addition of first person autobiographical text to an article, and left an explanatory note. The user requested I undo my edit, stating we sometimes allow autobiographical content. I responded suggesting the user write it in their own words, to which he stated that it took him hours to type it up, and again stated that it should be included despite not being the common procedure. At this stage, I pointed the user to WP:AUTO, to which he accused me of not stating the policy correctly. I attempted to clarify my position, at which stage the user told me to read "that section" ("The problem with autobiographies"). I did so, and explained to him that I found nothing justifying his edits - and thus asked if he show me. The user's response was vague and ambiguous. I told them that they were welcome to re-add the material, but that the discussion was going nowhere. And then I saved this page. Throughout the entire discussion, I believe I remained civil, stuck to policy, and didn't attempt to bite or offend the newcomer - simply explain to them why their contribution, in its current form, wasn't helpful. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 09:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to respond (that's why we do it here and not at RfA, so that by the time an RfA's up and running you're appropriately prepared and have already answered some of the points). Always have the option of taking it to the talk page of the review if it's taking up too much space or getting onto topics not envisaged by the review. My stance is that I'll be happy to support if i see more evidence, and I haven't seen anything that would make me oppose since the last one. Orderinchaos 06:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to canvass or anything, just a note that the RfA is currently...well...up. And running. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- At the moment, my three featured articles (by mine, I mean those I've worked on); Age of Mythology, Dream Days at the Hotel Existence, and Powderfinger. I'm also quite happy with my 14 GAs and 2 triple crowns - more information at User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Articles. 01:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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?
- Yes, several, although I don't really get too stressed. Most recently, there was an image dispute on Talk:Powderfinger and a game engine debacle on Talk:Call of Duty 2, both of which I thought I handled OK. Of late, I've been doing a lot of GA reviewing and dealing with sometimes disgruntled editors that way, but I'm not easily stressed around here. Oh, and on Commons I've blocked a vandal or two and gotten some angry emails, but meh :) 01:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Of those FA's that "you've worked on", can you point out the diffs that would be helpful to evaluate the extent of your contribution to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irpen (talk • contribs)
- Of course, thanks for the question.
- Age of Mythology: As shown in the FAC I made a stack of constructive edits on the back of comments and critique of the article. Some diffs: adding a new section dealing with linkspam rewriting and revamping a section adding some commentary And the most important diff: me adding ((featured article)) :) [1]
- Powderfinger: I did more work in and around bringing the article to GA than to FA (which was mostly done by Spebi and Lincalinca. Anyway, I found a few diffs: rewording and adding content copyediting a bit making changes based on established consensus
- Dream Days at the Hotel Existence: I virtually rewrote this in getting it featured. See also the FAC. Diffs: Complete ref conversion fighting fair use removing cruft removing possible OR
- If you like some more diffs or have more questions, feel free to ask. 23:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)