Enigmaman

Enigmaman (talk · contribs) Hi, I've been on Wikipedia since January 2007, but I've become especially active in the last three months. My work is primarily vandal-fighting, but I do get involved with AfDs and I sometimes tag articles for speedy deletion. Recently, I've been making a concerted effort to do more article-writing as opposed to my usual article work, which is copy-editing. Earlier tonight, I worked on United_States-Australia_relations, for example. Why do I want to be reviewed? I suspect the answer is the same for everyone. I want to see what the community (or at least one or two members of the community) think of my contributions, and what I can do better. Finally, I feel bad about the backlog here. I intend to submit at least one review over the weekend. Enigma ^message 05:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

• Ok, a Good Article or two would be a great start. It is a no-brainer as it tells me that (a) you can negotiate with a reviewer and (b) you have put some effort into article writing and hence may be less likely to inadvertently delete something at AfD that shouldn't be. For a potential good Article, pick something you're really interested in and likely to be uncontroversial - something around 15 kb minimum is good as may be more doable than a 50 kb monster. Working on a wikiproject is a good idea too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose the other no-brainer to add is always think forward not back. Anytime you get in a conflict, keep it to, "Ok then, what will we do to go forward from here". Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'll add my bit as a long time supporter and friend of your work. Of course my view is at the end of the day my opinion only but in the hope that you will accept my words I would say that the major need for progress towards your obvious goal of adminship is for you to cut back about 50% of your vandal & commentary work and move that effort into main space editing work. Simple and complex copy-editing to articles along with at least one or two progressions towards a GA (or better yet an FA) is important because at this stage whilst you have a great understanding into the mind of the vandal you are (simply because of less exposure) less so aware of the mind of what after all are vast majority of editors. This can only be gained by "wearing their shoes" by assisting in the development of good articles. I would also say (without attempting to be unkind in any way) that you should adjust your edit summary inclination to use "extrovert" comment upon your edit count - I say this because there are many !voters at RfA that will consider such edit summaries as a lust for power - which whilst I know you don't have will appear so to some. I will be happy to consider nominating you when you think you have these two things in hand. Best wishes.--VS ^talk 09:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool

• Reply to VS: Not sure what you mean about edit summaries. I have not yet improved an article to GA, but I still hope to get Sid Luckman there. I just nominated an article for DYK for the first time. Dean Mumm Enigma ^message Review 17:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a bad choice with Luckman, shouldn't be a huge amount to do. Needs some personal life data really. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great to see your first DYK. I'll be happy to assist with Luckman - let me know when you start. Further comment regarding edit summaries (as you know) on my talk page under your question.--VS ^talk 22:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

   I've helped improve Jason Kidd and Queens College, City University of New York. Additionally, I've been very active with WP:HUG. Discussing it, answering questions, trouble-shooting, and sending updated versions to users who have not received the most up-to-date release for whatever reason. Finally, I've done work on the WP:MISS page and I've tried to keep NFL-related pages as up-to-date as possible.

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 haven't had many significant conflicts. My most significant conflict was with User:Allstarecho over the Bobby Petrino page. The conflict was never really resolved. I simply chose not to interact with him anymore. Perhaps not the healthiest approach in general, but I believe it was the right call in this particular case. Otherwise, I've gotten the usual nonsensical vandalism edits to my pages, and I occasionally make a mistake when editing a page and am so informed. :) Those aren't really conflicts, however.

Outside comment: I once had a disagreement with Enigmaman about editing. I wrote a bold and experimental edit to an article which he reverted. I didn't disagree that my edit wasn't up to snuff but was annoyed about being reverted. We both vocally defended our decisions. However, we never lost track of the need to be wiki-reasonable. Ultimately, it was resolved reasonably without any intervention. We both followed 1RR and paid attention to outside comments. I appreciate that Enigmaman follows the principle of justification - he doesn't act without having a reason, and is able to explain himself well, and he listens to others. Whether you agree or disagree, that is a good policy to follow. Therefore, Enigmaman deserves credit for his approach to conflict resolution. (Disclosure: Enigmaman is my wikifriend, but this review is unsolicited and based on my independant judgment - no meatpuppeting). Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]