Jump to content

Wikipedia:Editor review/Mendaliv

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mendaliv

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mendaliv (talk · contribs) I've been working on contributing more and more to articles rather than my usual Wikignoming activities, but of course I've run into some points here and there where I've been unable to do anything more than make marginal improvements. I'm hoping that through this process I can generally improve my contributions to Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

  • I'm a little bit dumbstruck by your editing statistics. You made more edits last month than I ever have, and I made more edits last month than I had in any other month. Clearly, many were in the fight against vandalism (I see you've got Huggle and post with some frequency to WP:AIV), so that's good. Like the other editors I've reviewed, you don't have an eye-catching number for most edits to an article in the mainspace (though it seems you've done fine work with Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space). You also seem to be a bit of a loner - there is effectively no WikiProject participation evident from your statistics. That might be something that would be tough to change, but surely there's a Project somewhere that could use your voice. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 11:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    There are a couple that come to mind, which I'll mention one at a time:
    First, I'd have to say I'm rather proud of the article Jueju, which I wrote. Chinese poetry isn't my specialty, but for once having access to good material on a subject without an article, I feel I performed fairly well. The article has good sourcing, references point to specific page numbers, and there is a good level of linking out to other articles related to the subject. I feel like the article could stand significant expansion and improvement, and I've considered contacting the professor whose textbook I was using for source material.
    Second, for awhile, I've been adding facts and figures to company infoboxes, especially for publicly traded companies, using Google Finance data. I think the addition of a detailed infobox significantly improves the look of articles on companies.
    Third, I'm particularly proud of my addition of SVG forms of various corporate logos in place of raster images when they're available. In particular, the series of articles on Wyndham Worldwide and its subsidiaries.
  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?
    Yes, I've had a couple difficult moments in editing. One in particular was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa Tajouri, where I was frustrated at what I felt other editors' refusal to even acknowledge the guidelines of WP:DIPLOMAT. Another case would be Leet, which I stopped editing because of the frustration I had at that point (though admittedly, it contained some of my first edits). I'd say that in the future, when faced with an edit conflict, of course my approach would vary depending on the situation, but in a conflict with an equally-involved editor in an article that we were both very interested in, I'd make every effort to engage the editor in discussion on the talk page for the article. By doing so, I'd hope to reach an understanding with the other editor. If that didn't work, I'd go somewhere such as WP:EAR or an appropriate noticeboard. I'd do my best to assume good faith.
  4. Why have you not joined a WikiProject? Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 11:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmm? I'm a member of WikiProject Video games and WikiProject Films and do work on articles within their scopes... not religiously, but I do participate. I'm also a member of WikiProject Firearms and WikiProject Television but don't really work on those articles so actively; more of a matter of interest. I've done some minor work with AWB to auto-add pages to some WikiProjects, especially those with stub tags, such as {{chicago-stub}} to WP:CHICAGO, etc. Though from your review, I get what you mean better now; more active participation in forming policy, etc. I've actually considered forming a WikiProject from time to time, such as one dedicated to articles about tools/implements. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that wasn't apparent. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But why, then, have you not interacted with those Projects? Your Interiot page shows 2 edits to talk pages in the Wikipedia namespace, both to a subpage of WP:ILLINOIS. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 22:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To tell you the truth, until you mentioned it I hadn't really considered it. I had begun to focus on making improvements to articles, having come off from doing almost exclusively vandal fighting and AfDs. I'm playing around inside WP:VG more since you mentioned the idea of participating- working in a couple of peer reviews. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be careful to remain on-topic, which you didn't at least once with this comment. Most NASCAR and auto racing fans would be offended by reading that comment wondering if auto racing is a sport. The comment wasn't relevant to the discussion at all, was it? It wouldn't be enough for me to oppose you if you ran for administrator based solely on that one comment, but it didn't leave me a good impression. Helping at WikiProjects and discussing deletions is a good direction for you to head. Royalbroil 21:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate the advice, but I believe you've misread my comment in that particular deletion discussion. My intent was that, in the event that auto racing is considered a sport for that discussion, WP:ATHLETE should apply. Otherwise, simply WP:N would apply, and in either case, the subject was pretty clearly non-notable. But in any case, I'll go remark on my !vote at that discussion to make it clearer. Thanks for the heads-up though; I'll try to keep that in mind with AfD's in the future. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, so you were wondering out loud. One major and serious criticism of racecar drivers and golfers (among other athletes) is whether or not they are athletes because their occupation doesn't involve running and doing something extremely physical (driving a car doesn't sound physical does it?). I took it that you were pointing out that they might not be athletes, but since NASCAR "says" that they are then they should evaluated against WP:ATHLETE. It's a huge can of worms to racing fans, and you accidentally opened it without knowing it. You don't need to respond to me because I see that you don't feel that way. I wouldn't be offended even if you felt that way, I would just disagree with you. Royalbroil 03:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Fixing Anachrodox tagline to be more appropriate;" All you did was change it back to exactly the way I had it in the first place.... Also I believe the link to archive.org for the trailer would fall under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTLINK That trailer and other trailers are posted on the Anachrodox website which is centered completely on Anachronox. 65.65.224.204 (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)creaper[reply]

I appreciate your criticism, but if you have something in particular you'd like to discuss about the Anachronox article, I'd suggest taking it to Talk:Anachronox or my own talk page rather than a user review, which is intended as a forum to discuss my editing practices and Wikipedia involvement in general. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly why I posted it here. I felt your editing practices for wikipedia were incorrect. 65.65.224.204 (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)creaper[reply]

Respectfully, I disagree, and have posted my discussion of why I disagree to the appropriate talk page. If you feel there's something wrong with my edits in general, I'd be glad to hear it as I cannot see any problem with the edits you've referenced. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Kathleen who is very Educated and quite Eliteist in her view point clearly misses the point in fact there are many, two of which, she "Palin" is one of the common class just like me and Hundreds of millions across this great country and finally the most important HER hands are clean in regards to the current Financial crises.

I was told by bot that this was vandalism maybe not very educated like the editor but not vandalism maybe not The Political view point of WIKI or the Editor. I also could have said that we already had the Smartest People in the world get us into this situation and maybe the common man deserves a shot at clearing this thing up is this not the Obama arguement!

Uh... what? Best I can tell you're referring to my reverting of this and this? Looks like an unsubstantiated opinionated point in a biography. Best I can tell the revert was in order. Please take future complaints of this nature to my talk page. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/Mendaliv&oldid=1138448384"