Wikipedia:Editor review/TenPoundHammer

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) I'm just an editor on Wikipedia here (with the occasional assist from a romp of wikipedia-editing otters; inside joke). I believe that I'm in good standing (no blocks, no warnings, no reports to AIV, no vandalism). I would like to know how I can become a better editor overall. I have made two changes recently in my editing skills -- for one, I'm now making sure to use edit summaries, and in addition I use {{cite web}} as I feel it's more professional-looking. Basically, I'm just looking for any constructive criticism -- any spots that could use improvement, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Greetings, my fellow AfD contributor! Since I didn't participate in your last RfA, I wanted to offer some advice and support here. First of all, I think you're doing an excellent job as a contributor to the encyclopedia, both in the mainspace and especially in places like AfD. You've continually displayed both a willingness to participate regularly and offer opinions without POV-pushing, and also a willingness to compromise and take other people's point of views into consideration. These are very good qualities, don't even think of changing a thing here! You're an A-Plus contributor, and I admire your dedication to the project and greatly respect your input.

But I'm sure you're also seeking feedback in your capacity as a potential administrator, so I'll go above and beyond what I've said. I think you've got the goods to become an effective administrator. Based on your last RfA, I'm presuming you're addressing the comments about lack of edit summary usage, early closing of AfDs, and 'itchy trigger finger' with deletions (I believe the word 'hasty' was frequently used). So here would be my primary advice for amping up future RfA candidacy: phrasing and timing. You've got the policy down, you've got the explanations/justifications at AfD down, but I think how these things are phrased could be more diplomatic, and the time taken that goes into insuring this could be increased. (Don't lose the sense of humor, though! I'm not advocating stodginess here.) But whenever making a comment, I suggest reading and re-reading it before hitting send, and think "Is this the best, most objective way I could have phrased this? Is there a chance anyone could feel attacked or hurt? Does it look like I gave this article/item full and careful consideration?" (maybe a little corny, but I always try to phrase and rephrase before hitting send... unfortunately once your written word is out there, even with subsequent revisions and/or apologies, you can't take it back.) As an example, your very latest AfD comment[1]: "total OR job, no idea what it's even about." Now, this doesn't violate any Wikipedia rules, and is an acceptable comment. But doesn't "Contains WP:OR, and is unclear as to subject matter. Fails WP:V and WP:N" or something like that sound just a tad better, more objective, more to the point and constructive? A few minor adjustments in writing style is all you need. I think you've addressed concerns from your first RfA about open hostility, so you're already on your way.

Communicating good intentions is difficult on here, and even neutral phrasing can sound unintentionally harsh sometimes. Try to even go beyond WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and dare I say, give some Wikilove. Kindness is not soon forgotten, and will make you a memorable and most favorable RfA candidate. Please take these suggestions simply as a way to boost your RfA candidacy, and nothing more. This editor review is prima facie evidence of desire and willingness to be the best you can be. Keep it up, you and all your otters! All the best, Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I mostly see you on AFD, but while you're generally ok there, there are other times where you've been a bit overly brusque to other editors. Like your reply on the Hawaii related deletions. You were probably correct in the position you advocated, but the reply to the editor was possibly not the best choice. It might have been better to try a gentler approach as that might have corrected their behavior. Working to encourage good editors is hard (and possibly fruitless more often than not), but it is a goal to work for. FrozenPurpleCube 05:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Experience in closing clearly uncontroversial AfDs is commendable, but you still seem to be over-reaching. Although a very visible and important role of admins is closing AfDs, it's not what most of us predominantly do, and the eagerness to do so gives the impression of being perhaps a little pushy. This is especially the case when it isn't wholly uncontroversial, such as the closing of Historical persecution by Christians, which has led to an Deletion Review--and almost certainly a relisting. This tends to diminish confidence in your work when you will be an admin. Most people would have been exceedingly careful in closing such a controversial discussion. It's good to know you won't shy away from the hard ones, but you have to prove yourself first. DGG (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TenPoundHammer, and congratulations for having the bravery to ask for comments and do the RFA thing in the past. Since you asked for thoughts, here goes. My comment is a personal response that may be mine and mine only, so feel free to think about it, get other opinions or ignore as you desire! I find your username somewhat aggressive sounding, and it tends to jar me each time I see it, especially when you are commenting on deletion issues. I wonder if it influences other people's perceptions of the tone of your comments, attitudes too etc perhaps even unconsciously. Just a thought --Slp1 11:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

• View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

Questions

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

   Yes, there are many new pages I've made to fill in a few notable shopping malls and musicians primarily. I try to write articles as clearly as I can (though I tend to rely too much on compound complex sentences), and I try to find as many reliable sources as I can.

   Some of my better works as far as new pages, in my opinion, would include Cottonwood Mall (Albuquerque, New Mexico), Northwest Plaza, Wonderland Village, Bomshel, James House (singer), Robert Ellis Orrall, Sons of the Desert (band), The Bumper of My SUV, Find Out Who Your Friends Are, and If You're Reading This -- all of these articles are well sourced, detailed descriptions of their subjects.

   In addition, I have taken the time to re-work many articles that needed a rewrite. Among these are Trace Adkins, Amie Comeaux, Confederate Railroad, Diamond Rio, Joe Diffie, and Jeffrey Steele, all of which I practically rewrote from scratch and added several references to. Other articles I totally rebuilt include Bellamy Brothers, Pirates of the Mississippi and Kevin Sharp (country music), all of which were copyvios before my rewrites. In addition, Sixwire had been tagged for notability for a long time before I finally rewrote it from scratch.

   Mall pages that I've rewritten and polished (at least sort of) include Ashtabula Mall (original version looked like a six-year-old wrote it), Eastland Center (Harper Woods, Michigan) (original version was total nonsense), The Mall at Partridge Creek, and Universal Mall. Finally, I took three mall articles that were up for deletion and rewrote them to establish each mall's notability; they were Dutchess Mall, Indian Mall and Wenatchee Valley Mall.

   Sorry if I went on so long here, but I have been a busy editor!

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?

   Most recently, User:Cbfcnfkcmnsuxh was giving me hell about an article on a wrestler. I did a google search on the wrestler in question and found nothing, so I put the article up for deletion (it ended up speedied as nonsense). The user left several not-so-nice comments on my talk page here, here, and here. I politely gave the user several warnings, but he ignored them all -- eventually I took it to AIV, and he was blocked indefinitely.

   That is but one example -- I could cite many more but this page is long enough as is. If a user is being disruptive, I'll try to talk it over first. If they keep disrupting, I will make sure to take appropriate steps -- warnings first, and if it still persists, maybe a trip to AIV. Admittedly, it does feel kind of good to see {{indefblockeduser}} on someone's user page, but I won't request user blocks unless they're absolutely necesssary.