Wikipedia:Editor review/Mecu
Mecu (talk · contribs) My main purpose in asking for a review is that I am concerned about my communication with other users of Wikipedia, especially lately. Thus, I would like specific feedback regarding this aspect in all areas that I directly communicate with other users, especially from over the past month or two, and from especially talk pages other than User talk pages, unless you feel those need addressing as well. I would like general comments as well. Thank you for your time. MECU≈talk 19:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Reviews
- Thanks for my review, and as promised, am back to give you a review. Okay lets look at the basics first:
- Active member of WP:ADOPT always good in my book
- Mathbot's tool shows 100% edit summary use for both major/minor - I know can be a bore so keep up the good work.
- Plenty of edits, with lots of experience in Mainspace (Article/Images) Template, and Wikipedia. Lots of talk in proportion to edits in particular space. Relatively new, with large spike in contributions this month. For RfA people may want to see one or two months more consistent contributions. Otherwise the stats look well rounded.
- Good use of edit summary (clear and concise) especially when nominating for deletion. Seem to warn users appropriately. Very good.
- Seem to be interested mostly in college sport/basketball. Have no delved deep, but maybe want some editing of non-sport stuff, to show experience across Mainspace. This is a very minor criticism, and I am sure you already have your hands full.
Right on to the specific request about discussions on Talk Pages - - over last month or two:
Mecu's own talk page:
- User:Godfoster - actions are right, but lesson to be learnt (and I need to do this too) - be ever careful if delete anything in userspace, and always state what done and why on talk page. Maybe in this case you were a bit defensive in your initial reply. Also I might have sent back another reply, just saying that things were cool and advice noted.
Will come and add some more later... Lethaniol 12:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Comments
- View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
- We've had a lot of interaction both in the college football WikiProject and across a lot of articles where we usually agree (though not always). I personally think that your comments on talk pages are respectful, well thought-out, and civil while at the same time maintaining your belief in your position in the discussion. That is a difficult balance to maintain, especially in some of the heated near-fights we had over logos and fair use a few months back.
I know that recently you've been working a lot with images and that you've been finding and marking for deletion a lot of questionable ones. That's good work, and from reading your user page and your comments in response on the other user pages, it looks like you took the advice of editors with more experience in that task pretty well and adapted to the way they do things. WP is a learning experience, and you seem to be learning. Good work, keep it up. z4ns4tsu\talk 20:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I always see him around, and he's very helpful. A true asset to Wikipedia. Just H 03:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's a good sign that you recognize the importance of proper communication with other editors; I'm a little annoyed at the way you handled mass image tagging. An image I uploaded was caught up in that, and your message on my talk page first ignored the tag that the image had, and then you ignored the rationale that I had provided. You might want to slow down and provide a more individualized response to cases where the blanket template isn't accurate. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- 2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings, a featured list, and its successor I have helped create and populate with data. But I am even more proud of some of my Template edits, specifically {{NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader}} and the series of templates {{1ColPollTable}}, {{2ColPollTable}} ... {{8ColPollTable}} ... {{15ColPollTable}}, {{16ColPollTable}}, {{17ColPollTable}}. While the latter are not heavilly used yet, I have used them on the 2006 BCS computer rankings page I created and they are amazingly better than editing the raw table forms like is contained on 2006 NCAA Division I-A football rankings. I believe others will enjoy using them as much as I have next college football season and if the college basketball group decides to use it. The first template I mentioned I believe is quite a unique template that gives the few, but plenty, articles that warrant its use a special style and prominence to help set it aside from the other articles. Also, I'm quite proud of Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/MasterTeamTable. Although maybe not the official starter of the page, I did come up and propose the idea to WP:CFB and populated a lot of the table and figured out how to get each line it's own edit "section" to make maintaining it easier. I think this single page helped the CFB project and bring a sense of "status" to the project - that is, it is quite easy to see how effective the project has been in getting this information and tasks done. It's hard to glance at it now and get that information, but in the beginning when most of the coach templates were red links and there were red links all over the rest of the table and to now see it mostly blue, I can earn a sense of accomplishment from it.
- 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 have had so much stress from the Fair Use issue regarding logos that I specifically "left" Wikipedia for a short period (week or two) to cool off. However, when confronted with a disagreement with another user my first instinct is to take it to the talk page, which should be the first step for all users. I did start a mediation cabal on the fair use that went relatively nowhere, but typically users, if they can remain level headed and cool enough, can work things out and typically for the better. It should be a users primary concern during a dispute and discussion to try and understand the other side's point. As too often, trying to get your point across seems more important, but understanding and refuting with intelligent arguments is likely more valuable in the end. I plan to continue this in the future: Take it to the talk page.