Wikipedia:Editor review/Jerry

Reviews

• You seem to have a very impressive contribution count, especially becuase you have been a member for three months! You should consider becoming a sysop, as I know many with much less than 1000. Perhaps you should wait a few months, for experience. Very nice contributions to the Charles H. Revson Foundation. Keep up the excellent work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nabilmmezher (talk • contribs) 01:53, 19 January 2007.

• How about not spamming users who have left the project with messages about articles they did a one-character typo fix in ten months ago? – Gurch 17:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

hmmm... spam? I followed the instructions in the AFD policy. If I were to consider another editor's edit as trivial and not inform them of my nomination for deletion of the article, I think that would be wrong. If you have indeed left the project and as you stated on your talk page changed the password to one you don't know, then how are you able to sign this comment? It seems to me that you have a beef with the project or others in it, and not really my courtesy notification on the AFD. If you really think that I should evaluate the edits and decide based on how important I think they are before I notify prior editors of an AFD, then please explain your rationale, because as I understand it now, that can't really make sense. Jerry lavoie 18:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"as you stated on your talk page changed the password to one you don't know" – What? Where does it say that? I can't see that anywhere on the current version of the page or in the page history.

Sorry, but leaving a message for every user who's ever edited an article is spam. Are you going to start leaving the bots messages as well? Because that's all I was doing, bot-work. Look at the message you left – "An article that you have been involved in editing...". I was not and have never been "involved in editing" that article. I made a one-word typo fix which I repeated on approximately 18,000 other articles. Most of the time I was editing so fast I didn't even see what the article was about. If something happens of those articles, am I really going to care? That's not what the message is for. It's for informing the original author of the article and people who have done a substantial amount of work on it. You listed your name here so you can "hone my skills and become an even better a Wikipedian", whatever that means, and learning that mass-mailing a message to editors who haven't signed up for any such message is frowned upon is an important part of that – Gurch 18:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge receiving this message, but I respectfully disagree. But that's okay. Glad to see you are back involved with the project.

END OF THREAD requested. If you want to discuss this further, please take it to my talkpage. Thanks.

Jerry lavoie 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

For everyone else visiting this page, you might want to check out the AFD in question... it is an example of a colossal mistake on my part, and how I handle being wrong. I would enjoy your comments on this. Jerry lavoie 18:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• While editing from the gut is natural and commonplace, you should be more careful about the kind of arguments you use to back it up. In this AfD you claim the subject isn't notable per WP:BIO, when the case is 100% clear cut that she is. While you may want to argue that the article should be deleted anyhow - and feel free to - invoking policies where that's not appropriate really hurts your case. Granted, AfD is one of the messiest places around, but it's full of some of the most hostile emotions, and missteps like this can really get people angry, or set a bad example for new users. Rather than be sloppy, be concise and well reasoned. If you're unfamiliar with a guideline, don't invoke it (although that is commonly done) - instead, explain why you reason the way you do. Best of luck, WilyD 18:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting comment. It is NOT clear (to nine out of the thirteen editors [>69%] who have weighed in on that AfD) that she is notable. My arguments were not from the gut. I studied the article, it's talk page, and the AfD comments that were left before me. I did a Google search and read the external links in the article. Then I read the policy WP:Notability (people). My argument in the AfD was that the article did not meet WP:BIO, based on the lack of multiple sources. And you are referring to this nom as my case: I was only one editor who responded to the AfD, not the nominator. It is the nominator's case, not mine, and the vote on this is hardly over. I do not understand the suggestion to go to the "Ignore all rules" policy (WP:IAR)... did you make a typo and mean some other policy? At any rate, I do not consider your comment here appropriate to my editor review, as it seems to be Spam for your side of the AfD mentioned, and doesn't really seem to provide relevant commentary on my editing of articles. Jerry lavoie 00:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you requested an editor review unless you're interested in people reviewing your editing. I commented on something I already knew about - this seems to me to be a logical action. But for you to claim an article with four or five sources doesn't cite multiple sources is something that begs to be commented on in an editor review - I believe, anyhow. How the AfD turns out isn't really a big concern of mine (it's an unimportant article) but how people conduct themselves in an AfD is something I concern myself with - which is exactly why I commented upon it here, where you asked for feedback on your editing. I'm not even sure the article should be kept - although I can't find a criterion for deletion.

You can do with my feedback what you will - you've requested it for your own purposes, and I've given it freely for that. My general point, I thought, was better illustrated by a specific example - perhaps I was wrong. But an AfD starts as editors in conflict, in many cases - and is a good place to get an idea of how to handle yourself in an editing conflict. Wrongly citing policies is likely to make things worse - better is to make a solid and neutral case on your own. WilyD 14:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am choosing to disregard this feedback. Thank-you for your time. Jerry lavoie 23:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

ever since I added this comment nobody has added anything to the page... I was only talking about WilyD's comment. He and I were not making any ground on that discussion, and I think I understood his point, but disagreed with it. Jerry lavoie 05:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

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

• May I suggest using the "Show Preview" button a lot more?? A vast number of your edits are minor, and you could reduce spam on your contribs page and the page's edit history by using the show preview button. This allows you to see the whole article, and see all of the minor edits that need to be done. Otherwise, you're doing alot better than I was at 3 months in.. Good job, and keep up the good work. Wiki needs more new editors like you. Ard0 ^{(Talk - Contribs)} 04:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Great suggestion. I realize that I often re-edit and re-edit and re-edit to get something fairly simple right. Especially with highly syntaxical features like tables and certain templates. I will try to use the preview feature more. Thanks for the feedback! Jerry lavoie 04:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

One question, though... several people have used the word spam in one form or another over the course of this editor review and the associated talk page and emails... I had a pretty solid concept of spam in my mind before, but these new uses of it are foreign. For example, how would letting previous minor contributors of articles know about an AFD I propose be considered spam? I can see the arguments for it being in poor form, but spam? These are the people most likely to oppose my proposal... and spamming is to attempt to garner support through unsolicited advertising, right? And in the case you used above... how would unnecessarily re-editing articles repetitively, be considered spam? I'm not being argumentative, I am just trying to understand. Thanks Jerry lavoie 04:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• This user is excellent, he/she often distibutes random smiley awards and is polite and generally seems a good editor.Tellyaddict 18:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I am pleased with my contributions to McCoy (pottery),International Organization for Standardization, Charles H. Revson Foundation, as well as several others. I chose these 3 because they are examples of a) an article I started from scratch, b) a well-established article that I improved while several editors are watching it, and c) an article I salvaged from being scrapped (I got it from the tasks list).

   1. Update - While on RC Patrol today, I came across the Emerson disambiguation page, and found out that there was no article about J.W. Emerson. Realizing he was a very important figure in the Electrical Aparatus Industry in the United States in the late 1800's, I decided to make a new article. I am somewhat proud of it and would love feedback. John Wesley Emerson.Jerry lavoie 00:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
2. 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?

   'Conflicts' is a strong word. There have been times where another editor and I have initially disagreed on some point or another. I believe that by following the principles of WP:AGF. and WP:CIVIL, I have been able to avoid these situations escalating to what I would consider conflicts. By keeping in mind that the prime directive is to co-create a valuable reference for the reader, and maintaining an open mind, I am sure that most conflicts can be avoided.