Wikipedia:Editor review/Neurolysis

Neurolysis (talk · contribs) I've been on Wikipedia for a good two years now, and would like some feedback on how people feel I am doing. Please be blunt, please be honest, please don't sugarcoat your reviews - I want to know what I could be doing better, and don't want niceties to sabotage such an attempt. (that said, be nice. ;)) — neuro^(talk) 04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

• Good job never being blocked. Well done earning barnstars and I am happy that you have some good/featurd credits too! And you have a good argument with this. Thus, I really truthfully only have positives to say. As for suggestions, if I can make any, maybe help rescue some articles so you can earn rescue credits as well like the little life preservers seen at the top of my talk page. As you were helpful with the List of chemical compounds, perhaps you can help with some of some of the other lists currently tagged at Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue? I and others have already begun working on them and anyway, the only thing I can see needing added to your already impressive userpage might be some rescue credits. But overall you are doing good! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In general, it's clear you're a fantastic collaborator and a credit to the community. Please take these as observations rather than criticisms.

-There's another user named Neuro who went to the trouble a while back to do a usurp of the user name in your signature. I'm not sure if you've ever had any contact with him (I haven't) but it's strange you would be using that name - plenty of people sign as "Matt" or "Bob" or "Dan", but "Neuro" is shall we say a less common first name. Potentially confusing.

-Your edit summaries when tallybotting at RFA are often less than helpful. I know you're trying to lighten the mood, but I'd rather see a status of the RFA than an in-joke LOL in my Watchlist.

-There's no obvious linkage to your prior identity on your user pages that I can currently see. I can understand why you'd distance yourself from that, but the fact is you've come a long way from where you were six months ago, and you should be proud of that.

You're doing well and it seems to me you've got the right attitude to take on additional responsibility around here. You make occasional errors in judgment, but the errors I've seen have been innocent and well-meaning, and everyone goofs now and then. Your tendency to assume good faith really does go a long way. I hope this is helpful feedback. Townlake (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Neuro. I was just reading one of your comments on AN/I, and couldn't help but notice you had opened up an editor review. I see your name around a lot (I don't recall any extensive interaction though), and I figured I'd offer up my opinion on how you are doing.

• To start off, it's great to see you are taking such an involved role in the community. You're involvement in Wikipedia-space (such as WP:AIV, WP:ANI, or WP:XfD to name a few) is always helpful and considerate. You are a very, very active editor lately — you rack up hundreds of edits over the course of days! Excellent to see such dedication to the project.
• It's nice to see that you've managed to get two lists featured. Getting experience in article work is a great way to collaborate with other users, and it gives a better perspective on things related to Wikipedia in general. I recommend checking out WP:DYK — it may not be your area of interest, but everything's worth a try. ;)
• Per Townlake, I've always appreciated the your assumions of good faith towards whom others would flatly classify as a troll. We need more editors who care considerate of other users and are willing to speak their opinion.

And that's my review, however brief it may have been. Hope it helps you in some form or fashion. Happy editing, Master&Expert (Talk) 08:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I went through your recent contributions and found little to complain about. You've been doing fine work on articles, and I noticed that you make very positive contributions at WP:UAA. I found a few areas with room for improvement. One, you tend to make many small edits to the same page with the same edit summary. This makes reviewing both your contributions and the article history more difficult. I suggest that you combine edits if you can and use the preview function if you're unsure what your combined edits will look like. Two, I recommend that you merge in your own work to article space when collaborating with other editors. From looking through the history of Hughes Medal, I had the impression that Ironholds had done almost all of the work. Then I saw that Ironholds had moved the content from another page without linking to it in the edit summary. This is somewhat dangerous, because if your collaboration page is deleted, the individual contributions will disappear, and that could cause a licensing problem. I eventually found your collaboration page and saw that you had, indeed, put just as much effort in to the article as Ironholds. That's all, hope it helps. Wronkiew (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I haven't found any problems in your contributions and I think that you are ready for another RfA. Keep up the good work! GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 16:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe you are familiar with my thoughts on your value to Wikipedia, but I'll expand on them a bit if you'd like. I'm pleased to see your efforts in encyclopedia building have been working out so well, although I can't say I'm surprised at the ability. I am perhaps a bit surprised at the efforts, as I thought of your work as mostly clerical, and maintenance related. (along with some excellent graphic contributions.) I'm familiar with a few of your "past" experiences, and consider them to be a closed book. Now the fun part where I get to pick on you (hey, you asked - ;)). I've noticed a couple things that made me scratch my head, but rather than post individual differences, I'll simply suggest watching the humor. While a post to a users talk page with colorful language about their puns (however awful they may be), may be understandable to the editor with whom you're conversing, it is still a public forum, and someone wandering by that's not familiar with your relationship may be taken aback. Also, and I am just as guilty of this, any humor in formal settings such as RfA, AN, ANI can also be considered improper. (as I can be equally negligent, I'll use the pronoun..) We must always be aware that we exist in a very public forum, and several of our members expect the very highest standards. Now, all that being said, I look forward to supporting your upcoming RfA with great enthusiasm and admiration. — Ched :  ?  12:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• View this user's edit count using X!'s counter

Questions

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

   Define 'contributions', really. If you mean article work and content creation, I particularly enjoyed and am proud of my work with featured lists, I have two - Hughes Medal and Gabor Medal, and a few more coming up soon. For a long time I stayed out of content creation in general - mostly because I enjoyed repetitive maintenance work, and didn't see the need to venture into other areas. However, after a while I found that I was doing a lot of maintenance work on mainspace articles, which gradually got me into wanting to work on content. After Ironholds prodded me about whether I wished to work alongside him getting some articles to featured list status, I realised that my love for technical jobs and mindlessly repetitive tasks could equate to content work with lists and tables.

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 tend to disengage from situations before anything I would consider to be reminiscent of a 'conflict' occurs, and the same for stress, really. If I get stressed, I go and get a coffee, listen to some music, and generally check that I am in a good state of mind and make sure I am calm before proceeding. If I were to get into a conflict with someone about my edits, I would discuss it with them before continuing further, or at the very least get a second opinion from another user that I trust.