Wikipedia:Editor review/Tachikoma

User:Tachikoma[edit]

Tachikoma (talk · contribs) I don't want to become an administrator, but I would like to know how others view my participation in Wikipedia: what do I do well, what could use improvement, suggestions for growth. Things like that. When reviewing me, I would prefer to be called by my real name, Kyoko. I am very curious to hear what you have to say. Kyok o 12:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

This is rather difficult, as you don't appear to be doing anything wrong, or even faintly dubious. Are you looking for areas to branch out into? Your last 500 contribs don't seem to show any AfD votes or nominations, something that is very important for WP and something that some people find enjoyable. Any RC patrol? People get addicted to that. Your userpage doesn't list any good articles or featured ones. FA is quite stressful (like having your teeth pulled by an incompetent dentist: very painful and it takes forever), but GA is relatively easy to get and much more fun. Reading WP:WIAGA might be a good start, as might [1], which is basically my cheat's guide to GA. Probably most of this is completely useless, but I hope that some of it vaguely helpful. Cheers, Moreschi 11:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one more thing. IMO there's no need to beat yourself up for ticking off a user who thoroughly deserved it. No need to cause yourself pointless stress, surely? Cheers, Moreschi 11:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way: I've been a Wikipedia user since the end of January 2006, and by now, I've learned how to contribute to articles. I also know that there are areas of Wikipedia that I don't have much (or any) experience with. I was wondering what else is there on Wikipedia, if I ever get into an editing rut. Wikipedia is a huge project, and it can get confusing when you venture outside the realm of simply writing articles.

Now for your suggestions: From time to time, I do RC patrol, when I'm in the right frame of mind. I think I've participated in exactly one AfD. I don't list any good articles or featured articles on my userpage because I don't think I've made a very large number of contributions towards any. If I had to pick one, I guess I've contributed some in the article Cystic fibrosis, which is a featured article, but not really because of anything I've ever done. I've contributed quite a bit towards the Macintosh article. I would like to eventually build the articles that I mention below into good or even featured articles, but that will take some time. I think that The Count of Monte Cristo has the best chance of that. I'm currently more motivated to work on the lung transplantation article, which I think has good potential for promotion to GA or FA, if it continues to develop as quickly as it already has.

I would also like to know if I handled the various conflicts listed below as well as I could have. I do worry about not hurting other people's feelings (perhaps unduly so), which is a major factor why I don't want to become an admin. --Kyok o 15:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to add that while I could mention Good and Featured Articles that I have worked on, I'd feel a bit awkward in claiming credit for what was mostly someone else's work. If I remember correctly, I added a little information about the genetics and the molecular physiology of CF, and I rewrote a substantial part of the early history of the Macintosh in some long-ago revision. In both cases, it was mostly reworking content that was already there. --Kyok o 02:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No AfD (unlike me :] ), nice user page (unlike me, again), I don't see anything wrong... You are doing a very good job! Randfan 00:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Kyok o 22:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from your so friendly and supportive participation in Esperanza, what I find most useful about your work in Wikipedia is your understanding of the need to make a bridge between lay and expert knowledge. It isn't always easy to see how this can be done, but I'm sure it is the right principle, as well as a unique selling point for Wikipedia. It should also be mentioned that your language skills enable you to make a bridge between the English and French language 'pedias. And I like the fact that you are always seeking to improve your skills. Perhaps (as you suggest yourself) your next step will be to stop worrying quite so much about hurting other people's feelings. Looking forward to reading lots of your future edits. Itsmejudith 00:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Judith. As you can tell from the statement on my userpage, I would like to translate more content between the two Wikipedias. It's something which I admit I haven't done much of: the only example I can think of offhand was a translation of a letter from the poet Arthur Rimbaud to his professor and mentor, Georges Izambard. I guess for understandable reasons, health and science topics have consumed most of my recent work, but continuing to translate between the two 'pedias is a good idea. --Kyok o 22:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't really point out anything that needs to be done that hasn't already been said. Your edits, which I believe number slightly higher than mine, are certainly more evenly balanced than mine, but I don't think it would be entirely right to compare you to me and me to you. The bilingual business (?? I need a better word) is certainly one I commend. And I'm suggesting again the AfD to you, as much to myself as to you. I wish I could say more, but everything has already been said. — $PЯINGε rαgђ 01:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think my total number of edits is slightly lower than yours, but my number of mainspace edits is about four or five times yours, but as you point out, everybody is different. Some users opt to contribute mostly towards articles, some get involved with policy issues, some people occupy themselves with vandal-fighting, and some people prefer to be sociable. While everybody should be contributing in some manner towards the encyclopedia, Wikipedia is large enough to accommodate all these different types of users. --Kyok o 22:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me again - I think you handled all the disputes superbly on a personal level, but my word I would have fought the corner a bit harder at Great Expectations. You are so obviously right - the article is hopelessly unbalanced. Just for future reference, it sometimes pays to be a little more assertive, particualarly when you are blatantly correct - though, of course, I appreciate that at the time you weren't feeling up to much. All meant in a spirit of constructive crititcism, obviously - I'm not trying to pick on you. Cheers, Moreschi 18:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. At the time I was feeling pretty fragile, so I wasn't prepared for the tone of Cecropia's response, and yes, I did take it personally. At the same time, I totally understand the feeling of being protective of one's one work (something I also encountered in the Kodachrome article), even though it violates the Wikipedia policy on article ownership. I didn't want to hurt Cecropia's feelings. I was hoping to find some acceptable consensus, but the two sides in that dispute seemed unwilling to concede anything. --Kyok o 18:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to comment as a Deletionist and using that as my filter. I cannot say this strongly enough -- if you want an example of how to write good articles, look over Kyoko's contributions. What I find is that everything excellently sourced, cleanly written, and most of all, not awkward to read. There's some tortured syntax in some articles to reach NPOV, but there's none of that in what Kyoko writes. You use edit summaries that actually summarize what you do, and out of 950+ edits in the mainspace, only two entries have no edit summary (wow!). You participate in most of the areas of Wikipedia and you are always civil, polite, and thoughtful. Not having a focus on some of the more arcane aspects, such as FA (which is basically a boss fight) is hardly a problem, since you could, if you wanted to, get Lung Transplantation to FA status. If I could find a problem it would be more particpation in AfD, if only because you seem to be levelheaded enough to prevent both over-eager Deletionists (me!) from slaying any article that moves while being solid enough to recommend when to keep articles. Also, perhaps you could try things like tinkering with templates, or doing work in the Help section of Wikipedia --- someone as helpful and polite as you would be great there. You are doing a great job. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 13:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this is soooo late, I know you've been asking me to do this for about 2 weeks now! Now, what to say? I think I'll use my dry scientific mind and put this in the form of a sort of bulleted list, if you don't mind... (stole this from Daniel.Bryant)

Statistics

Activity: Well-spread; I liked seeing that your edits are more or less centred around your areas of interest, but not entirely limited to them. Good work.
Mainspace: About a third of your total, but numbers aren't everything. Your work on lung transplantation has been exemplary.
Wikipedia: I'm going to discount coffee lounge edits, but you've done great work at the Ref Desk. I would love to see someone as knowledgeable, level-headed, polite and cogent as yourself there more often, though... :)
User talk: Good number. You're always polite and civil, even during recent difficulties. As for the incident on your talk page - I think you handled it with just the right amount of firmness, so don't worry about it, at all.

Behaviour

Civility: As I've already stated - always polite and courteous.
Courtesy and kindness: I've seen you helping new users, which wins big points in my book.
Participation in 'process': A little low. While AfDs etc can be rather noxious, I'd recommend giving WP:FAC and WP:PR a go. You seem capable of giving fair, unbiased reviews to articles, so I think your input would be appreciated. Also, if you ever plan on raising Lung transplantation to FA-status, it's good to hang around these areas to see what people's standards can be like.

Final thoughts

OK, so you're not going to make an RfA anytime soon :p But you're the sort of user we need more of - article writers, builders, helpers rather than fighters. Obviously this is an entirely biased review, since you're one of my favourite people around here ^{{npov}}, but seriously, you're doing great work just doing what you're doing, and your work is appreciated a lot. riana_dzasta 14:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Good, per riana...Keep up the good work, remember there are 100's of admins but only 1 Tachikoma/Kyoku. Have a nice day.__Seadog ^♪ 05:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highly Valuable Editor Kyoko, despite the fact I'm pretty much leaving Wikipedia, I noted you've got a current editor review. So I felt the need to contribute. Your user page says you're not intending to become an Administrator, which I have to say is unfortunate, because your edits are of a very high quality, you participate in other non-core community activities and make others feel welcome, and you seem very familiar (judging solely by the quality of your edits) with Neutrality and other Wikipedia policies. That being said, I fully understand what you want to be doing on Wikipedia, ie. contributing to the information base rather than the drudge behind it, and it's appreciated. Most people seem to forget the core part of Wikipedia is the information, not process, arbitration etc. :) Pursey 19:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

Questions

Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I am most proud of my creation of a lung transplantation article, a topic that has become very important to me due to events in my personal life. I've also written articles on other aspects of pulmonology, including lung allocation score and ventilation/perfusion scan. I have also created or expanded articles relating to pulmonary hypertension, including the main article and some drugs that are used in its treatment, such as treprostinil and bosentan. I'm also proud of my contributions towards the novels The Count of Monte Cristo and Norwegian Wood. Lastly, my most well-known contribution, as well as the most praised, is an essay in my userspace (now moved outside Wikipedia due to admin concerns), about my recent suicide attempt. While not properly encyclopedic, I guess it is nonetheless a contribution to the Wikipedia community at large.
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 think my very first conflict was over the article Kodachrome, whose tone I felt to be too gushing or too POV at the time. After an initial dispute with the primary contributor to the article, the anonymous user and I reached a compromise that acknowledged the technical capabilities of the film without sounding like ad copy. There was also a dispute on the talk page of the novel Great Expectations regarding what constitutes a good story summary. Because I haven't recently read the book, and I made little or no contributions to the article itself, I ultimately withdrew myself from the dispute. I have also conflicted with users in the past over their abuse of my talk page, namely altering it without my permission, so that they could delete comments that they later regretted. While I would have preferred to avoid those conflicts altogether, I believe I behaved in a civil and patient manner, and I expect to do the same with future conflicts. When I find Wikipedia too stressing, I either do simple edits like making wikilinks, or I take a short wikibreak.