Wikipedia:Editor review/Backburner001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] User:Backburner001

Backburner001 (talk • contribs) I have been an active contributor to Wikipedia since December 2005 (registered the account in March 2005). During my time as an editor here, I've focused on a the following tasks: stub creation, citation requests/additions, some vandalism reversion, and expanding content. I actively search for and edit content to conform with WP:NPOV, WP:MoS, and WP:CITE (frequently citing these pages in my edit summaries). I do believe that I collaborate well with other editors, but I also defend my edits and try to challenge weak content (which may give some editors the opposite impression at times). Comments on my performance as an editor are appreciated and will be taken seriously.

Reviews

  • After skimming your last 1,000 edits, I see strength in your recognition of what needs citation and what doesn't; I'm seeing more examples of data addition (as opposed to deletion) than I did before, and interactions like this are being handled accurately if a bit tersely, leading to my first suggestion: Don't be afraid to offer other editors reinforcement even as you help them overcome what may be lacking ("Hey, great job! If I may, though..." or something similar). My other suggestion: Take the occasional break from tagging, go over the articles you have tagged, and add citations yourself—more of that will head off the occasional "well, I don't see you doing it" that some editors might throw back, while allowing you to point directly at examples for those who want to comply but need help. These suggestions might not be utterly accurate after only 20 minutes of skimming, but I hope they are of assistance. RadioKirk talk to me 20:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Your suggestions are both accurate and helpful. Thank you for your review. -- backburner001 15:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. Happy editing! RadioKirk talk to me 16:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • My review is only based on edits in the disaster management domain. Your weaknesses have only related to your referencing. You can sometimes be a bit overzealous, referencing every sentence in a paragraph based only on one source. This often reduces the readability. Also, you tend to be overreliant on individual references. Instead, try to find contrasting references to provide the reader with an understanding of the complete range of prevailing thoughts. Your strengths definitely include your bold, pro-active approach, and, paradoxically, a frequent use of references. After all, it is better to reference too much than vice versa! --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 09:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    My work on Emergency management with User:Erikssond and others as a part of WikiProject Disaster Management has been the most rewarding as a result of the successful collaboration on the article. I think the article has vastly improved from the version I first viewed in January. I am also pleased with my contributions to Fire investigation, Dispatcher, and Hiram College although I believe those articles still need a lot of work. My recent drive to add citations to articles is also an effort I've been pleased to initiate as I feel that Wikipedia needs to be strengthened in this area.
  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?
    I am an editor who will work to collaborate with other editors but will also defend good edits and push for improvement. I seek to gain consensus and work with others. But I am also not afraid to use any of the channels Wikipedia provides to defend both my own and others' valuable contributions.
  1. The only active conflict I have been involved in occured here over a reference on the Lindsay Lohan article. The conflict that occured between User:RadioKirk (now an administrator) and myself nearly went to ArbComm after the dispute continued beyond WP:RFC/ART and a failed Request for mediation, but was eventually resolved in a civil manner. The only other "conflict" that occured was one in which User:Brian G. Crawford kept deleting content from Cleveland steamer and nominating it at AfD three times. After Crawford initiated a personal attack against another editor in the third nomination and as a result of what I feel were bad faith nominations, I filed a User conduct RfC on Crawford. However, I don't know that this can be termed a conflict in the active sense of the word, sense Crawford seldom responded to my comments on his behavior and has since stopped editing.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/i/Wikipedia%7EEditor_review_Backburner001_b655.html"