Wikipedia:Editor review/Dewet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] User:Dewet

Dewet (talk • contribs) I have been asked whether I would accept an RfA nomination. As part of contemplating that question, I would like some others' feedback on my contributions as editor. I've been around since 2004, with over 2000 edits here, as well as being an admin on af:, although I spend much, much less time there since en: has sucked me in. I focus a lot on (Southern) Africa topics. These days I've been much more busy reverting vandalism, although I still find cleaning up a random article a good diversion. Please don't hesitate to be critical, as that'd mean a lot to try and improve! Thanks for your time, dewet|✉ 11:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Comments I like this editor. He was helpful to me when I started here.

Isn't there a conflict though between "* I will revert — without discussion — any contribution of an anonymous contributor if the following two conditions are met: the change seems unmerited in any way, and said contributor doesn't even bother to write a summary for his/her changes" and "* I tend towards being inclusionist in my editing."

Even if not, I am a little uncomfortable with the first. Guinnog 06:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I think the first statement may be a bit badly phrased; it refers to my tendency to revert as vandalism what anons contribute. I've seen so many anon contributions where a percentage gets changed, or sweeping statements made without supporting it, or simply information added that could be true; this is my way of "erring on the side of caution". But: I will not blindly oppose any addition that was motivated (in whichever way: edit summary, talk page, etc); that means we can have a debate about it. Thanks again, dewet|✉ 07:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I like to translate articles to and from Afrikaans (see my contributions and my user page for examples), copyediting promising and non-MoS-conformant articles ([1] [2] [3] as a few examples), researching and expanding stubs or starting new articles (for example, Afrikaans Language Monument, Huguenot Monument, Acacia erioloba, George Weideman, 2006 Table Mountain fire) — including any photography and images related to the subject — about various things that may hold my interest at the moment.
  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?
    Certainly. For instance, on Battle of Spion Kop, there was a protracted and heated argument as to whether it should be moved to what would today be the correct name of the article ("Battle of Spioenkop"), in much the same debate as happened on the renaming of Kolkata. The discussion can be seen at Talk:Battle of Spion Kop/Archive 1, and I feel that I acted level-headed and professionally with the editors there. I try to find a middle ground ([4] after discussion) and therefore tend toward being inclusionist. I've interacted with editors on the left and right ends of the spectrum. I've questioned other editors when I feel that they've erred (Talk:Before Christ), but always kept it friendly, if not at least civil.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/i/Wikipedia%7EEditor_review_Dewet_c8df.html"