Wikipedia:Editor review/Karimarie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] User:Karimarie
Karimarie (talk • contribs) I would like my edits to be evaluated so I can improve my own editting style. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Reviews
- You don't want to be sticking banners on article talk pages. [1] This was discussed, for instance, at the inception of the Linux WikiProject. It usually incorrectly claims that the article is being actively worked on by the project, and discourages editors who are not part of the project. Some of the best editors on Wikipedia are lone cowboys, and don't like claims being staked all over the place. If policy had allowed me to use rollback on those edits, I would have done. On sight, every time. People waste too much time on bureaucracy these days. Just go and edit articles. Much more satifying. - Samsara (talk · contribs) 01:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hello there, Karimarie, how are you doing? Personally, I do not agree with Samsara. As every article in Wikipedia needs to be rated in both importance and status, articles should belong to a WikiProject to get such ratings. However, I am not a member of the WikiProject Linux. Now, for your review, I notice you have very similar statistics: around 700 edits in the article namespace, 150 in the article talk, 350 in the user, 200 in the user talk and 100 in the Wikipedia one. Most of your edits in the article namespace are vandalism reverts, which is pretty good. You could consider joining the Recent changes patrol in order to learn how to patrol and the different tools available for patrolers. However, I am kind of disappointed that you don't warn vandals as often as it should. Remember that we have four level of warnings, thus someone vandalizing an article for the second time should be awarded at least a {{test}}. Also, if you aren't yet, consider checking the contributions of the user you have just warned. While checking for vandals is very welcomed, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where editors should spend some time writing and polishing articles. The fact that you are proud of your vandal fighting indicates several points: that you don't have an expanded edit history while improving articles, that you feel comfortable tracking vandals, and that you may be target of those vandals you keep reverting. I wonder why you did not mention your interaction with Berakhot (Talmud), which seems pretty extensive. With some more effort, and recurring to the manual of style, you should be able to make it a good article. Finally, I find User:Karimarie/Watched/Users somewhat strange. While people have these kind of lists (even I have mine), most times we do clearly state whether they are "good" (in example, "People I respect") or bad (in example, "Spammers"). That you don't make it clear which ones are "good" and which ones are "bad" may bring some shadow for the good users. However, this is a personal feeling, to which you apparently don't agree. Ending, I believe you need to warn users more often and spend some time writing articles (fighting vandals is pretty stressing once they learn to click your signature to arrive to your user page!). If you don't feel comfortable with editing and expanding articles, you can take a break from reverts by checking the different deletion debates. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 04:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
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 particularly pleased with my many, many reversions of vandalism. That said, revert edits are not much in the way of contributing content to Wikipedia.
- 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 have had many conflicts with other editors, although generally with regards to reversion of vandalism they have caused or the occassional content dispute. Some of these users have caused me specific stress due to their repeated attacks against me. I deal with it now and in the future by belief that I have Wikipedia's policies on my side and that if I must defend my actions by gaining consensus that I am able to do so.
- What major changes do you think are needed here on Wikipedia?
