Wikipedia:Editor review/Jobjörn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Jobjörn

Jobjörn (talk • contribs) Well, just having made my 5000th edit, I thought it would be time to see if those edits are really worth the hassle. I'd like to see what I can improve, that's all. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

The only time I remember really interacting with you was when you nominated all the airline destination lists for deletion. I remember being pretty annoyed at that. But never mind, I don't think there is an editor around here who I have not disagreed with at some point. :-) Even though you disagreed with my stance on that particualar issue, I feel that you were polite, and showed willingness to respect the community consensus and the outcome without accusing the people who opposed your nomination of being ignorant or stupid. That is a very good thing (separating the concept of consensus with your personal opinion and respecting disagreement) and I appreciate that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was fun. I even got a barnstar by Splot, with the text I hereby award Jobjörn this barnstar for having the courage to nominate all 172 articles for deletion despite the obvious hassle in tagging all of them and being dismissed as 'crazy' by other Wikipedians. I salute you. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Review by delldot:
Hi Jobjörn, I think you've been doing great work. A few points:

  • Good work reverting vandalism. Don't forget to warn the user afterwards.
  • Edit summary usage is pretty good, though sometimes edit summaries are missing or not useful.
  • I had trouble finding your big edits in with all the AWB edits, so unfortunately I can't review those well.
  • About this edit: To be honest it seemed a little abrupt to me. You say you're going to start dispute resolution if you can't resolve it with their reply? I'd wait till you've discussed this more to even bring this up. I think if you approach a conflict with more of an attitude of "I'm sure we can work this out". I agree s/he shouldn't have reverted without discussion, but then you could have discussed the change you made before making it too. It is good that you went to the talk page rather than reverting again. If this kind of interaction is not uncommon for you, my advice would be to be slow to enter conflict and quick to discuss in a friendly manner. Maybe this post came off as more abrupt than you meant it to, in which case I'd recommend looking over posts that could lead to conflict before hitting save page to see if you can add or remove any words in order to have your good intentions be as clear as possible.
  • This was good. You apologized and agreed to avoid doing the same thing in the future. You were very polite where others might have gotten their hackles up. A look at your talk page shows other instances where you deal with potential conflict in a civil and appropriate manner.
  • From a look at your talk page and its archives, your posts come off a little curt at times, even when you probably don't mean them to [1]. The brevity of your comments may make you sound more hostile (or at least more ambiguous) than you mean them to. The reason I think you're coming off harsher than you mean to is that you really do respond well to outright hostility and other situations that would make many folks go "for christs sake, leave me alone!" (Like the drug free userbox thing, in which, for the most part, you remained commendably calm and civil [though I may be biased, since I'm completely on your side in the argument]). Thus I recommend checking beore saving every post to see if there's any way it may be ambiguous and any way you can make it less so. I appreciate the use of these things :) ;) which I used to hate, but they really do help to assure the reader you're being friendly :) Frequently prefacing your statement with a greeting also helps to set a friendly tone. e.g. here, instead of saying, "Woaah. Now you are making stuff confusing. Please stick to en-wiki for en-wiki matters..." you might say, "Hi x, thanks for the note. I was at first confused by your post; it would be less confusing for me if you could keep discussion of en-wiki matters on en-wiki only..." This is an excellent example of a clearly friendly post you made, it looks like you're friendly and helpful with newbies, which is great.
  • Your command of English is excellent (really mind-blowing by the standards of bilinguality in my country) but I did notice a few minor errors (e.g., it's "have run", not "have ran"). This is not important except in the article space, where I still don't see it as that big of a deal, since someone will eventually fix it. But I thought I'd mention it so you could keep an eye out.
  • I feel bad because I've focused mainly on the negative in this review, while in general I think you've been doing a great job. I'd certainly say that the 6000+ edits were "worth the hassle", keep them coming! :) delldot talk 16:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Hey, thanks for a great and useful review! You brought up many things I hadn't though about. You bring up many (luckily minor) points where I can indeed improve. Don't feel bad for pointing out mainly negative things - in a review, listing good stuff is quite pointless. And also, you managed to squeeze in quite a lot of compliments too. Thank you! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Glad you got something out of it, thanks for taking it in the spirit it was intended!  :) delldot talk 00:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am particularly pleased with my contributions to Central Organisation of the Workers of Sweden, Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation, Roy Lichtenstein and List of members of the Riksdag, 2002-2006 (which is nearing Featured List status). Overall, I'm happy with my creation of articles on Swedish MPs, such as Kent Härstedt or Rolf K. Nilsson. I take some pride in the patience I showed when dealing with Talk:Pedro Rosselló and Talk:Letterkenny.
  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?
    Yes, I have. User:Itake - who happens to be an IRL friend of mine - thought it'd be fun to wiki-stalk me, when I started nominating various nationsims for deletion (in example one run by him, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superpower Classic). We had some conflicts over POV in Talk:Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation and elsewhere, but not only did all these conflicts end in my favor, he also stated he'd leave me be. By then I had just requested mediation, and that's what I will do if the same situation arises again. Not too likely though.
  3. What does the peerreviewer script on your monobook.js page do? The Transhumanist   05:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    The "peerreviewer script in my monobook.js is a script generating suggestions on how you could improve an article before considering it for Wikipedia:Peer review. The suggestions generated by the script focus largely on style issues, e.g. those that can be found on WP:MOS. I've only used it once - on Rolf K. Nilsson - and then it didn't complain about anything. As it is only visible as a text-link when editing an article, I don't really notice it's existence and haven't bothered to delete it. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 07:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Have you tried Wikipedia:Navigation popups? If so, how come you stopped using it? The Transhumanist   05:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    No, I have not. I'm quite reluctant to use scripts and I have JavaScript turned off by default in my browser, only allowing certain pages on the allow list to use them. Someday I might try them though. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 07:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Have you tried Wikipedia:wikEd? What do you think of it? The Transhumanist   05:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    No, I have not. As I said, I'm quite reluctant to use scripts. WYSIWYG editing does not interest me as I, as a hobby programmer myself, find my creativity less limited by a black-and-white clutter of obscure symbols than a nice, clean, colorful drag-and-drop-interface. I don't even use the handy little insert-thingys below the edit summary box. Haven't ever. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 07:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps I ought to mention I do use AutoWikiBrowser. A lot. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 07:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. How many pages are in your watchlist? The Transhumanist   05:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    Right now, 599 pages are in my watchlist. The number usually hovers somewhere around 500 and 800. About 500 of them are biographies of Swedish politicians. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 07:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. What methods do you use to monitor those pages? That is, how do you use your watchlist? (The steps and procedures that you follow). The Transhumanist   05:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    My watchlist is my Wikipeda-entry point. I rarely visit the Main Page. When I see any new happenings, or rather, non-clicked diff-links (showing up blue instead of purple), I go through the diffs in order to watch for vandalism and also spot changes by editors I know and trust. I go through all the diffs. If I find a page that I have no interest in, probably the result of idle AWB-spellchecking, I unwatch it. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 07:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. What other methods of monitoring do you use? The Transhumanist   05:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    None. Well, OK, sometimes I use the related changes feature; especially on the members of the Riksdag lists which I've created. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 07:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/i/Wikipedia%7EEditor_review_Jobj%C3%B6rn_c7d6.html"