Wikipedia:Editor review/Anynobody

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Anynobody

Anynobody (talk · contribs) How am I doing? Anynobody 02:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyeverybody (talk • contribs • logs) (I am currently experiencing a more or less self created password issue, and intend to resume editing under the name I am requesting review for. However what I am doing until it gets resolved seems relevant.)

Reviews

I'm surprised you did not mention Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS in your answer to Q2. I think you have behaved appropriately during this dispute, and your insistence on NPOV in a controversial issue is admirable. My only concern is that you are spending way too much time on the case. You have demonstrated tremendous skill in fixing images and templates, adding references, and removing cleanup tags after appropriate improvement of articles. It would be a shame to see all that put on hold for another two weeks just so that you can keep one disruptive editor away from Scientology articles for the next two weeks.

Otherwise, you are doing fine. As I say to all my reviewees, I wish you good luck - especially with the password issue. It's unfortunate, but that hilarious cartoon on your userpage makes it all worthwhile to me. :) Shalom Hello 19:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Review 2

I first came across you when you posted on my Talk page following a block; I thought then that your comments were fair and sympathetic; I subsequently read through your entire Talk page archives, posted to you and had a brief conversation, and I have just now skimmed your edits using the 'Wannabe Kate' tool. Frankly I think that it's all very impressive, polite and offering the other cheek. You seem to have an issue with Bishonen - is there any way that could be put right? (You could make the attempt, at least, I suppose.) Other than that, I think that you are well on course. Please let me know if and when you re-apply for Admin status.--Major Bonkers (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Oh well.--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm really sorry for the delay Major Bonkers, I have been surprisingly busy lately both here and in the real world. I hadn't given it any thought, I think the earliest would be upon the resolution of of the arbcom case I'm involved in and my password gets fixed. Anynobody 23:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
(I am genuinely doing the best I can to resolve the dispute we (Bishonen and I) have) Anynobody 23:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I tried to post this last night and my post seems to have got lost (perhaps I didn't remove the asterisk): My comments above ('Sigh. Oh well.') were posted after seeing the 'get off Bishonen's lawn' posting on your Talk page and were intended not as a 'hurry up and post a response!', but as a sad reflection on the propensity of human nature to spurn attempts to settle differences. Anyway, keep up the good work!--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Insults

Beginning comments with "If you're just being anal...", [1] is disruptive and rude. In my limited experience editing with you, you have acted unilaterally and insultingly. Previously, I thought you did a good job of suspending personal opinion, but you seem prone to putting too much energy into personality clashes. Again, my experience is limited. However, calling editors "anal" should not even make it past your own internal review. Bsharvy 12:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my comment insulted you. In the interest of clarity, I truly wasn't suggesting "If you're just being an asshole", I don't guess on things like that. If I think someone is acting like one, I'll just say so. I was suggesting the possibility you might be acting overly meticulous and obstinate, aka anal retentive, usually shortened to anal. Which honestly isn't meant as an insult, but it is a criticism. There is a fine line between the two, so please understand I don't intend to insult because it serves no purpose. Considering your continued protests to such issues as the article spin-off at Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that everyone else supported, I honestly feel my criticism is valid based on what I have observed of your behavior, so I still stand by the assertion re: your overly meticulous and obstinate nature. Anynobody 22:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
If you think suggesting editors are anal is constructive criticism, you have a lot to learn about constructive criticism. That is my feedback to you, in this forum created only for the purpose of giving feedback to you. Extended discussion should take place on one of the other pages. Bsharvy 02:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it'd be better discussed on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, if for no other reason than to keep the discussion in one place as opposed to here, there, and my talk page. Anynobody 05:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Anyeverbody at same counter.

Anyeverybody at same counter.

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I make an effort to never be "proud" or pleased with the contributions I make, I know it sounds strange but it keeps me from getting emotionally invested in the process of editing. This makes it much easier to accept others later editing what I have contributed. Since the question is probably designed to get a look at what I feel my best work is I'll cite an example acknowledged by the community as good work; I started Sylvia Seegrist and it was selected as a WP:DYK article on 13 June 2007, and appears in Wikipedia:Recent additions 146.
  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 have a thick skin when it comes to dealing with hostile editors, so when a discussion deteriorates into a conflict I am able to remain rational and calm. A challenge I am experiencing is making it clear that though I may disagree with another editor I don't see it as a personal conflict, but a misunderstanding to be worked out. Since each editor is different, I try not to make generalized plans for how to handle a hypothetical type of editor but instead take each on a case by case basis.