Wikipedia:Editor review/Dalbury

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Dalbury

Dalbury (talk · contribs) I've been editing actively for about nine months. I know I have made mistakes and irritated some people. I would like feedback on what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong. I would also like feedback on whether I am ready for an RfA. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Reviews

  • I have observed Dalbury making useful and sensible suggestions in policy talk pages. My assessment is that Dalbury has a good grasp of the project content policies. I have not interacted with Dalbury on active editing of articles, so my assessment is limited. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm very impressed with your editing statistics, and guess you're probably ready for an RfA. Honestly, I can think of no specific area in which you could improve. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 15:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • See this user's edit history with Interiot's tool and edit summary usage (Warning:Both tools have stopped updating and the edit counts are way off. Please consider using Flcelloguy's Tool or Interiot's Tool 2)
  • Good grief, does this mean I can finally nominate you? Or do you have a list of editors lined up asking for the honor? I'll add a review when I can find a few minutes, I promise - I have edited pages with you and you are intelligent, calm, rational, knowledgeable, work well with others and understand policy well. I know I've missed a dozen assets. No negatives that I have ever seen, except that there aren't more of you. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Dalbury made an offhand comment without firsthand knowledge and an incorrect judgement based on false information, logged here: [11:58, 7 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:No original research (→Terryeo does not answer proof challenge - time to call an end to the discussion)] Dalbury should refrain from comments and conclusions lacking firsthand information and both sides of a controversy. here is the diff link: [1]--Fahrenheit451 04:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • While I'm severely annoyed with the lack of sections in this review, I'm very pleased with your edits in general and would very much support a fellow South Floridian in an RFA... Bastique▼parler voir 01:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Current editing statistics from Flcelloguy's tool:
Statistics for: Dalbury
(Permissions: N/A)
- Total: 8341 -
Main: 3674
Talk: 669
User: 914
User talk: 635
Wikipedia: 1506
Wikipedia talk: 638
Image: 129
Image talk: 28
Template: 39
Template talk: 15
Category: 36
Category talk: 54
Portal: 1
Portal talk: 3
-------------------
Total edits: 8341
w/ edit summary: 7711 (92.44%*)
w/ manual edit summary: 7442 (89.22%*)
Minor edits: 1250 (14.98%*)
First known edit: Aug 9, 2005
-------------------
* - percentages are rounded down to the nearest hundredth.
-------------------

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Answer
    I am pleased with having created 35 articles on lighthouses in Florida, so that all lighthousse in the state that I could find documentation for now have articles. I have also created several articles on pre-European contact tribes and cultures in Florida, although there is much still to do there. I enjoy adding information about subjects that are interesting and significant, although not 'big-ticket' items. I have also created four articles that have been selected for 'Did You Know' on then main page.
  1. 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?
    Answer
    As I recall, my worst dispute was with User:Bkonrad in List of city nicknames in the United States. I had nominated the article for deletion, and when the discussion went badly against me, I started adding the 'fact' tag to items in the list. I ended up in a revert-war with Bkonrad.[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], & [8] I calculated that he would hit three reverts first, so I pursued the revert-war, and then placed a 3RR on his talk page after his third revert.[9] The next day I repented, apologized to Bkonrad, and removed the article from my watchlist.[10] I try to use that incident as a reminder to myself to not get too personally involved in discussions.