Wikipedia:Editor review/David
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] David
David (talk · contribs) I've made over 1200 edits on the English Wikipedia, and as part of my interest in the project, I would like to ensure that my editing is appropriate to Wikipedia's policies and procedures and of a high caliber befitting an editor. =David(talk)(contribs) 15:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Reviews
- Review by Moonriddengirl You seem to spend a lot of your time on WikiGnoming, which I (who do also) regard as pretty valuable work. The articles you touch seem the better for it. Your use of edit summaries is top notch: descriptive, polite, consistent.
- In terms of recent changes patrol, you may bend a bit backwards in labeling edits as "good faith"—I see a few where I might have gone with no assumption of faith—but it's far better to give the benefit of the doubt than leap to the "vandalism" cry, so that's hardly a point to protest. You give appropriate warnings to editors after vandalism has been reverted. I do wonder if you might increase your use of templates to message editors about less clear situations. You took the time to leave a personal note here—which is fabulous—but might have wanted to follow through in these instances of blanking. Template:Uw-delete1 can be helpful to teach good faith contributors how to use edit summaries to explain their behavior and to identify willful vandals so that future recent change patrolers can more swiftly recognize that their behavior is a pattern. (And that is the only suggestion for improvement that I'm going to be able to offer, I think. :) Truly, you are on top of your game.)
- I would like to note that I am particularly impressed with your graciousness and civility in dealing with other editors. I see every indication that this is a pattern with you, as when consensus did not go with you at Talk:Purity_ring#Merge_proposal and with your apology at User_talk:S.Örvarr.S#Paint.NET. I'd love to see that kind of behavior more widespread. It really adds to the pleasure of using Wikipedia for other editors, and kudos to you for putting such an emphasis on it. "[I]t is incredibly important - even essential to make sure that the quality of our civility far surpasses even that of our editing." I have a lot of sympathy with that view. :)
- High Caliber:
- Appropriate to Wikipedia's policies and procedures:
- Keep up the good work. :)--Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2007 (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'm particularly pleased with my edits and overhaul of Back to the Future: The Ride, Marauders (Harry Potter), and Paint.NET. I attempted to add citations and rework the headings and grammar of each article, so that they would conform to Wikipedia style and other guidelines and policies.
- 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?
- The largest conflicts over editing have not been my own conflicts; I tend to attempt mediation often. I've dealt with my own conflicts by realizing that I do not own the articles I edit, and it is more damaging to the project for dissent to degrade into attacks than for what might be less-desirable content to remain in an article (or what might be desirable content to be removed). I will continue dealing with conflict by trying to approach it with that understanding, as well as a lighthearted view of life and a desire to make people smile.
