Wikipedia:Editor review/InDeBiz1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] InDeBiz1*

InDeBiz1 (talk · contribs) While I have been a registered user of Wikipedia since the 3rd Quarter of 2007, I have only been what most would call an "active" editor for about two months now. As it is a future goal to become an administrator and as I believe that it's never a bad thing for the occasional review of one's work, I would like to see what others have to say about my work to date. I am also interested in commentary from current administrators in regard to things that I should address or otherwise work on in my goal of one day becoming a sysop myself. InDeBiz1 (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

  • This edit is unacceptably rude. Based on that alone, I would not trust you to be a sysop, because it appears you believe that sysops have some special right to speak a certain way to people that normal editors do not. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Response If you were to dig deeper into the events that led up to that comment, you might feel differently. In no way, shape, or form do I feel that a sysop has the right to speak to someone in a way that others do not. I took the tone of one of that user's messages very personally. Also, if you were to dig deeper into the subsequent chain of events, you'd find that user and I no longer have any issues, as both of our messages to each other in that time fram were a bit on the heated side. I find it somewhat of a cause for concern that you can pick out a single edit (of over 1,600... most of which have been in the past 90 days) and say that single edit would cause you to be unable to trust me with the sysop tools. However, I respect and thank you for your opinion. Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I can't say that I've made any edits that particularly "please me," to date. I feel that I'm not in tbe business of "pleasing" myself, when it comes to editing here on Wikipedia, it should be about the facts of the subject at hand, "pleasing" or not. I'd like to think that I've done well with my edits thus far, particularly when it comes to the creation of articles about radio stations. It is my goal, as a member of WikiProject Radio Stations, to ensure that each radio station that is on the air legally in the U.S. has, at the very least, a basic page here on Wikipedia.
  • EDIT Lately, I've begun to take more an interest in the activities at ANI and the radio section of AfD. I feel like I am learning more and more there with each discussion that I participate in and taking away knowledge that will greatly help me at some point in the future, if I have a successful RfA. Also, I contributed an extensive copy edit of the Beyonce Knowles article that I'd like to believe went a long way toward its recent elevation to GA status. Despite these recent contributions, however, I still stand by my original statement that I'm not here to "please myself," I am here to positively contribute to the encyclopedia.
  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?
    I have had what I would call bonafide conflicts with two users, both within the last thirty days. In one example, the user insisted on adding non-NPOV statements to the Hancock Stadium article. In the other, a user refused to recognize that a particular record (Rihanna - Shut Up and Drive) had won a recognized award as a song of a particular genre and they seemed hell bent on removing that particular genre from the article and articles about other songs by that singer. In both instances, I contacted an Administrator that I have had contact with in the past, explained the situation as I saw it, and asked for his opinion. I expect that I would deal with any future issues in the same way, if civility and discussion does not appear to be working.
  • EDIT I had a rather lengthy dispute over the name of the article about the recent Illinois earthquake, mostly over my belief that Wikipedia's Manual of Style should not override a name given to a natural event by the U.S. Government agency responsible for said event, in this case the United States Geological Survey. Eventually, I withdrew my arguments and consented to the MoS-defined name of the article. I think that my main disagreement with the question was driven mainly by the fact that it was an article that I created and I wanted to claim an ownership of it, even though I knew then - and, of course, know now - that WP editors do not "own" the articles that they create. Sometimes my pride gets in the way of my common sense, but I typically swallow that pride and move on... sometimes you've just got to slap me with a trout to get me to do it, though.  :)