Wikipedia:Editor review/Tghe-retford
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Tghe-retford
Tghe-retford (talk ยท contribs) I have been editing on Wikipedia for around one and a half years and I feel that alongside a review of the things I do on the Internet, my role as an editor on Wikipedia should be reviewed. I would like to see what I am doing right and where I need to improve. I welcome all suggestions, positive feedback and constructive criticism. tgheretford (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Reviews
I'm going to make a radical suggestion for you. Consider taking a Wikibreak: you can post a notice of this on your user page so that other people know. It can be for whatever length of time you choose: one week, one month, or longer. If you can't keep yourself away for that long, you can edit anonymously or create a second account, which you'll stop using when you return. I say this because I also am doing psychological therapy, and I also use Wikipedia as an outlet for social interaction. It's important not to get too caught up in the social scene here, with Wikiprojects, AFD, RFA, ACID and who knows what else. A few weeks ago I had to take a Wikibreak for that reason. I edited anonymously during that time, logging in only to nominate a couple of AFDs (which anons can't do) and vote on the Daniel Brandt and Essjay debates.
I notice in particular your fastidious manipulation of your userpage. My general advice regarding this is that your userpage must be in proportion with your contributions. If you've contributed a lot, you have a right to make yourself a fancy userpage. If you have 100 mainspace edits and 300 user page edits, you're wasting your time.
Now, your userpage is proportional with your contributions - in fact, you are doing well, and you are not making any mistakes that I could detect. In particular, your knowledge of policy has been a solid guide for all your activities here. What concerns me, from a human interest point of view, is that you may be making your Wikipedia identity into too much of a substitute to your real-world identity. You put your photo on your userpage, formatted a funky signature, added a dozen text boxes to look just right, maybe because you're trying to turn "Gareth" into "Tghe-retford." If that's what's happening, the best response is just to walk away for a while, and establish your identity in face-to-face social interactions. Once you're back on track, you can return here, and you'll do fine.
If you do continue to contribute (with or without a Wikibreak), you may indeed be ready for adminship at some point. Even then, adminship does not obligate you to do anything; there's a long list of inactive admins.
I wish you good luck. YechielMan 02:51, 25 March 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 feel that I have made a number of valuable contributions to Wikipedia articles, including the expansion of the 102.2 Jazz FM article from a stub to a fully fledged article. I am also proud of my contributions to the Quiz channel article, as well as providing citations for the contributions I make where applicable. The What Satellite and Digital TV article was a special achievement for me because it gained recognition and praise from the editor of the aforementioned magazine on their web-blog. I am also pleased with the progress I am making in discussions, on talk pages, project namespace and in AfD/MfD discussions (all the more so considering I have been diagnosed with social anxiety by my doctor).
A number of editors have also praised my work on Wikipedia and I have been asked to take part in a RfA because an editor believes in me to become a good administrator. However, I declined the offer for the time being because I need to concentrate on my cognitive behavioural therapy first.
Wikipedia has also helped me in learning basic HTML, Wikitext mark-up and CSS coding which I believe have been valuable in my contributions to articles as well as experience of coding outside of Wikipedia.
- I feel that I have made a number of valuable contributions to Wikipedia articles, including the expansion of the 102.2 Jazz FM article from a stub to a fully fledged article. I am also proud of my contributions to the Quiz channel article, as well as providing citations for the contributions I make where applicable. The What Satellite and Digital TV article was a special achievement for me because it gained recognition and praise from the editor of the aforementioned magazine on their web-blog. I am also pleased with the progress I am making in discussions, on talk pages, project namespace and in AfD/MfD discussions (all the more so considering I have been diagnosed with social anxiety by my doctor).
- 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, but they have been with new or anonymous editors who have no or little knowledge of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I have been in a situation before where the three revert rule was violated and this is regrettable and I see the error of my actions and have made efforts not to repeat the same mistake. It can be frustrating (not to a major degree) when editors who you are involved with a disagreement with do not respond or come back to form a consensus on an article, and indeed this happened with me before. In these situations you add the appropriate templates and discuss the issue on the talk page. I have helped reached a consensus before on the wording of ITV/STV/UTV between a good number of editors on the Freeview article, so I can demonstrate good neogitation skills to help editors reach consensus on a heated issue.
My procedure in the event of a conflict is to tag the section accordingly, to alert the other editor there is a problem with their addition, thereby avoiding any potential three revert rule violation and encourage the other editor to discuss the issue on the articles talk page and encourage discussion until consensus can be reached between the two sides, using Wikipedia policy and guidelines within the dispute process if required.
- Yes, but they have been with new or anonymous editors who have no or little knowledge of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I have been in a situation before where the three revert rule was violated and this is regrettable and I see the error of my actions and have made efforts not to repeat the same mistake. It can be frustrating (not to a major degree) when editors who you are involved with a disagreement with do not respond or come back to form a consensus on an article, and indeed this happened with me before. In these situations you add the appropriate templates and discuss the issue on the talk page. I have helped reached a consensus before on the wording of ITV/STV/UTV between a good number of editors on the Freeview article, so I can demonstrate good neogitation skills to help editors reach consensus on a heated issue.
