Wikipedia:Editor review/A little insignificant

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A little insignificant

A little insignificant (talk · contribs · count) I've been here since April 2009. Generally I've gotten positive feedback. I've had some successes, and I've had some failures. I try to learn through mistakes, and it should tell you something that I've learned a lot. So how am I doing? A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 01:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Review by Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs)

I see many good minor contributions and gnomish cleanup work. And apart from disagreements at Nanking massacre you have managed to keep clear of wikidrama – which is a good thing. Well done! You also have made good comments over at AfD and at ANI, and have been getting involved in anti-vandal discussions. All good stuff.

However, you do seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on wikitalk and other meta stuff, rather than in the mainspace. (See here for the breakdown by percentage.) Also, many (most?) of your mainspace edits are cleanups and reverts of vandalism and other bad edits, which is all well and good, but you don't do that much article building yourself.

Your editing role has been good, and for a relatively new user, you have been contributing a lot. I would suggest that you concentrate a little more on article building – reorganization and rewrites if you don't feel comfortable with research and writing from scratch.

LK (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Coldplay Expert (talk · contribs)

You seem to be a very good user. and like what Lawrencekhoo said maybe you should try to make more articles. They can be pretty fun to do! anywy, bottom line is keep on doing what your doing and you will be an estblished user in no time. May your days on the wiki be long and prosperous! (PS i hope you dont think im mad about the accusation of me being a sock. Im not at all, "water under the bridge")--Coldplay Expert 20:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Fribbulus Xax (talk · contribs)

I agree with the above comments, but perhaps more care is needed when warning other users. This final warning shouldn't have been issued, however it may well have been accidental (as it was issued via Twinkle – I'm sure we've all done it). If so, it should have been edited to change this. WP:WARNING shows the warning process. Otherwise, keep up the good work! Fribbulus Xax (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
I do a lot of different things around the wiki, I don't think I excessively focus in one area. What I like to do is find a problem article (any article with issues, i.e. stubs, pov content, etc.) and see what I can do to improve it. I spend a lot of my free time on Wikipedia reverting vandalism, and I'll probably spend a lot more now that I've started using Twinkle. :)
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?
When I first registered I created one major edit war on Nanking Massacre that I was eventually able to stop, explain my position and ask for help, and fix with the help of the other editors. Nowadays when I enter a dispute I try to assume good faith of everyone involved, and solve the problem by talking it out. I get stressed if this doesn't work or if I try to help and get rejected. A good example is this ANI thread.

I've just read through that whole ANI incident, and although I admire what you tried to do, sometimes there are editors that just need to get banned for the good of wikipedia. I think that was one of those times. Sometimes you just have to stand aside and let the ban hammer fall. LK (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If another incident like the one where you thought I was a sock came up again, how would you act/react? (Im not mad or anything just currious)--Coldplay Expert 23:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean if I was involved in an another incident like the one where I thought you were a sock, but with a different user? Or do you mean what would I do differently if you were blocked again? A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 01:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first one please.--Coldplay Expert 01:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in light of the previous incident, I'd assume more good faith of the user involved. I made the bad faith assumptions I did last time because they are very nearly always the case- actual sockpuppets do try and back each other up. But what I learned from the experience was that you can't make generalizations all the time, you have to be open to the idea that more may be going on than just another sock, just another vandal, just another troll, just another single purpose account or paid editor or rogue admin or all-powerful cabal of evil Nazi deletionist users bent on destroying the wiki. (Wow, I can ramble.)

Anyway, what would I do differently? I'd try to probe for more details while assuming good faith on the part of the user. I'd accept what they had to say, and try and avoid blocking if possible. And if I didn't fully understand the situation, I'd back off, no questions asked. Otherwise I could only work to further confuse things. Hope that answers your question. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 19:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much :)--Coldplay Expert 20:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.