Wikipedia:Editor review/Eagles247

Eagles247

Eagles247 (talk · contribs · count) I joined this website on May 29 of 2009 after using this site for many years before for research and the like. I mainly edit NFL articles, and I am a big Philadelphia Eagles fan as you can see from my username. I would like to be reviewed, because there is always room for improvement and I am a perfectionist. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   My primary contributions are to National Football League articles and Philadelphia Eagles articles, as previously stated above. I have been following the Eagles and the NFL for six years now and I want to put my knowledge of the NFL to some good use. Sometimes I also edit college football players' articles, because in a few years they will become NFL players. The contributions I am most pleased with include the Northwestern Wildcats quarterback Mike Kafka article I created (which is currently being reviewed for Good Article status. I am also pleased with my contributions to every Eagles player page, as I have cleaned up all articles and helped improve them.

3. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past (please note that this does not refer to (edit conflict)) 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?

   It seems like I have been in many disputes, but the most recent one that comes to mind is the argument over Mike Ditka. You can read about that dispute here, here and here if you click "next edit" nine times. This user caused me a lot of stress, due to his terrible spelling and grammar. I deal with stressful editors by either warning them or researching their POV to see who is correct.

Reviews

• Though there's always room for improvement, as you've said, I'd like to start off by saying that yore doing very well. To start, your edits are good. Even better is your edit summaries-- they are exactly what edit summaries should be. Even before I looked at the edits themselves, I usually knew what I was going to see; the edit summaries say what you did, and why, in a clear and concise manner. It made following your work much easier than it would have been otherwise. I can't find any incidences where you've broken policy. You seem to know the rules well, and stick to them.

On the various talk pages in which you've had conversations you are doing fine at communicating what you want to communicate. There is one minor issue I've noticed though: when your annoyed with someone, you tend to get a bit short with them. This isn't, however, something I'd worry about too much. Most of the times this happened were from conversations with editors who had already repeatedly refused to listen. Just remember that tone of voice doesn't translate well on the internet, so things may end up seeming harsher than you meant them.

Over all, your editing is great work, and I hope you'll stick around! Happy editing! Sophus Bie ^(talk) 06:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! Just for my reference, which user was I "short" with? Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I was mostly referring to here, specifically the one word answer "No." It wasn't a criticism; I was merely recalling several times recently where I myself rediscovered that people have thin skins on the internet. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 00:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, yea. I don't remember that conversation at all. But that IP just didn't understand basic NFL roster terminology even after I explained it to him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)