Wikipedia:Editor review/Rrius
Rrius (talk · contribs) I am looking for constructive criticism for improving as an editor, not with an eye toward adminship. I know I have still click save page when I should review first sometimes, but I believe I am much improved in this respect, so unless you all disagree that I've improved, I don't need to know that. I also know my edit summary numbers could be better. I think I have a higher percentage with minor edits, which is a bit odd, but there you go. Rrius (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Reviews
- Review by Cameron:
- Hi Rrius!You have good edit summary usage but (at the price of being called perfectionist) might I suggest you use the "force edit summary" tool in the "my preferances" section? This ensure you have a future edit summary usage of 100%! You edit a large variety of different topics (which is looked up favourably at Rfa). You are able to switch from American English to English in the blink of an eye which is brilliant considering the large about of English history articles!
You have a slightly low communication level for a user with such a large amount of edits but this doesn't affect you abilities as an editor (but if you ever do run for adminship, keep this in mind).You regularly participate at WikiProjects which shows your ability to work together with other users (which seems to counteract my previous argument!). You have proven your ability to keep cool whilst in heated situations both at various sockpuppetry case pages and the UK mediation currently still going on. You also have a brilliant edit count (esp. this month!). If you carry on like this you can add yourself to WP:Highly Active Users (requirement: over 500 edits per month)! So really it's a big well done from me! Keep up the good work! --Cameron* 20:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC) - I started using "force edit summary" shortly after submitting this request for edit review, so that should be fixed. I'm not sure what "communication level" means. Is it edits at talk pages? If so, the ratio is probably skewed by volume of uncontroversial edits. It probably also stems from the fact that I self-censor so as to avoid saying something uncivil, let the other person have the last word, or disengage from a thread that will either go nowhere or get unhelpfully heated.
- OK, wonderful! = ) --Cameron* 10:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- At any rate, thanks for the review! -Rrius (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2008 (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 don't do a lot of article creation or massive improvements to articles, so this question is perhaps more difficult for me than others to point to individual efforts I am proud of. I am pleased with my general efforts to improve grammar, usage, and spelling at Wikipedia, and I believe I have had a net positive impact in that respect. Relatedly, I try to unify the prose of sections that have obviously been cobbled together by numerous edits. I also take joy from helping to achieve consensus at articles that are prone to conflict like United Kingdom, United States presidential election, 2008, and Canada. Finally, I am perhaps unduly proud of a template I created. {{tl:multimoveoptions}} There was a talk page template, {{tl:multimove}} for moves involving more than one page that would direct editors to one central location, but it did not provide the case where there is no single proposed name. I needed one that did, so I created one, including the documentation, and added links to it from the other move-related templates.
- 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?
- Certainly. At times, though not often, the conflicts have probably skirted WP:UNCIVIL on both sides, but I strive to maintain decorum. When I have believed myself to crossed a line, I have apologized. My primary method has been and will be to review what I am writing in an discussion before posting it. Often the pause leads to simply hitting the back button. I also avoid commenting on the talk pages of editors I disagree with. I do, I am careful of my tone to the point of explicitly stating that a question is genuine and not rhetorical. I am by no means perfect, but I try.
- Clarification: I should note, I suppose, that I have a rather loose definition of "conflict" that includes snarky, though wholly on topic comments. I have not had been a part of ad hominums or malicious referrals to WP:SSP or the like.