Wikipedia:Editor review/Access Denied

Access Denied
I have been at Wikipedia for a little over two months,mostly to revert vandalism, but I am thinking of expanding into other areas, like copyediting and wikification. I'm not much of a content creator though. I am using this editor review just to hopefully gain a little feedback on how I have done so far.  Access Denied (t&#124;c&#124;g&#124;d&#124;s) 22:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * As I said, I am a vandalism reverter and I have reverted hundred of vandalism edits using Huggle, which is what I am most pleased with for the time being.
 * 1) Have you been in any disputes 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?
 * Not sure if this counts, but a while back me and a few other editors were repeatedly reverting edits to Talk:Mel Gibson because we suspected the IP we were reverting was a sock of a banned user. The admin EyeSerene removed the rollback of me and one other editor for using rollback to edit war. But when it was confirmed that the IP was a sock of banned user HarveyCarter, our rollbacks were reinstated. I think that I stayed civil during that incident. I always try to stay civil and have never attacked another editor.
 * Not sure if this counts, but a while back me and a few other editors were repeatedly reverting edits to Talk:Mel Gibson because we suspected the IP we were reverting was a sock of a banned user. The admin EyeSerene removed the rollback of me and one other editor for using rollback to edit war. But when it was confirmed that the IP was a sock of banned user HarveyCarter, our rollbacks were reinstated. I think that I stayed civil during that incident. I always try to stay civil and have never attacked another editor.

 Reviews 

I can tell you, from my personal experiences with you, that you are an outstanding vandal fighter and Wikipedian. On the contrary, I would like to see a little more content editing. I understand that you love combating vandalism; so do I. However, content editing is much more important than vandal fighting. While vandal fighting is extremely important, the encyclopedia cannot grow on vandal fighting. But it can grow on content editing. You are doing a terrific job, and if you would like my personal opinion, in about a year, if you focus on content editing and maybe a couple other fields, you could successfully apply for adminship. Good luck. The Raptor You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 22:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure of whether writing this is a good idea or not, I ran into the effect of what seemed like an incorrect reversion you did to the Roland Sound Canvas page last week. I realise my edit style on the page may have appeared unusual (an hour of many small changes to the same page) and perhaps malicious. But an afternoon spent changing the 'External Links' on a page to references would seem to be a good thing from verifiability point of view, so to have a reversion based on that I was *adding* external links was surprising. In my own anger I quickly un-reverted it, but was not the happiest of people for a while, however above all I'm very glad it didn't deteriorate into an edit war. There are many things wrong with that page (dry technical detail only, informal text has been added to notes sections, someone's added advertising speak and probable issues with referencing) but people are much less likely to work on fixing them if they find their work in progress (though still improved) pages reverted. This isn't actually a criticism of you, but I've run into issues of editors reverting improvements for perceived stylistic reasons, reducing the accuracy of a page, instead of fixing the stylistic issue. It's better to flag a page as needing improvement (e.g. or page wide or section 'improve' boxes), if it seems there is an editor working on it in good faith on the page, rather than a revert. Anyway, goodluck with your future editing, maybe, as you've said you've not done much content editing, perhaps find a topic that interests you and let loose :) --Flibble (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Slight tweaks for better understanding.

--Flibble (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Best user name EVER, nice vandal fighting and some good contributions, I would agree as above try edit some articles more often (I am very guilty of not doing it enough myself) look forward to interacting with you in the future. Regards Zoo  Pro  07:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It struck me as incredible that such a wonderful name was not claimed until 2010 (compare to the multitude of User:Login*'s and User:Password*'s). May I suggest Access Denied to claim other permutations of these words (like User:Access denied) ... just in case. However, I'd also suggest NOT using red in signature - red is for red links. Besides, on some cheapo monitors red appears too faint to be comfortably readable. East of Borschov 06:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)