Wikipedia:Editor review/Banaticus

Banaticus
STATEMENT Banaticus (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I am a WikiGnome. I mainly work on reverting vandalism, but I also occasionally throw my hat into the ring and handle abuse reports, review articles, help people on IRC, answer  requests, answer semi-protected edit requests... and sundry other things.  I'm also one of the Ambassadors.  I have a bit more about me on my user page. I'm particularly pleased about my single-section Ancestry revamp of the Cleopatra article (yes, the famous one).  She has a "seriously messed up" family tree (more like a tangled bush).  When I first came across the article, it used the more typical family tree stemma.  This was rather confusing, as her ancestry is quite tangled, so I redid it using the family tree template.  A day or so later, I changed family tree to the chart template, which "generates lower preprocessor node count."  I did it all on paper, was almost done, realized that I missed one uncle, and had to redo the whole thing again before typing it into the computer.  It was made more complex because she is descended from 11 people, including three uncle-niece and two brother-sister relationships, and all of them are descended from the same two people. You can also take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Banaticus/contact and Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Banaticus/contactsemiedit for the people/articles I've helped recently.
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * Of course I've been in editing disputes -- I've been a Wikipedia editor for a long time, since . I've never been banned -- I don't usually   Occasionally somebody gets really upset when somebody says that a person is from "Southern California" instead of "Greater California" or something, you know what I mean?  (Not that I'd be upset about being categorized as from California instead of the more specific Southern California, I'm just using that as an example.)  Sometimes people (like me) make mistakes or jump to the wrong conclusions (and sometimes it's the other person).  It happens.  It doesn't cause me stress -- I usually just smile and laugh about it -- not in a mean way, but like hey, that's life, you know?  If it was starting to cause me stress, I'd just step away and come back when I felt better.
 * 1) What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
 * ''Let me subdivide this into two questions, 1) What do I want to get out of this and what sort of feedback do I want, and 2) am I thinking of running for adminship?
 * ''I'd like to see if anyone has anything to say about me. Are there things that other people are noticing which I should work to improve on?  You know, how am I doing, what do you think?  I'm not really looking for a specific review on anything in particular, although I certainly wouldn't turn down such a review if offered.  My goal is to get a general review of my edits.
 * I've thought of running for adminship, but when I've looked at requests for adminship in the past, it seems that people who aren't engaged in activities where they regularly need an admin's help are typically turned down by at least a vocal minority if not a majority of participants. For instance, I've seen some people say things like, "Voted No: If you are just doing general wiki editing, why would you need to become an admin?"  That's a good question.  I've also seen things like, "If you want to be an admin, you should become more involved with area/project/whatever X instead of just working on regular articles."  That's a good point.  I don't completely agree with it, but I understand that viewpoint.  I have previously been of the opinion that since I didn't "need" to be an admin for any of the things that I generally do, that my request would probably be turned down.
 * ''I'd like to see if anyone has anything to say about me. Are there things that other people are noticing which I should work to improve on?  You know, how am I doing, what do you think?  I'm not really looking for a specific review on anything in particular, although I certainly wouldn't turn down such a review if offered.  My goal is to get a general review of my edits.
 * I've thought of running for adminship, but when I've looked at requests for adminship in the past, it seems that people who aren't engaged in activities where they regularly need an admin's help are typically turned down by at least a vocal minority if not a majority of participants. For instance, I've seen some people say things like, "Voted No: If you are just doing general wiki editing, why would you need to become an admin?"  That's a good question.  I've also seen things like, "If you want to be an admin, you should become more involved with area/project/whatever X instead of just working on regular articles."  That's a good point.  I don't completely agree with it, but I understand that viewpoint.  I have previously been of the opinion that since I didn't "need" to be an admin for any of the things that I generally do, that my request would probably be turned down.

Reviews

 * Since your answers and (missing) statement is a year old, do you think you could update it?— cyberpower Offline Happy 2013 15:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll update it. I don't believe the third statement was part of the template I used when I first created this review back in Jan 2012.  Editor review/ZappaOMati, for instance, also doesn't have a third question/answer.  I see that a third question/answer is de rigeur now, though, so I'll happily jump on it. :) Banaticus (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You have an unusual profile of a long-time user with relatively low numbers of edits. I'm always suspicious of Wiki-gnoming, and most of the articles that you have worked on - making good edits - have not progressed too far. I'd encourage you to undertake more substantial work on an article, building it up and taking it through the review process. The folks who think that admins should concentrate on admin work show a poor understanding of both admin work and regular editing, and indeed what the whole exercise is about. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate that you looked at my editor review and responded to it.  If you don't mind me asking, what are you suspicious of regarding wiki-gnoming? :) Banaticus (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Some wiki-gnomes make useful changes, and others make ill-considered changes that then have to be repaired. Instead of getting something wrong on one article, they get it wrong on a host of articles. In other words, they are usually harmless, but occasionally pests. So I encourage editors to move beyond wiki-gnoming. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)