Wikipedia:Editor review/Casprings

Casprings
I am mainly interested in editing article that are prone to disputes (American Politic). I think I have gotten much better in handling disputes (Use of WP:RFCs, Noticeboards, etc). I would like someone to take a look at my work and give me ways to improve Casprings (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * American Politics and Military related articles.  Two articles I would say I am proud of is Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 and Pregnancy from rape  These have been very controversial articles.  The first is close to WP:FA standards, I think. It is currently in WP:FA review.  The other is close to WP:GA review.
 * 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.
 * Yes. I used to deal with it by taking it to venues that are not useful.  For example, I took something really silly to arbitration before.   That said, now I use the tools available (RFCs and noticeboards) to determine what others think and go from there.  However, are still some heated issues in this area and some other editors that I would consider problematic.  2
 * 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?
 * I am simply looking for general improvement. Nothing more and nothing less. 3

 Reviews 

You're a respectable editor, Casprings, and I see that you are involved in exactly what you said you are interested in, editing article that are prone to disputes. Your editing skills has a number of positive points to consider on. With most of your edits coming in the article space, you seem to really do a thorough job of explaining your thought process and trying to come to some sort of a consensus before taking action. It is refreshing to see that most all of your discussions on talk pages and the two articles that you are proud of are really helpful in settling difference of opinions between wiki editors. I am relatively new, creating my account 2 months ago, but since then I've also been interested in getting involved with articles that are vulnerable to disputes. Based on your number of edits and discussions that you were involved in, I'd suggest you keep up the good work with articles that you have a passion for and interest you. Your attitude towards others on talk pages is what Wikipedia strives others to practice. One suggestion I have for you would be to try to get articles nominated before they are ready. It seems that many other editors disagree with your viewpoints of the criteria that an article must meet in order for it to become a GA. Before suggesting it for a GA make sure that the article is up to the standards that Wikipedia has set in place for GA nominations. I see that some articles that you have put up for nomination have been declared GA now, but overall I think your efforts to get these articles up to GA is a bit rapid and taking a slower approach might be beneficial. Thanks for all your efforts on Wikipedia and at this point it just seems like you may need to continue to edit and gain most respect with some more active users. Paymoney (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)