Wikipedia:Editor review/Cordless Larry

Cordless Larry
I have now been editing regularly for four and a half years, and only just discovered this review process. I'd like to get general feedback on my editing, and in particular any suggestions to start (or stop) doing in future, whether they be related to editing behaviour, tasks, or anything else. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I am primarily involved in writing and editing articles. I'd say that if I have a particular area of interest, it's articles about ethnic and migrant groups. I'm particularly proud of the British Cypriots article, which I completely rewrote and got to GA status, and Gateway Protection Programme, which I expanded from a two-sentence stub to GA status. I'm also proud of having started, written or substantially contributed to articles as random as Tvrđa and Willhire 24 Hour. I take WP:VERIFY seriously and make sure that all of my contributions are sourced, and try to add citations to existing material whenever possible.
 * 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?
 * I have been stressed by conflicts with other users when trying to improve articles. This often happens when only two of us are involved in editing the article in question, and there is no third user to adjudicate. I try to avoid edit warring, though, and generally head to the noticeboards to gain third-party input. A good example of this is available at Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom. I'm pleased to say that the outcome of such debates has generally been positive (see, for example, the problems I had at Talk:British Cypriots on the way to making it a GA-rated article).
 * I have been stressed by conflicts with other users when trying to improve articles. This often happens when only two of us are involved in editing the article in question, and there is no third user to adjudicate. I try to avoid edit warring, though, and generally head to the noticeboards to gain third-party input. A good example of this is available at Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom. I'm pleased to say that the outcome of such debates has generally been positive (see, for example, the problems I had at Talk:British Cypriots on the way to making it a GA-rated article).

 Reviews 
 * 1) Sorry you've had to wait so long! On with the review, it is very good that you take VERIFY seriously. Many editors, including myself, tend to have trouble with this. GA's are definitely a good thing to have, especially if you ever want to run for admin. I see you have created 77 new articles, you may wish to apply for Autoreviewed, to ease the workload on new page patrolers. 12,000 edits, mostly on articles, is very good. Overall you seem like a good well rounded editor. Hope this helps. Sumsum2010 · T · C · Review me!  05:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sumsum. I've done as you suggest regading autopatrol. Reviews from other editors are still welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Nice manner. I made a perhaps contentious rv to a page you'd started and you were very polite and conciliatory in your response. Refreshing. Ericoides (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that you are doing a wonderful job, and have done a great contribution and improvement to wikipedia pages. your attitude is outstanding and very supportive! good luck! you deserve the best :) --82.213.38.2 (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been mainly focusing on removing bias from UK political articles including BLPs. Unfortunately these are often sourced from primary sources and even a smigeon of criticism is fiercly opposed. CL is easy to work with as he understands the rules. JRPG (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)