Wikipedia:Editor review/Crimsone

Crimsone
I've been here quite a while now,, though admittedly doing more reading than editing until about 6 months ago. Quite simply, I'm interested in what other editors may feel about my contribution to the project so far. Crimsone 02:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Great work! You currently have 2,717 edits over 385 unique articles.  And all that in 6 months!  Awesome!  You always quote policies and are extremely polite when talking with other people.  I have only reviewed a small percentage of your work, partly because you have done so much, but I did notice some significant content additions.  Due to your neutral point of view and cool head, I'd definitely nominate your for an admin, if you were interested.   Let me know, and thanks again! Chupper 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * Well, I guess I could say it's the featured article I nominated and spent a lot of time on, but that just wouldn't be true! (yes, after thinking about it it suprises me!) What I'm actually most proud is a very very lengthy piece of dispute resolution I volunteered my services for back about 5 or 6 months ago. The disruption from the dispute was lessened, but I must admit that it wasn't resolved. Even so, I put an absolutely rediculous amount of time and effort into a very difficult situation indeed, and saw returns that were of at least some benefit to the encyclopedia.
 * 1) 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?
 * Yes. When I first started really editing, it was on the transphobia article. I chose it because it was quiet, messy, and needed attention. It isn't under heavy editing traffic and so the history of the dispute is still there in the one and only archive. I learned much of what I initially needed to learn from editing that article. An etitor came along to the article and repeatedly attempted to insert a POV, OR unsourced statement that the whole concept was made up as an attack word (or thereabouts if I recall correctly all this time later). I was calm, I was thoughtful and clear in discussing the issue, and I refrained from making reciprocal personal attacks having recieved many. As things went on, I was forced to report the issue at AN/I (where it remained unanswered), and then at WP:PAIN (as was). By that point, the situation really was intolerable, and luckily the user was blocked within a day or two - my first real experience of wiki wasn't a good one, but I feel I conducted myself well, and in doing so learned some valuable lessons on wiki process and policy early on.
 * Yes. When I first started really editing, it was on the transphobia article. I chose it because it was quiet, messy, and needed attention. It isn't under heavy editing traffic and so the history of the dispute is still there in the one and only archive. I learned much of what I initially needed to learn from editing that article. An etitor came along to the article and repeatedly attempted to insert a POV, OR unsourced statement that the whole concept was made up as an attack word (or thereabouts if I recall correctly all this time later). I was calm, I was thoughtful and clear in discussing the issue, and I refrained from making reciprocal personal attacks having recieved many. As things went on, I was forced to report the issue at AN/I (where it remained unanswered), and then at WP:PAIN (as was). By that point, the situation really was intolerable, and luckily the user was blocked within a day or two - my first real experience of wiki wasn't a good one, but I feel I conducted myself well, and in doing so learned some valuable lessons on wiki process and policy early on.