Wikipedia:Editor review/DBD

User:DBD
Hi - I'm an active editor, contributing mainly through the WikiProject British Royalty, and have been for some time. I want a peer review just to see where people stand as to how I've been doing // D  B  D  22:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Hello DBD! You seem like a great editor, especially with your creation of WP:BRoy and associated biographical work.  I have a few minor suggestions:
 * You do most of the time, but try to always use an edit summary: this can be quite helpful when reviewing the history of a page and trying to get an idea of what changes were made when.
 * Your might want to consider shortening your signature a bit. The signature length policy suggests not using more than 200 characters, and you currently use 366.
 * Keep up the good work! Cheers, Dar-Ape 01:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dar-Ape in that your signature is almost twice longer than what is suggested. Believe me, I have seen people editing signatures too long to make talk pages more readable. I notice you don't warn vandals when reverting. This could have justified a blank1-n tag. This could have deserved a test1-n too. Here you reverted valid edits without noticing, until someone else reverted that on the following day. I would also suggest not using "rv" nor "rvv", as it is confusing for newbies. Apparently, you don't have a lot of experience when warning users, so I would recommend checking the templates for user talk pages, and use them when necessary. These templates are useful when some vandal has been defacing articles lately, as they allow to know which pages they have modified and how many times they have been warned. I may be wrong, but I notice very few edits in the WikiProject talk page. Most of your edits are done directly in the WikiProject pages. Although I objected that line, the style guide seems pretty solid, which implies a good knowledge about main style guides. Overall, I believe you are doing pretty well, although a little more communication would be appreciated, especially to warn vandals. I liked the fact that you congratulated someone for a good effort. I also liked the fact that you take the initiative when something is missing (like fixing the templates or creating the guide). Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 04:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello there, DBD. Indeed, you are quite active at the British Royalty WikiProject, in fact most of your Wikipedia namespace edits are there. I like the fact that, when there was a discussion about a common style guide, you decided to create a proposal to solve possible conflicts. I did not like, though, the comment This page is only an initial proposal - discuss its contents here, please DO NOT edit it - Thanks I know, I know, it was just a stub and you wanted to give some shape before asking others to review it. However, you could have done that in your own user namespace, finish it there, and then moving it to the WikiProject namespace for others to review. Usually you write something, and then let others edit it. Also, I am guessing most would have respected your style guide without having to ask them not to edit it.

 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 am quite well-pleased with the formation of WP:BRoy and its integration with WP:WPBIO. My proudest individual work would have to be Template:Infobox British Royalty, and its evolution since
 * 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?
 * Of course. On both counts. I dealt with conflicts in the way I usually would - I remained calm, polite, and reasonable, and, when that is not well-received, I pursue the proper channels for intervention
 * Of course. On both counts. I dealt with conflicts in the way I usually would - I remained calm, polite, and reasonable, and, when that is not well-received, I pursue the proper channels for intervention