Wikipedia:Editor review/DBZROCKS2

DBZROCKS
Seeing as it is been around 9 months since I have been an editor now I think it is time for a new review. Basically I edit DBZROCKS   Its over 9000!!!  22:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Reviewed by Moonriddengirl
 * I like your approach to Wikipedia as you describe it here, and your edits certainly seem to bear up everything you say. Overall, you come off as a friendly, engaged user with a real dedication to the parts of the project to which you are drawn.


 * The area in which I believe you may need to focus your efforts the most is in interacting with other editors. While it's obvious to me that you mean it in good faith, once in a while your edit summaries strain civility (as described in that policy as "Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling", "snipped rambling crap").) For example, take this one and this one. Even if the edits to which you are responding are vandalism (and without investigating I don't know), it's better to be civil and above their behavior than bite. Also, the careful use of edit summaries can instruct new or misguided editors without potentially disheartening them or discouraging them from future participation. Like this diff. While that editor's changes may have been inappropriate, he does seem to have spent considerable time and made his revisions in good faith. It probably would have been better to thoughtfully explain your actions in your summary than to simply dismiss his efforts. Personally, I would probably have also gone to the user's page to explain policies. Again, I am not meaning to suggest any malice on your part in those edit summaries. Your other interactions, as here and here, seem very much as though you are a friendly and casual Wikipedian. That comes through in you use of humor in some of your edit summaries, too. But while I thought this was funny, I do think it's better to poke fun at yourself as you did there than to be light in removing other editors' work, as here. :)


 * In a similar vein, without putting another hour or so into this, I can't completely evaluate your follow-through on conversations. For the most part, I think your conversations on your talk page and those of the articles you contribute to seem helpful and friendly with an effort towards consensus. Since conversations do tend to sprawl, I'm not sure if I'm missing "threads" somewhere. I like your note here and hope that you followed up with the user's persistent concerns, since he seems to have been earnest in wanting to discuss them (bringing them to your talk page as well). I don't know if you answered this question or this one or, if not, if you had some good reason not to. If you are providing follow-up, great. If not, you might want to.


 * In short, I encourage you to exercise patience in regard to communicating with others and to go the extra mile in making the Wikipedia environment friendly for other editors. I believe this is an important task for all Wikipedians, but particularly for admins, and I note that you are an admin hopeful. :)


 * Looking at your recent AfDs, I like the fact that you take the time to explain your opinions and don't simply !vote. For the most part, I find your contributions to those succinct and sensible. This one, Articles for deletion/List of LGBT characters in modern written fiction, was probably a little too succinct. It's better to explain why categories should be used in place of a list than take the potentially hopeful stance that this will be immediately obvious. But, obviously, I personally prefer to over-explain things than under-explain them. Articles for deletion/E-Series (Sonic the Hedgehog) suggests you might want to familiarize yourself with WP:Merge to understand why a merge is different than a deletion (for purposes of retaining authorship information). Of course, you may well have already done so since then. :) I also wonder if one of the other editors contributing to that discussion didn't have a point that it should have been addressed on the article's talk page first. Overly-detailed coverage seems like a good reason to prune an article, but not necessarily to delete it.


 * Your edit summary usage seems pretty good. Only very occasionally do you forget. Have you asked Wikipedia under "my preferences" to prompt you? It's caught me from doing that a time or two. :)


 * I'll give you some of the same advice I put into another editor review recently in the hopes that it might be helpful. As you do hope eventually to become an administrator, you might want to consider how you would like to use those tools. Once you've determined that, be sure that you're actively participating in the areas where those tools are used. This will not only help you to decide for sure that these activities are what you want to be doing, but it will also help other editors assess your commitment to doing them and your understanding of the relevant policies.


 * Good luck, and happy editing. I will be watching this page for a while, so if you need clarification from me on anything I've said, please let me know. I'm going to go eat lunch now. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:10, 7 October 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?
 * I have to say that my favorite contributions are the ones I've made to Vegeta Majin Buu and Hydro Thunder. Adding images, sources and deleting speculation to articles makes me feel that I can make a difference in Wikipedia. Hydro Thunder is my favorite worked on article though I haven't given it much attention lately.
 * 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?
 * I am a natrually argumentitive person and have gotten into many conflicts over editing in the past. I used to make arguments in a sarcastic and annoying manner, but since my return I have learned that that does not win arguments and I have adjusted my tone as such. Users that usually cause me stress are ones that purpose extreme change without much logic and are extremely stubborn in their arguments.
 * I am a natrually argumentitive person and have gotten into many conflicts over editing in the past. I used to make arguments in a sarcastic and annoying manner, but since my return I have learned that that does not win arguments and I have adjusted my tone as such. Users that usually cause me stress are ones that purpose extreme change without much logic and are extremely stubborn in their arguments.