Wikipedia:Editor review/Danielfolsom

Danielfolsom
I've been active on Wikipedia since December 2006/January 2007. As most users (I expect), I used to be really into my own userpage and all that stuff, however thankfully I've gotten away from that. As my userpage says, I've been fairly active in the template and article namespace. At first my biggest challenges was finding articles I would be interested in editing. Again, as my userpage says, I've used several "middle-men" (so to speak) in finding these articles, Category:Wikipedia backlog, Category:Contested candidates for speedy deletion, and most recently WP:Spotlight. I feel like the second one provides some explaining. The reason I go through CCSD is because I feel that if an author is involved with the article enough to come back to it and put a tag on, and if the author was civil enough to put the tag on as opposed to just erasing the template, then there's a good possibility that beneath some bad phrasing and format, there may be something that can be worked with. The category also provides an opportunity to engage the author in Wikipedia by assuring that their first experience isn’t a negative one. Oh, and another thing on this subject: if anyone goes through my contributions they'll notice that I'm really involved with one article for a bit. This is typically not the case (I like to be involved in lots of articles at once), however the workings of WP:Spotlight have forced that to be the case. I would say that my biggest weakness as an editor has been interaction with other editors, however I've worked a lot on improving that, I believe to some success, although I occasionally lapse now and then - however with much less frequency. daniel folsom  20:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 

Daniel, I'm afraid I haven't made any overall review of your editing practice. I came here in order to comment on a particular thing that I noticed: your recent input on Talk:History of Russia. You sound there as if you're very sure that you know better than the experienced editors you're talking to, and sure that it's appropriate for you to go around "assuring that policies are followed on talk pages." (Policy cop? The tone of that particular post made me quite unhappy.) I'd like to ask, 1) What, in the context of the general give and take on that page, was so execrably uncivil about Irpen's post that your intervention was called for? 2) Do you think you came across as particularly civil yourself? 3) What did you mean by this reply to Irpen's comment "If all you take interest is that Wikipedia policies are followed, please consider that citing them to experienced editors does not help in encouraging the civility climate" ? I can't make head or tail of it. He suggests you shouldn't cite elementary policy to experienced editors, and you reply "for the record - I did cite it - WP:CIVIL)"... what's that, misunderstanding? 4) Do you see any good result of your intervention? I'm sure your intentions were very good, but in practice I think your input came across as uncalled for. It disrupted rather than helped the discussion, it seems to me. Bishonen | talk 19:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC).


 * I've been on that talk page frequently since spotlight came on it - which is how I got into that disuccsion. Let's go in order for the questions.
 * I believe I said that - in fact I'm sure I did, I provided the quote. Here's what Irpen said: "But do as you please. There is nothing new in that."
 * Yes I do think reminding someone to be civil is civil. I made sure to say that it did not mean I was against him or for him, I merely said it was best to keep a non-hostile environment. It's not so much a discipline as a mere reminder.
 * That was a mistake - I only read the first part of the comment - "If all you take interest is that Wikipedia policies are followed, please consider that citing them to experienced editors does not help in encouraging the civility climate." However even including the part I missed that's a flawed argument. Experienced editors are automatically exempt from policies (what about this case involving them?)? No of course they aren't, the fact is - regardless of "experience" - he made a relatively uncivil comment, and I asked him to remain civil,  just as I would do if it was any other editor - and just like I would expect  if the same comment was made to me (which it has, fairly).
 * I'm not a huge fan of your wording - "intervention"? There's a big difference between saying 'Please try to remain civil on talk pages to avoid a hostile environment" and saying "You're a troll in denial".
 * Other note: feel free to comment on my talk page for things like this, I mean that's what a talk page is for. As you said, "I haven't made any overall review of your editing practice"-- daniel  folsom  20:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite, quite, sorry to have bothered you. Perhaps you'd better simply review yourself? You don't seem very interested in other people's opinions. Bishonen | talk 21:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC).
 * Wait - as you said - you didn't review me - what are you talking about? -- daniel  folsom  22:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, apparently the editor considered it a review of one subject- I misunderstood that as a comment - and I thought if he directed it to my talk page I could more quickly respond to him. That's my mistake.-- daniel  folsom  02:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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


 * View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * Wow that's a difficult one. It's hard to be particularly pleased with, because in many ways that feels like I'm taking complete credit for the result- when in fact I usually am working with multiple editors - and often I'll make edits based on their suggestions. One article that I think I made a fairly significant contribution to is 2004 NBA Finals - and that was primarily because that was the first time I really worked on sourcing an article, and that was probably the article that got me into the Wikipedia "spirit". Three articles that I made relatively significant contributions to with WP:Spotlight would be Environmentally friendly, First Lady and History of Russia (the latter of which was just sourcing) - however again, a few of those contributions came of recommendations from other editors.-- daniel  folsom  20:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * One article definitely yes. The article was a bad situation in general - and a remark by this one editor really set me over the edge - I didn't react well to it at all and I'm extremely ashamed of how I acted (it was a spelling debate over Yoghurt). I do think, however, that I have learned from my mistakes at that article - because later, in June, I did not react at all to a user who suggested I was making biased edits - I kept calm and it worked out well. The biggest change since that article has been my ability to not associate an editor I disagree with or an editor that makes a statement that offends me with an editor that I don't like. I'm currently debating with User:SMcCandlish‎ at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates‎, but that hasn't changed the great amount of respect for that editor that I have, and should I ever need advice on an article - SMcCandlish would probably be near the top of the list of the people I would turn to.-- daniel  folsom  20:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * One article definitely yes. The article was a bad situation in general - and a remark by this one editor really set me over the edge - I didn't react well to it at all and I'm extremely ashamed of how I acted (it was a spelling debate over Yoghurt). I do think, however, that I have learned from my mistakes at that article - because later, in June, I did not react at all to a user who suggested I was making biased edits - I kept calm and it worked out well. The biggest change since that article has been my ability to not associate an editor I disagree with or an editor that makes a statement that offends me with an editor that I don't like. I'm currently debating with User:SMcCandlish‎ at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates‎, but that hasn't changed the great amount of respect for that editor that I have, and should I ever need advice on an article - SMcCandlish would probably be near the top of the list of the people I would turn to.-- daniel  folsom  20:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)