Wikipedia:Editor review/FGWQPR

FGWQPR
I am interested in trains and most of my edits are on train based. I want to be reviewed as I have had some problems recently and want to check I am back on track. FGWQPR (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Review by Islander:
 * Hi, FGWQPR - you'll recognise me, and may already be reaching for the 'undo' button, but hear me out. First the good points: your edits to First Great Western (unfortunatly the only place I've come across you before) have been excellent. Before you started editing it, the article wasn't too bad at all, but after what is clearly a tonne of work on your behalf, the article is now near GA standard. It still misses a lot of necessities, but it is nearer the mark now than it ever was, and that's mostly down to you - you deserve kudos for that, and let's not forget that building an encyclopaedia is our main aim here. Another plus point is that, at least some times, you seem to be open to suggestions. When you started off editing the FGW article, you saved the page with each and every tiny edit you did, which clogs up the history and recent changes list a treat. However, I dropped a note on your talk page with regards to this, and you quickly changed for the better.
 * Next off, a couple of small niggly things. Firstly is your use of edit summaries. Looking at your contributions, a large proportion are in the red, i.e. without edit summaries. This isn't the best habbit to be in, but is the easiest to fix - take a look in your preferences, and switch on forced edit summaries. Secondly, you seem very, very eager to bring the FGW article to GA standard, which of course is excellent, but I think you'd benefit from slowing down a little. Requesting a new review the same day that the last got rejected is just too quick (and, for the record, being a Wikipedian it's just as much my business as it is yours ;) ).
 * Finally, the one big problem. You seriously need to cool off. You state "I want to be reviewed as I have had some problems recently and want to check I am back on track". On the face of it, this comment alone would suggest that you probably are, but then comes the killer comment below: "I got very annoyed with an ignorant user and his admin back up". Seriously, go read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. For those in the dark, this comment refers to my comments here, which was swiftly responded in this fasion. A wikidramatisation then followed, with myself and others pointing out that I had merely cited WP:COI, and FGWQPR making it clear that, by suggesting he might work for FGW, I had hugely insulted him. Now, this was (unfortunatly after a blocking) resolved, and I'm much more than happy to leave it all in the past, but it is unfortunate that, judging by the comment below, FGWQPR still sees me as an "ignorant user", and still sees himself as in the right for that episode.
 * In conclusion, a great editor, and in that way a great asset to Wikipedia, but you seriously need to calm down and stop making mountain ranges out of little bumps in the carpet. Talk Islander 22:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Review by Dusti
 * Wow, you do seem to be a great asset to Wikipedia. Your edits, for the most part, seem to be constructive, and I notice that you have a nack for trains and your a part of the Wikiproject for trains, very good to see. I would also recommend, like agove, use edit summaries. As Islander pointed out, you may do this by going to your preferences up at the top of the page.

Now for the serious stuff:


 * When you are nominated for an RFA for you have a self-nomination, your going to have some issues, especially if you do this within the next few months. Your issues with Islander and Keeper are going to cause some issues with your goals. Making comments like " I got very annoyed with an ignorant user and his admin back up" are certainly not going to help issues. Keeper happens to be a good friend of mine and I think that maybe you were a little extreme. I'm staying neutral in this, so I'm not going to take sides.
 * There are a few things that maybe you would like to take a look at for future references and those are this little thing, this little thing, this as well, and for good measure this too. These will help you in future instances when you get into a conflict. If you wish, I can help you out. I also recommend having an adopter to guide you through some Wiki processes, and your adopter will help you out if you have any technical questions and provide some pointers.
 * An Admin Coach is also a good step in the right direction of you have high hopes of becoming an Administrator someday. I myself am currently in the admin coaching program and it has helped me out a lot
 * You may want to begin participating in admin related areas, such as Articles for deletion, Requests for Page Protection, Administrators Noticeboard for Incidents, and others. Start slowly and only comment, do not take any action. Non Admins are allowed to close keep decisions at Articles for Deletion but I recommend you only participate in the discussions first.

Overall you are heading in the right direction. I recommend that you step back for a day or two and look through your disputes to get a better view of how you came across and what you could have done differently. Remember, respect is a two way street. If you need any help, please feel free to contact me and I will do all that I can. Keep up your head and happy editing!!  D u s t i complain/compliment 19:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Review by James (Britishrailclass91 (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)) I think that you are a capable editor with capacity to do great things for this project. I am very sorry that we got off on the wrong footing. Good luck! Britishrailclass91 (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

 Comments 


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


 * First of all thank you for doing this. If I was in your position I don't think I would have done this. I have cooled off as you say and maybe my comment on here was wrong but I just got annoyed. I have put it in the past now and I hope you can to. But yes I do think that you but moreso Keeper 76 were in the wrong. Nothing you do or say can change that. Once again thank you for doing this. --FGWQPR (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Dusti. I don't plan to put in an Rfa in the near future, it will be amny many months before I even consider putting and Rfa in. I will however take part in the activities you suggest as I beleive this well help me when the time is right. I don't want to rush like somebody else who after I opposed their RfA decided to make a rather silly comment on my talkpage, which I responded to in a much better manner. Once again thank you. --FGWQPR (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It was fun for me to do this, as its the longest editor review I have done. If you wish, I will be your Adopter and give a few pointers.  D u s t i complain/compliment 19:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have replied on your talkpage. --FGWQPR (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * Yes, I am paticuarly pleased with my edits to First Great Western which nearly got it to GA status and I hope in time it will be a Good Article.
 * 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 and I will learn from my mistakes. I got very annoyed with an ignorant user and his admin back up.
 * 1) Have you learned anything from your mistake of using the sentence I got very annoyed with an ignorant user and his admin back up?  Do you understand how and why that is a completely unnecessary sentence and warrants an apology to both the ignorant user and his admin back up?  You are allowed to be annoyed, that's not the problem with the sentence.  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not appoligizing to you. But I am sorry to the Islander and I emailed him to say sorry while I was banned. Ask him if you don't beleive me. But I won't apoligize to you for one reason, you said something about me on a talkpage and until you apoligize for that I won't say sorry. Oh and sorry any other admins. --FGWQPR (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you apologized to Islander. I believe you.  See my talkpage for further comments.  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not appoligizing to you. But I am sorry to the Islander and I emailed him to say sorry while I was banned. Ask him if you don't beleive me. But I won't apoligize to you for one reason, you said something about me on a talkpage and until you apoligize for that I won't say sorry. Oh and sorry any other admins. --FGWQPR (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you apologized to Islander. I believe you.  See my talkpage for further comments.  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)