Wikipedia:Editor review/Fridae'sDoom (2)

Fridae'sDoom
I registered as a user in late 2007 and have been using Wikipedia since, just not as an active user, after how much Wikipedia had expanded I decided that it was time for me to start helping, I haven't done anything of notability though I try my best as an editor to ensure that information contained within articles can be correctly interpreted and won't be misconstrued by others, that the neutrality of an article should not be disputable, vandalism or personal attacks are kept OUT of articles and I also try to improve the general readability of an article, place internal links where needed and participate in some deletion, move and merge discussions.  Fridae&#39;§ Doom  &#124;  Talk to me  10:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Addendum I forgot to mention I'm an active participant in WikiProject Politics and Deletion Discussion, I'm also a member of the Welcoming Committee and CVU (Counter Vandalism Unit), I haven't had much mainspace edits but I have created 2 essays, they aren't much right now but I hope to improve them. If I've done something wrong I won't make a fuss of it, for more information see my talk page in regards to an AfC I blindly accepted, I wasn't proud of that but I corrected my mistake and moved the article back into the AfC space. I was going to copyedit it but then when I read through the text a large majority of it seemed like copy-paste/plagiarised to me, I wasn't sure so I left the article as a pending AfC. If you saw my userpage then I do indeed have hopes of one day becoming an admin, but such seems like a far-fetched reality for now. Looking at the criteria for admin now it's much different than 2/3 years ago in terms of the looseness and leniency of the criteria.

When I joined Wikipedia I was but a naive high-school freshmen who didn't know the ropes, now I look back at my ignorance and noobishness and laugh, I've never vandalised Wikipedia though so don't let that statement give you a bad impression of me, however, I was afk once at school and stayed logged in (I know right?) and later found my friend had made a dubious edit, before I could revert it and apologise a user had reverted it and left me a message on my talk page, I then responded on his talk page and apologised and gave him a summary of my predicament, if you will, he understood and wasn't too harsh on me.

Since then I've learnt more day by day since my registration I was not particularly active but now that's changed. Wikipedia has become an integral part of my life and its importance in many of our lives is nay beyond disputable, my friends don't understand what I see in Wikipedia but that doesn't stop me from trying to be a good Wikipedian and from contributing as best I can. I don't have a lot of contributions to flaunt lik other users might the only major contributions I've made are to the George Washington article and that was AFTER the GA Review, much of the faults as detailed by the reviewer were fixed up and grammar is not a huge problem.

Addendum 2 I've recently joined the Articles for Creation WikiProject and I've reviewed around 30 articles, reduced the backlog by reviewing stale submissions and marking other submissions as on hold or declined based on the sources, information and general size of the article. While I did make mistakes in declining I've not been so careless in my reviewing now after being directed on the right road. I've been careful not to make such mistakes and have done a better job (because I'm not getting any messages on my talk page!)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I'd have to say that my work in trying to improve George Washington based on the second GA review, the nomination of which I submitted, I've read the criteria and crossed out certain issues as I or another user has editted them, my work is minor, my first contribution was on the Tibetan Mastiff article in late '07 even then the edit was reverted because I wasn't being concise enough, although I remember being told through the edit summary to keep trying.
 * 1) Have you been in any disputes 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?
 * No, but should I be involved in an edit dispute with a user who's adamant on the matter or is otherwise unwilling to accept a compromise I'd remain composed and ask for administrator help, if in the case they refuse to co-operate I'd take it to the Arbitration or Mediation Committee depending on the cirumstances of the situation and put forward the case in a manner that might be less punishing upon the other parties whom are involved in the dispute..
 * No, but should I be involved in an edit dispute with a user who's adamant on the matter or is otherwise unwilling to accept a compromise I'd remain composed and ask for administrator help, if in the case they refuse to co-operate I'd take it to the Arbitration or Mediation Committee depending on the cirumstances of the situation and put forward the case in a manner that might be less punishing upon the other parties whom are involved in the dispute..

 Reviews 


 * Note for others: a previous review (from a week ago) can be found here. Airplaneman   ✈  Review? 05:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it's still considered to be an "open" review as well. I'm not sure the reasoning behind having a second one at the same time? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My first editor review was not very informative which is why I requested a second ER.  Fridae'§Doom &#124;  Spare your time?  11:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose one advantage of starting a new review is that a reviewer might feel guilty enough about starting at the back of the queue that they then go on a review a few at the front...?! Regardless, I'd suggest closing out the previous review. I considered responding there, not here, but figured you'd expanded your comments here.

Your edit summaries are good, and getting better: comparing mid June with late July there's a marked improvement. One thing I would suggest is that you set the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" setting in your preferences: with this preference set (and provided you don't enter an edit summary until you've finished editing) you (a) never forget, and (b) your edit summary reflects everything you've done. Your referencing, again, is clearly improving - you're adding references and using named refs. You might consider using (or  etc) as a next step? Cite templates help avoid "link rot". You could also cheat and use Reflinks to convert bare refs to use cite templates... dead easy.

Your last editor review mentioned article work, and I'd reiterate that: the more article work you do the better an editor you'll become. You did some new page patrolling in July, and I can see that you improved Temple House Manor and Castle, for example. There are a few things I noticed missing from your patrolling - mostly nothing major, just things like bolding the title in the lead. One thing I am concerned about with this article, however, is that you ed it - I'd have recommended tagging it with : proposed deletions should hinge on suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia, not the standard of referencing (references can probably be found, but only for articles that haven't been deleted!)

Overall, good stuff! No blocks, no obvious problems with other editors, keep up the good work! Oh, and as a result of this I learned that there were 14 presidents before George Washington... Wikipedia, eh? Always something new to learn! TFOWR 20:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hehe you're welcome, thanks for the lengthy review! I'll take on board your suggestions particularly in regards to edit summaries.  Fridae'§Doom &#124;  Spare your time?  04:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)