Wikipedia:Editor review/Fyre2387 (2)

Fyre2387
I've recently started editing actively again after a fairly long period of very low activity, so I'd like to get a feel for how I'm doing nowadays. I'm particularity concerned about feelings toward my civility, as my RfA in 2007 was largely opposed on those grounds. I'd like to add that, in hindsight, those opposes were utterly correct; the 2010 me would easily oppose adminship of the 2007 me. I'd like to think, though, that I've matured some since then, and that my editing reflects that. I would, however, still like to become an admin eventually, and do honestly think I'd be a good one. I realize my content-creation credentials are rather slim, but that's something I do intend to address (see question one, below.)

(As a procedural note: this is my second editor review, so I've added "(2)" to the page title. If this is an improper format, please feel free to move the page.) --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * In the past, I did a lot of work on Avatar: The Last Airbender related articles. That was a while ago, and many other editors have done a great deal of work on those pages, but I'd like to think at least some fruits of my labors are to be found there. I also tend to frequent some of the less-traveled ends of deletion process such as WP:MFD, WP:RFD, and WP:DRV, where, and please forgive the apparent arrogance of this statement, I do believe I've added some valuable insight to at least a few discussions. I also have an interest in both newpage patrol and reviewing pending edits. Also, getting involved with RfD has given me something of an interest in the way we handle redirects, an oft-neglected side of Wikipedia. One article in particular that has my attention is The Home Depot, where I've already done some meager work. I'm wary of a conflict of interest, as I work for the company, but I do think there's good I can do there. 
 * 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?
 * In the past, I freely admit that I was much too quick to anger, and it showed in the kind of comments I made. Nowadays, however, I believe I've become much more level headed, and become better at handling disputes in a calm, rational manner. As I explained in my statement above, this is one of my biggest concerns about my editing habits, given my past failures in this area, and the single largest reason I'm asking for review.
 * In the past, I freely admit that I was much too quick to anger, and it showed in the kind of comments I made. Nowadays, however, I believe I've become much more level headed, and become better at handling disputes in a calm, rational manner. As I explained in my statement above, this is one of my biggest concerns about my editing habits, given my past failures in this area, and the single largest reason I'm asking for review.

 Reviews  Overall, I think your edits are very helpful. I'm not seeing any civility problems in your recent contribs. I do have a few concerns: I think you should be a little more cautious when calling something "vandalism". Specifically, adding outdated information is not vandalism but a poorly done edit. It should still be reverted, but discussion belongs on the article talk page, without the label "vandalism". Also, [ this edit] misinterprets policy: BLP only applies to unsourced contentious information (although the info was borderline...). Merely being unsourced is not enough. Overall, however, I think you have a solid understanding of policy and practice (although, seeing as you've been away for a while, you may wish to review current policy to bring yourself up to speed, if you have not already done so), a civil demeanor, and I think you are a fine editor. I have not reviewed older edits, but they should be less relevant than the edits I have reviewed. -- N Y  Kevin  @900, i.e. 20:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Review by NYKevin