Wikipedia:Editor review/HowardBerry

HowardBerry
Hi there, I've been on Wikipedia for several years now. I have a huge passion for old British TV shows so most of my contributions are related to that (specifically one production company's output - ITC Entertainment). I also dip in and out of WP:EA and WP:COI, and sometimes help out with welcoming new members. I'm requesting an editor review at this time because I'd firstly like some feedback on how I'm doing in general, and secondly I would like some feedback on how to contribute to Wikipedia further. Howie &#9742;  00:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Howie, you're doing a fine job on Wikipedia, and you should be proud of the contributions that you do. You should continue to edit articles as you do, however, I recommend exposing yourself more to other areas of Wikipedia, which will help out the project. You can contribute in areas such as WP:XFD, WP:RFA, or even here at WP:ER. I also feel that you have learned from that past conflict, as you show that you have learned and would have treated it differently if it were to arise today. You also tend to dip in and out of visiting Wikipedia, as I see several months of little to no editing, I recommend trying to edit as much as you can, but besides that you're doing fine. -- T ru  c o   22:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using X!'s counter

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I'm very pleased with my contribution to ITC related productions (Department S, Jason King etc.) because I feel that they were once hugely popular shows but no longer have the same kind of active fan base as shows like Doctor Who or Star Trek - resulting in their articles being smaller and lacking in information more than equivalent shows. The article I'm most pleased with is the actual ITC Entertainment article, although I still feel it needs a great deal of work.  I also run the related wikiproject, which has a large number of articles in its scope, but needs more members.
 * 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 was involved in a conflict where one editor (who I'll refer to as X for simplicity) refused to acknowledge that certain television shows should be classified as "cult television" (such as The X-Files, Doctor Who, The Prisoner etc.) as he believed that because they were popular, they could not be "cult". To resolve the issue I asked for a second opinion from a secondary editor and we both attempted to communicate with X, however he decided to remove over half of an entire article and ignore the points we were making.  In the end, X requested mediation from an administrator instead of simply discuss the matter with us.  I, and the other editor, participated and agreed to not edit the article further until the matter was resolved.  X participated once in the discussion before no longer taking part and did not communicate with us further.  The article was eventually rewritten, and the original points I thought should be kept are still in the article.
 * I was involved in a conflict where one editor (who I'll refer to as X for simplicity) refused to acknowledge that certain television shows should be classified as "cult television" (such as The X-Files, Doctor Who, The Prisoner etc.) as he believed that because they were popular, they could not be "cult". To resolve the issue I asked for a second opinion from a secondary editor and we both attempted to communicate with X, however he decided to remove over half of an entire article and ignore the points we were making.  In the end, X requested mediation from an administrator instead of simply discuss the matter with us.  I, and the other editor, participated and agreed to not edit the article further until the matter was resolved.  X participated once in the discussion before no longer taking part and did not communicate with us further.  The article was eventually rewritten, and the original points I thought should be kept are still in the article.


 * I found the issue problematic because, as I had agreed not to edit the article during mediation and X did not participate in the mediation for more than a month, I was unable to be an active part of a topic I am greatly interested in out of respect to that agreement. As this happened when I first started out on Wikipedia, I think I would deal with it differently if the situation were to arise now.  I think I lost my patience with the mediation due to being kept from editing the article for over a month.  If this were to happen now, I would still stand up for the points I was trying to make, but be sure to bring in informative references from established and verifiable sources in an attempt to resolve the conflict quickly instead of waiting months for a reply that may or may not be forthcoming.  That way an admin would be able to make a faster decision.