Wikipedia:Editor review/Irbisgreif

Irbisgreif
I intend to, barring unforeseen circumstances, go for an RfA sometime towards the end of the year. I would like to know what else I need to learn and/or work on before that time. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

 Reviews   Questions
 * I've only seen great work from you so far. This isn't going to be much of a review, but I think you're well on your way to becoming a sysop. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edits look good. A bit more focus on ConstEdits. See my user page. Thanks for making yourself available. We need good Admins.- Ret.Prof (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC) PS Good answer.
 * Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I would be interested to hear more about your former vandalism...you have a userbox self-identifying as a reformed vandal, and a few months back you had one expressing that you still had to fight temptations to vandalize.  If you address this clearly and thoroughly, I would not expect any negative effect on your chances of passing. Keepscases (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I intend to work in two areas, and have generally concentrated on them. A - Patrolling new pages, patrolling random pages, and reverting vandalism. B - Dispute resolution, such as mediation and 3rd Opinions. I am most pleased about beginning work with MedCab and starting a political dispute resolution project. WP:PSRP
 * 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 made this account after an editing dispute, and I end up in discussions at AfD and related issues all the time. I believe that the best way to deal with issues is to seek neutral ground, get to the root of the dispute, then offer to compromise in such a way that the encyclopædia benefits.
 * 1) One of the challenges that face us at Wikipedia is that many of our most gifted Editors are sensitive sometimes even temperamental. After they get stepped on or kicked around a bit they get discouraged. This is a quote from one such user:
 * When a person goes through the time and effort to write an article or to research sources or whatever, he or she is going to have some emotional attachment to it. That's natural. Personally, I like it when someone takes an article and improves it and expands it. But if there's a danger of the hatchet coming down in the form of aggressive deletion monkeys, then why should I put my time and mental equanimity on the line? I'm a professional writer and editor. I get paid to do this stuff. I'm less willing to write and edit articles on a voluntary basis when those contributions aren't welcome. -- Acsenray
 * How would you deal with the aforementioned concerns?
 * Their emotional attachment is natural and fine. If, however, they are worried about the deletion of the article and feel less inclined to contribute as a result, then I would remind them professional to professional, that not every word survives the cutting room floor. When I am editing a book, sometimes I have no choice but to go to the author and say “this part had to go” or “this section needs more work before it is ready”. In a perpetual project like Wikipedia, editors and writers should remember that sometimes, things are going to be deleted. This isn't a bad thing and it's all for the benefit of the encyclopædia. This reminder is also good for those who haven't had professional editing and writing experiences.
 * It is worth noting, however, that sometimes things that are deleted were deleted for more severe reasons, such as violating BLP or pushing a POV. Those editors should reconsider if they really wanted to write an encyclopædia. There are other ways out there for someone to write what they feel, an encyclopædia needs to give “just the facts”. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 01:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Their emotional attachment is natural and fine. If, however, they are worried about the deletion of the article and feel less inclined to contribute as a result, then I would remind them professional to professional, that not every word survives the cutting room floor. When I am editing a book, sometimes I have no choice but to go to the author and say “this part had to go” or “this section needs more work before it is ready”. In a perpetual project like Wikipedia, editors and writers should remember that sometimes, things are going to be deleted. This isn't a bad thing and it's all for the benefit of the encyclopædia. This reminder is also good for those who haven't had professional editing and writing experiences.
 * It is worth noting, however, that sometimes things that are deleted were deleted for more severe reasons, such as violating BLP or pushing a POV. Those editors should reconsider if they really wanted to write an encyclopædia. There are other ways out there for someone to write what they feel, an encyclopædia needs to give “just the facts”. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 01:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)