Wikipedia:Editor review/Jclemens

Jclemens
I've been actively editing for a few months, around for a good bit longer than that, and would like some opinions on my development--are my conduct and contributions meeting Wikipedia Standards? What deficiencies do I display right now, that I should shore up before seeking to increase the level or scope of my contributions? Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Review by Sykko - Talk to me


 * I started off with your User page, and looked at the articles you started, I liked your stub on Rollover. I think it's a great stub and would enjoy seeing it later on if you decide to expand on it. The Marcus Ranum article is great, very interesting stuff about someone who I had never heard of before. very informative and an interesting read. I saw that you made a lot of the major contributions to that article and I think it was really good work in general.


 * From there I looked at your answers to the questions. I liked your answer to number 1 because it shows that you understand the process of improving as an editor and keeping a good attitude (something I can relate to, and appreciate in fellow editors) in your second answer I see someone followed you in for some more confrontation and I thought you dealt with it quite well. Your link points to a example of a good judgment call as far wp:npov goes


 * So I finished off by looking at some of your huggle rollbacks. you definitely are an aggressive vandal fighter. I checked around 15 of them. I was unsure about a few of them this in particular which I think might have been a good faith edit. I think huggle is more about obvious vandalism and some reverts could have been better handled with undo's using good summaries to help the user know what it is they did wrong. A lot of the rollbacks I saw were of things like poorly worded information or statements that could have been marked with a or something instead of just rolling it back. I guess my suggestion is to consider doing undo of a few articles that you see on huggle by hand from time to time so as to help out the occasional inexperienced user that you come across. %% -SYKKO- %% (talk to me) 19:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
 * Just a little tip, there's no necessity to save the page every time you make a minor change during a long edit session. All you have to do is click to "preview" your edits as you go along then "save" once when you've finished the edit session.  Otherwise it looks like you have editcountitis.  High numbers of edits don't really impress anyone... "edit counts do not judge the quality of the edits". I only mention this because I saw that you wanted comments about your editing, and it was the characteristic which stood out most in your recent work. Austin46 (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I do preview changes pretty often, and I think I've been getting better, but I'll try to continue reducing my edits per contribution. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I've been most pleased with the edits I've made to Elric of Melnibone because another editor was constantly challenging me to find better sources, and with Whedonesque.com because that was the first time I really took what I learned and transformed a mediocre article into one that was truly and significantly better than when I began.
 * 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?
 * Getting reverted at first was frustrating, to be sure, but I don't believe I've been uncivil in the process of pursuing learning based on those setbacks. I got my internet hothead stage out of the way the better part of two decades ago.  The more I understand Wikipedia process and policies, the less frustrated I get and the better my edits are received; as such, I expect my stress level to be manageable for the foreseeable future.
 * Oh, one more bit by way of confession--I originally registered to help topic push DartMUD, but in the process became enlightened, and now I'm a general purpose editor, as my history will show.
 * Oh, one more bit by way of confession--I originally registered to help topic push DartMUD, but in the process became enlightened, and now I'm a general purpose editor, as my history will show.

Rodney Satrk is an oponent of Evolutionary Theory. This shoudl be clearly satted in his page, and his readers must know this. By hiding this fact you are making this page partisamn and un-balanced.


 * (Above comment by User:Juanholanda in response to this edit)
 * What was in the article before you added NPOV text:

Stark published an article in 2004 criticizing Charles Darwin and Evolutionary Theory. In "Facts, Fable and Darwin", Dr. Stark criticized the “Darwinian Crusade” and suggested that governments "lift the requirement that high school texts enshrine Darwin's failed attempt as an eternal truth."[1] Stark further writes that "today it is a rare textbook or any popular treatment of evolution and religion that does not reduce 'creationism' to the simplest caricatures."[2]
 * What you added:

"Mr. Stark is an open enemy of Evolutionary Theory, (see below) and as such his views on all subjects must be interpreted with his religionist position in mind."
 * I'm proud to have reverted such WP:OR WP:NPOV material lacking WP:RSing from a WP:BLP. Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)