Wikipedia:Editor review/LauraHale

LauraHale
I want to continue to improve my editing, get a better idea on what to focus on and, given my area of interest, if I have point of view problem. I also want to make sure I have learned previous lessons adequately and have become better at avoiding conflict and unecessarily escalating situations. LauraHale (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My primary contributions are in the area of Paralympic content, and women and Australian sport. I am an active participant in WP:DYK and contribute Spoken Word articles.  I am particularly pleased with my Spoken Word articles, and creating wanted articles on the remaining women's national football team articles, which included successfully taking a number of articles about African teams to GA status.
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * About a year ago, I was involved in an ArbCom case. Subsequently, I have tried harder to avoid protracted conflicts and learn when to back off to avoid escalating a situation. Most of this has been successful. Recently, there were some problems with Zanzibar women's national football team but they were mild and I have subsequently supported the editors work on other articles.  I got really, really annoyed over the WMF:Education programme because it appeared to be causing a number of problems with processes I was involved with. This was not always pretty, and I was really annoyed at a few people over this over what I saw as lax supervision of the programme and accepting substandard quality in order to get schools involved. (I tagged a number of articles as COI, failed a number of DYKs and quickfailed a number of GANs.) To relieve that particular pile of stress, I created a draft RfC and found like minded people to participate.  I never took it live because the point for me was mostly to use this as a tool to destress. I also stopped hanging out in the related IRC chat rooms and tried to ignore it when possible.
 * About a year ago, I was involved in an ArbCom case. Subsequently, I have tried harder to avoid protracted conflicts and learn when to back off to avoid escalating a situation. Most of this has been successful. Recently, there were some problems with Zanzibar women's national football team but they were mild and I have subsequently supported the editors work on other articles.  I got really, really annoyed over the WMF:Education programme because it appeared to be causing a number of problems with processes I was involved with. This was not always pretty, and I was really annoyed at a few people over this over what I saw as lax supervision of the programme and accepting substandard quality in order to get schools involved. (I tagged a number of articles as COI, failed a number of DYKs and quickfailed a number of GANs.) To relieve that particular pile of stress, I created a draft RfC and found like minded people to participate.  I never took it live because the point for me was mostly to use this as a tool to destress. I also stopped hanging out in the related IRC chat rooms and tried to ignore it when possible.

 Reviews 


 * Comment Incredible editor. Amazing effort on African teams. I'll be checking your contributions to give you more feedback. Only issue i have found: prose flow.— Hahc 21  13:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am not available until July 8, but if there is no comprehensive review(s) by that time, I will review myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Sorry, got some medical problems. May be later.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Would not buy again Unable to recognize which edits are an improvement. Constant bad faith assumptions, even with evidence of the contrary. Unfounded accusations made to the wrong person. Refuses to follow WP:BRD, starts editwar when her bold changes are reverted. Canvassing. The result looks like a boomerangtrout, to which she has yet to respond. Arcandam (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What is a "boomerangtrout"? Confused, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Laura made a lot of bold changes. I removed 2k bytes to improve the article. The editwar resulted in a new consensus version. Almost 42k bytes were removed. . Arcandam (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Another desperate attempt to get revenge by gaming the system via tagteaming succeeded, but it resulted in comments like this and that. In order to achieve the result they desired they needed to ignore policy and redefine incivility. The admin who blocked me admitted that he did so based upon the fact I wrote: "Do you have any proof? I am pretty sure that is simply not true"... and he even claimed that this was a personal attack. Arcandam (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. 1 2 3


 * Favorable with advice. Well, LauraHale, I looked at your article on the Cook Islands netball team and could find just two footnotes that were unsourced, so please find citations for them. The rest of your article-editing and -creation looks really, really good, but I would advise you to just back off from any discussion when it gets overheated. I know that it is really rough when your good ideas are attacked by others, but in my own experience I find that taking a couple of weeks off and just moving on to other tasks can be very advantageous in keeping the blood pressure down. In your summary above, I think you forgot to mention some problems that I found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter and at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALauraHale&diff=500313994&oldid=500299405. Really, I think you are too good an editor to be sidetracked in bootless discussions like those. I apologize if this summary seems a bit cursory. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I sort of agree with George: stick to the stuff you do well like making DYKs and stop causing unnecessary drama and being so revengeful. Until you have enough experience to detect your own mistakes you will have to accept the fact that not everything you do is perfect. If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. In the future try to avoid editwarring, especially when more experienced editors improve an article and you do not understand why it is an improvement. Maybe you should've asked. I really think you should stop with the bad faith assumptions. And you should probably apologize to John. I don't know why you've accused John of acting in bad faith but that accusation is pretty ridiculous. Please follow WP:BRD from now on. You made very bold changes, if they get reverted and you do not understand the reasoning behind it you have to discuss. Instead you chose to editwar. Arcandam (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. Please read WP:CANVASS and WP:TAGTEAM.