Wikipedia:Editor review/Lilac Soul

Lilac_Soul
I've been editing on Wikipedia for a while now, and I always think it's good to get some feedback to see if there's anything I should consider doing differently User: (talk • contribs • count) 08:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Hi, Lilac Soul. You're a very solid editor in regards to article-building. I would suggest that you also move into vandal-fighting and speedy deletion, two very pressing issues in Wikipedia today. You may also be interested in participating in other related deletion discussions, such as Categories for discussion or Miscellany for deletion or something of the sort. Otherwise, you're very solid, and I can't really see much else you need to change.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Two years of trouble and general madness 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I think I did a pretty good job in the effort to get Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows up to par, making sure the plot summary wasn't too detailed, and that everything else was well sourced. Also, I like my contributions to the referendums in the template Danish elections, because I knew nothing about them when I started and I ended up getting to of them DYK status.
 * 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?
 * Yes, a few times at least. For instance on the Rene Reinmann article. I dealt with it by leaving a comment in the source (the type that doesn't show up when just viewing the article) about discussing it on the talkpage. Unless it is obvious vandalism, I generally try and not get involved in edit wars, but establish consensus on the talkpage. If someone repeatedly reverts my edits that have talkpage-consensus, I will first inform them of the talkpage discussion, and if that doesn't help, I'll view it as vandalism and give them the appropriate warnings.
 * Yes, a few times at least. For instance on the Rene Reinmann article. I dealt with it by leaving a comment in the source (the type that doesn't show up when just viewing the article) about discussing it on the talkpage. Unless it is obvious vandalism, I generally try and not get involved in edit wars, but establish consensus on the talkpage. If someone repeatedly reverts my edits that have talkpage-consensus, I will first inform them of the talkpage discussion, and if that doesn't help, I'll view it as vandalism and give them the appropriate warnings.