Wikipedia:Editor review/Matthewrbowker

Matthewrbowker
I've been editing Wikipedia for a few months, and I want to know how I'm doing as an editor. Matthewrbowker (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2010 (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 vandal fighting and Wikiproject Film.  I created the articles Sintel and Autodesk Toxik.  While both are still stubs, I hope to expand them into good or featured articles.
 * 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.
 * I haven't been in any editing disputes, but there was a disagreement on MythBusters (2010 season). An anonymous editor added an episode which wasn't cited at the time.  I reverted; but he re-added the information.  I took a break for the night, and the next morning was able to find the episode on the MythBusters site.  It turned out that he had the information because he was in the UK and it aired ahead of the US.  The overnight break really helped keep a potential edit war down to a dull roar.
 * I haven't been in any editing disputes, but there was a disagreement on MythBusters (2010 season). An anonymous editor added an episode which wasn't cited at the time.  I reverted; but he re-added the information.  I took a break for the night, and the next morning was able to find the episode on the MythBusters site.  It turned out that he had the information because he was in the UK and it aired ahead of the US.  The overnight break really helped keep a potential edit war down to a dull roar.

 Reviews 


 * Review by Chaosdruid:

I can see that although you have not been here for long you are quite busy :¬)

I will not do a full review as I feel that there is not enough there yet for too many comments. I would like to say that concentrating on vandalism is a valid job but it may be better to get a general feel of policy and procedure, perhaps in more depth, as you may find this benefits you in the long run. Fior example the Blender page you have added a "main" link but that section, and the whole page, is full of html links which should not really be there.

I noticed that you made a revert here with smackbot - did you notice that the addition was in fact correct information  and, if so, did you consider turning it into an addition rather than reverting it? I am not saying that you did anything wrong, far from it, but consider whether you could have spent a few minutes to make the addition valid and adding a ref for it ?

Also it may be that the revert would have been better as an undo - reverting is really only for vandalism, reowgfniowiefn, sh*t, c*ck sucker etc. and the warning you gave may have been a little out of place as User talk:68.39.191.247was in fact only trying to add correct information rather than vandalising the page.

Also I noticed that you assessed the Gay? article yet you are not a member of the project in question - did you follow their particular MOS or review process when you did that ?

Your interactions seem fine, apart from the one you mentioned, and you managed to keep your cool on the Talk:Code Lyoko page.

Your article contributions are pretty good as well, nice additions of refs for the Pikes Peak Library District article. Do you use the additional editing features ? they give cite templates which are pretty easy to use just above the editing window. (you should see Advanced > Special Characters > Help > Cite at the top if they are enabled)

Keep up the good work ! Chaosdruid (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)