Wikipedia:Editor review/Metricopolus

Metricopolus
I am interested to see how I stand amongst the other editors to this website. I want to know how I can improve in what I'm doing and what others think I'm doing well. Metricopolus (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * Vandal-reverting; that's my main goal in Wikipedia.
 * 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 involved in any significant editing disputes. I've been involved in a few minor ones, where users have contacted me about incorrect reverts I made. When I face disputes, I listen to what others have to say to me and sort out the issue in a calm manner. I might also contact more experienced users for advice.
 * I haven't been involved in any significant editing disputes. I've been involved in a few minor ones, where users have contacted me about incorrect reverts I made. When I face disputes, I listen to what others have to say to me and sort out the issue in a calm manner. I might also contact more experienced users for advice.

 Reviews 

Review from Puffin

You seem to have a lot of vandalism reversions which is great. Make sure you slow down and examine each edit carefully before reverting. After all, you don't want your rollback rights revoked! Your dispute resolution is also good and you have no evidence of personal attacks which is even better. It shows you are calm and are willing to improve upon your mistakes. Suggestions for the future, is there a topic in which you are particularly interested in? You could join a WikiProject to help improve articles related to that topic. You can find a directory of all WikiProject at here. Keep up the good work!  Puffin  Let's talk! 14:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Review from The Utahraptor

I feel I must echo Puffin's words: "Make sure you slow down and examine each edit carefully before reverting." I've noticed you've made a lot of mistakes, and while this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it could turn into a bad thing. Several users have had their rollback rights removed, and even been blocked, for reverting vandalism too fast. I used to have the same problem as you; I used to think I had to be the quickest reverter, and I used to get down when somebody beat me to a revert. But then I realized, speed isn't everything. A vandal fighter's goal should not be to beat everybody to the reversion of vandalism; rather, it should be to improve the encyclopedia by removing potentially harmful edits. It doesn't matter who reverts it first, the only thing that does matter is that the vandalism is reverted and the vandal appropriately warned.

As for vandal reverting being your main goal here, again, I must echo Puffin: "...is there a topic in which you are particularly interested in? You could join a WikiProject to help iprove articles related to that topic." Wikipedia isn't all about vandal fighting; in fact, vandal fighting is only a small part of Wikipedia. Your main goal on Wikipedia shouldn't be wanting to fight vandals, your main goal on Wikipedia should be to expand and improve the encyclopedia. Have you ever considered joining the Guild of Copy Editors WikiProject? If you would like more information about this WikiProject, just let me know. If you're not interested in the Guild of Copy Editors, Puffin included a directory of WikiProjects in their review, so feel free to browse that and sign up for a WikiProject that would interest you. And, if you eventually decide to just stick with vandal fighting, WikiProject Vandalism studies may interest you.

That's it for my review. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 14:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Review from Downsize43

I believe that the way you handled a recent revert of an edit by 131.215.220.185 was an example of how not to do what you have stated as your main task. To recap:
 * In June 2009 user A (98.162.242.129) made a naughty edit (in fact he made several, some of which remained uncorrected until today)
 * Recently, user B (131.215.220.185) discovered the naughty edit and sought to bring it to the attention of a wider audience.
 * You rightly did not approve of his method - and reverted it without looking at the bigger picture.

What do I think you should have done?
 * Recognize that the inspiration for user B's edit was vandalism by another (his edit virtually told you that)
 * Find user A's edit and revert to the previous text.
 * Thank user B for his discovery and politely suggest a more acceptable way of bringing it to the attention of other editors while not making it so obvious to casual readers.
 * Research user A's other edits and revert any that remain.

Cheers, and good luck for the future. Downsize43 (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)