Wikipedia:Editor review/N5iln

N5iln
I've been active for some time and have never really looked for active feedback on how I present myself to others, nor how my actions affect other users. As a newly-confirmed Online Ambassador, the time has come for a peer review, so I know what needs improving in both my attitude and my skills as an editor. To that end, I now submit myself for said peer review. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I am primarily a gnomish editor, looking at articles that interest me and making small corrections as necessary. I also consider myself a countervandalism specialist, and spend at least a third of my Wikipedia perusing time seeking out and reverting blatant vandalism, and looking closely at edits that seem questionable to make sure they can be verified using reliable sources. I have yet to write anything that has made the trip to good or featured status, preferring to remain "behind the scenes" so that those more skilled at content creation can do their jobs. I originated the MV Bright Field article, and produced the structure and initial content for the 2011 NHRA Full Throttle Drag Racing Series season chart, but beyond that, I would call most of my content contributions fairly minor.
 * 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.
 * Anyone who has not experienced some level of stress or conflict with other editors has not been on Wikipedia for more than a few weeks at most. Part of the stress comes from the learning curve associated with working on Wikipedia, part of it comes from interacting with other editors, some of whom do not share similar tolerance for errors as others. Two specific conflicts stand out: one regarding my earlier countervandalism efforts, which can be found here, and the other, more recent episode, regarding a content dispute, here (although the second one may be archived before I am reviewed; I note the age at 1 month and 1 day, and I have the auto-archive set to 31 days). I try to learn from any such encounter, but I freely admit that I do NOT have the proverbial "patience of a saint"...which is one reason why I have not submitted myself for an RfA.
 * Anyone who has not experienced some level of stress or conflict with other editors has not been on Wikipedia for more than a few weeks at most. Part of the stress comes from the learning curve associated with working on Wikipedia, part of it comes from interacting with other editors, some of whom do not share similar tolerance for errors as others. Two specific conflicts stand out: one regarding my earlier countervandalism efforts, which can be found here, and the other, more recent episode, regarding a content dispute, here (although the second one may be archived before I am reviewed; I note the age at 1 month and 1 day, and I have the auto-archive set to 31 days). I try to learn from any such encounter, but I freely admit that I do NOT have the proverbial "patience of a saint"...which is one reason why I have not submitted myself for an RfA.

 Reviews 


 * My first need on looking into your activities in Wikipedia was to clarify in my mind who you are! I assume you were N5iln before changing your username to Alan the Roving Ambassador.


 * It seems to me you do a lot of good work in Wikipedia. The time you take to react to questionable edits and revert them is very impressive, as is your total activity. I'm not sure that I would have reverted the addition to Suburb however.


 * Reverting and speedy deletions are never going to be non-controversial and I thought you dealt well with the comments made by other angry editors on your talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review. Following up on your comment, please examine that reversion on Suburb a bit closer. I reverted it because it spoke of people having to drive further to work..."prior to the 19th century". (At least, that's how it read to me.) I also note that no one has changed the article since that reversion, which may argue for the veracity of my reversion. I'll leave that decision to another reader. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From my interactions with you and observations, I've found that you are one of the more friendlier Wikipedians around here who don't always react vehemently to negative comments or personal criticism. Especially given the work you've done, countervandalism and all, civility and openness is key to maintaining your valuable presence on the wiki and your interactions with your fellows; why someday, you may make a great admin yet. TeleComNasSprVen (talk &bull; contribs) 00:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)