Wikipedia:Editor review/Nardman1

Nardman1
I wonder what people think of me and my edits. I do have a bit of a temper, and sometimes I let it show when I leave comments. I do think though that overall I contribute positively to the encyclopedia and I would like to become an administrator some day. Nardman1 04:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 

Overall, you're doing well. I notice from your answer below, and from your talk page, that you sometimes come to the brink of conflict with other editors, but you catch yourself in time. I haven't found a case where you violated policy regarding civility. Nonetheless, there is room for you to improve - try to go out of your way to explain to other editors why you are taking any kind of controversial actions.

Also, your mainspace edits are lower than what I would expect from someone with your experience. You have about 600 mainspace edits, 600 user talk, 1000 Wikipedia, and small numbers elsewhere. There has to be some subject that you know well enough to write about in detail. If there isn't, you could search through WikiProjects, the community portal, or the cleanup backlog. You could benefit from becoming a more well-rounded editor.

I think you're not ready for adminship yet. (I speak as an RFA veteran - I'd probably support you, but you won't get the 75% consensus if you apply tomorrow.) Your Wikipedia space edits, at AIV and AFD, are enough to show your understanding of policy, but as I said you should build up your mainspace edits and a record of more positive interactions with editors, and apply in another month or two. I wish you good luck. YechielMan 02:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - completely control your temper and frustrations. Here's a suggestion that may help: when you are staring at a negatively charged comment which you have written, cut and paste it to a text file on your computer and let it sit there for awhile. Later (preferably the next day), read it again and see if you still agree with it. Chances are you will by that time you will have a new and more positive outlook on the situation. At that time, you should be ready to write a message in a more diplomatic fashion. Good luck. The Transhumanist 19:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 


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


 * View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

 Questions

1 Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why? 2 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?
 * I think it's the little things, like finding the image Image:Gerri_Santoro_with_sister_Leona.jpg on WP:IFD and rescuing it from deletion. I added it and a companion orphaned image to the Gerri Santoro article. Sometimes Wikipedia's policies frustrate me. I don't believe it's a fair use image, because the family released it with what is essentially a free license, except they ask that their daughter's image not be used to push an abortion POV. After the IFD this was changed to fair use. I have found nothing in the image guidelines suggesting a free license can't prohibit fraudulent uses of an image--such as would occur by using the picture of a woman who died from a self-abortion to advertise against abortion. This reminds me of another image I properly sourced and even found a higher res version of Commons:Image:Cow-on_pole%2C_with_horns.jpeg. I wish I could point to an article I've brought to featured status, but I haven't really done a whole article re-write. Instead I usually do behind the scenes types of tasks, watching what others write. Nardman1 05:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I most recently experienced stress from a user named User:LegoAxiom1007 who was posting a lot of helpmes and was being generally annoying. Most editors believed he was a newbie and said not to bite him, but I saw his first edit was to his monobook.js. I pushed hard at WP:CN about him until he got banned. I think I took that case way too personally.
 * Another conflict I had recently was with an editor who insisted on removing his girlfriend's birthday from an article, even though she was a celebrity. After realizing it was just going to turn into an edit war, I posted at ANI. They pointed out that she wasn't really a big celebrity, and that really personal information is only really permissible in the articles of really big celebrities, so I dropped it.
 * One conflict I had that was really funny: At the end of the article Funday Pawpet Show there are links to blogs of the various characters. One editor thought they were inappropriate external links and didn't get what I meant when I said they were actually primary sources. He awarded me a barnstar when I tactfully pointed out to him that the characters were fictional, making their blogs primary material in the fictional universe they existed in. He believed they were real people!
 * In the future I plan to discuss things more rather than argue with people, because talking to people gets you farther and it helps you understand their human motivations as editors. Well, talk to the non vandals anyway. The vandals get to go bye-bye. Nardman1 05:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)