Wikipedia:Editor review/Nate1481

Nate1481
General review, just want to know if I am working along the right lines as i'm on here far to much. Nate1481(t/c) 10:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * I think you have been a substantial benefit towards Martial Arts on Wikipedia. Thank you for helping improve these articles.   RogueNinja talk  19:16, 20 February 2008 (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've done a lot of bits and bobs for the martial arts project the MA Template (which was collaborative) where I did a lot of the implementation of ideas and the MA notability criteria (still need that upgraded to a guideline) I have been very happy with the results.
 * I also did a complete re-write of Black belt (martial arts) which seems to have worked after getting secondary input from other in the MA project, still needs refs though... --Nate1481(t/c) 11:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * The 'Barry Ley' incident which started with possibly well intentioned but incorrect edits to Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and spiralled into damaging other articles as he attempted to revert every edit I made. Generally if i get realy frustrated it is due to someone not following the guidelines and polices so i try to explain it and/or involve other members of a relevent project and if they refuse to agree refer it to an admin. There have been some other editing conflicts but they usually get worked out on the talk page (p.s. I've probably missed something glaringly stupid I've done that really should have been here)--Nate1481(t/c) 11:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm concerned that your personal biases seem to be affecting your editing of biography pages - most notably your use of the citation tag every three words on the Stephen K. Hayes page, (do you *really* need a citation for the fact that the man has two daughters or moved to Japan?) - or other aspects that seem readily verifiable, and don't seem to be required elsewhere on other bio's. Can you explain your reasoning (please include reference to the dicussion held last year where this was previously dealt with, and why you both disagree with the opinions of the other page editors, and chose to ignore the discussion on the talk page regarding the matter, and act unilaterally with complete disregard for the pages regular editors).Jikaku (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion did not take into account wikipedia's verifiability policy. I added too many tags after my initial tagging was removed as 'vandalism' and have now removed the excess. This was the wrong way to go about it and I over reacted. I don't however see how personal bias come into it, I regularly tag pages with multiple contentious statements, in this case I used sourcing from a previous version rather than just tagging it as needed. My view is that if you draw someone's attention to the need, they are far better placed to find relevent sources with their knowledge of the subject. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm concerned that your personal biases seem to be affecting your editing of biography pages - most notably your use of the citation tag every three words on the Stephen K. Hayes page, (do you *really* need a citation for the fact that the man has two daughters or moved to Japan?) - or other aspects that seem readily verifiable, and don't seem to be required elsewhere on other bio's. Can you explain your reasoning (please include reference to the dicussion held last year where this was previously dealt with, and why you both disagree with the opinions of the other page editors, and chose to ignore the discussion on the talk page regarding the matter, and act unilaterally with complete disregard for the pages regular editors).Jikaku (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion did not take into account wikipedia's verifiability policy. I added too many tags after my initial tagging was removed as 'vandalism' and have now removed the excess. This was the wrong way to go about it and I over reacted. I don't however see how personal bias come into it, I regularly tag pages with multiple contentious statements, in this case I used sourcing from a previous version rather than just tagging it as needed. My view is that if you draw someone's attention to the need, they are far better placed to find relevent sources with their knowledge of the subject. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have moved an extended discussion about a particular article to may talk page, as following it on 3 seperate pages was a pain and this was not the correct forum for it.--Nate1481(t/c) 16:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)