Wikipedia:Editor review/Neckername

Neckername
STATEMENT Proud Gamer (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My primary contributions to Wikipedia are in the technical field, specifically in PC related subjects (hardware and software). I stay on top of recent technological changes through a few magazine subscriptions and newscasts/pod casts. Therefore, I have invested in my hobby (of PC building) and am willing to contribute as much as possible to spread the information for easy access over Wikipedia. I am particularly pleased with Wikipedia in the area of catching and removing vandalism. It used to be horrible on here (in terms of educational research), but now, literally within seconds most vandalism is caught. That is why I am very satisfied to be part of one of the most well known hosts of information and information sources.
 * 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 have been lucky not to be involved in any editing disputes. I try to add information that is backed by multiple credible sources, which helps avoid these situations. I may have never had to deal with an editing dispute, but I have ran the scenario in my head many times on how I would handle such a situation. First, I would try and contact the editor in a non-hostile fashion, then I would ask why he or she feels the way they do. After, I would explain why I edited how I did. After this I would consider the other side of the dispute and do some more research to verify my information. If my information was true, then I would show the other editor this information and the sources to prove my information is correct. If not, I would easily admit where I was wrong and show them the reason why I posted that information. Then, if it had not been done already, I would remove my edit.
 * I have been lucky not to be involved in any editing disputes. I try to add information that is backed by multiple credible sources, which helps avoid these situations. I may have never had to deal with an editing dispute, but I have ran the scenario in my head many times on how I would handle such a situation. First, I would try and contact the editor in a non-hostile fashion, then I would ask why he or she feels the way they do. After, I would explain why I edited how I did. After this I would consider the other side of the dispute and do some more research to verify my information. If my information was true, then I would show the other editor this information and the sources to prove my information is correct. If not, I would easily admit where I was wrong and show them the reason why I posted that information. Then, if it had not been done already, I would remove my edit.

 Reviews 
 * I like your style, as described above! Very sensible and well-thought out way of handling theoretical disputes. Although you don't seem to leave many edit summaries (but you're not alone there ;), your contributions are very helpful and your interactions with others are civil. In the words of Yogi Bear, you're one of the good ones! :) Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)