Wikipedia:Editor review/Nightscream

User:Nightscream
I've been an editor since 3/05 with about 4,000 edits under my belt, and a number of created articles. I've been in some edit conflicts, but I've tried to conduct myself with objectivity, honesty and civility. I'd like the ability to respond to vandalism more decisively, and to set a greater example for other editors, particularly in the promotion and enforcement of the Good Faith and Civility policies, which I see too many people ignoring. Nightscream 11:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 *  TBC Φ  talk?  's Review:
 * Positives
 * Great work on improving, writing, and maintaining articles, especially those dealing with popular culture.
 * Nice job working on images as well. They seem to be correct sourced and tagged.
 * Suggestions
 * You need a lot more project edits. For example, you could participate in AfD, Peer Review, or the RC Patrol.
 * "Enforcing" users to assume good faith is, ironically, not assuming good faith. See Assume the assumption of good faith.


 * Hello, Nightscream, how are you doing? Here is my review, hopefully you will find it useful.
 * I would like to point out that your user page is somewhat strange. I see duplicated sections (in example, the Image:ConanAndyCaricature.jpg image appears several times. I think you are transcluding your user page within your user page, see if you find a User:Nightscream somewhere, which is usually the reason.
 * Now, you did not state you were aiming to become an administrator, so I won't tell you that you need more project edits. Article WikiGnomes like you and me enjoy their time working with articles, doing small modifications until they become good. I can understand that. Your statistics are pretty even through the full year, at around 200-250 edits per month in average. It is obvious you had settled yourself at that pace, and there is no need to ask from you more edits per month, as that may burn you out. As I say, some do an average of 500, others 2000 edits per month. The average should make the editor happy, giving him enough time inside and outside Wikipedia, and it is good to meet an editor who spends in Wikipedia the needed time, no more, no less. I saw what you answered at TBC's comment, but since you did not modify your original request, I am guessing you are not that interested in adminship.
 * Also, remember that Wikipedia is not a web hosting. Try to make every image you upload in Wikipedia count, by using it somewhere. You can upload extra images at Wikimedia Commons.
 * As with others, I ask not to use "rv", as it can't be understood by new users. Instead, try using "reverted" or "reverted vandalism" if necessary.
 * You have not been blocked since your early days around, which implies you have understood the different policies at Wikipedia. The fact that it was a 3RR violation won't affect your future chances of adminship were you interested in them, as it is a "understandable" offense for new users.
 * I notice several uploaded fair use images. Note that images like Image:JoRhodes.jpg, Image:PamLing.jpg, Image:MohammedBilal.jpg, Image:MohammedBilal2.jpg, Image:CoryMurphy.jpg and fair use images of living persons are usually tagged with replaceable fair use or fair use replace, as it is possible to obtain free images. You should use a fair use rationale for every fair use image you upload. Note that Image:MohammedBilal.jpg, which you replaced with Image:MohammedBilal2.jpg, should be tagged with orfud (as in ). Image:HarmonMeadowMap.jpg may have the wrong license (if you take a pic of a map in a book, it it not yours to give away, it continues to be copyrighted by the owner). I suggest either sending it to Possibly unfree images, or ask at Fair use to see if you have tagged it correctly. Also, I have tagged Image:Blood&Water1.jpg and Image:Flash109.jpg with fair use reduce, you should either tag with that any other image that is too big fair use image (in example, having the "Download high resolution" message). That is because fair use images should be only as big as necessary according to our fair use criteria.
 * Your edit summary usage is good for major, but only 35% for minor edits. By the way, mathbot had to retrieve 3500 edits to get a good amount of minor edits. I found 231 minor edits in almost 4000 edits, but only 2 in October and 3 in September. Try to mark minor edits as, well, minor edits, as some users have set an option in their preferences to not see them.
 * Finally, you have a good enough amount of user talk and article talk edits, showing a good interaction with other users in the last time.
 * A comment: I don't see how these edits could be considered vandalism. However, I don't know about the topic, so I am just pointing out that vandalism is usually associated to blatant vandalism, and if that was misinformation or other kind of vandalism, you should name it appropriately in the edit summary. Finally, consider checking the warning templates, as it will save you some typing time when warning vandalism.
 * Closing, I believe you have a advanced quite a lot since your first contributions, learning from our policies and guidelines, and applying them when able. I would agree with TBC that telling others to assume good faith can be misunderstood, especially by new users. Due your behaviour, you could consider joining Esperanza or Concordia, two groups that are focused on making users welcomed, and trying to help others. As for your contributions, they are pretty good. You can consider requesting some more feedback at requests for feedback or peer review to know how to improve the articles even further, possibly to make them good articles. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 02:58, 5 November 2006 (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'd say the contributions I've listed on my user page, because they're the ones that either required a lot of hard work, or are on subjects of interest to me.
 * 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?
 * I have been in edit conflicts in the past, but in such cases, I always try to conduct myself with logic and reason, and without responding to uncivil behavior by others with similar behavior on my part (and indeed, I have been attacked thus many times). Even when people accused me of vandalism (as when shortly after I became an editor, a number of other editors disagreed with my edits on Wolverine (comics)), I don't respond in kind.  I respond directly to others' statements, and always providing the underlying logic or reason as to why I agree or disagree with their position, and politely point out to them that they're violating WP's rules on Good Faith and Civility.  I will continue to deal any such behavior in the future in the same way.  I wouldn't say that such conflicts cause me much "stress", since these things are to be expected among the anonymous crowd of the Net, and since I'm fairly dispassionate, and have dealt with many such people over the years, it hardly ever gets to me.
 * I have been in edit conflicts in the past, but in such cases, I always try to conduct myself with logic and reason, and without responding to uncivil behavior by others with similar behavior on my part (and indeed, I have been attacked thus many times). Even when people accused me of vandalism (as when shortly after I became an editor, a number of other editors disagreed with my edits on Wolverine (comics)), I don't respond in kind.  I respond directly to others' statements, and always providing the underlying logic or reason as to why I agree or disagree with their position, and politely point out to them that they're violating WP's rules on Good Faith and Civility.  I will continue to deal any such behavior in the future in the same way.  I wouldn't say that such conflicts cause me much "stress", since these things are to be expected among the anonymous crowd of the Net, and since I'm fairly dispassionate, and have dealt with many such people over the years, it hardly ever gets to me.