Wikipedia:Editor review/Nihiltres

Nihiltres
I've been a contributor to Wikipedia for a while, and think that I'm competent enough that I could make a request for adminship sometime, especially to help with backlogs. I don't think, however, that I'd pass an RfA, so I thought that it might be a good idea if I were to undergo editor review to find areas in which I need to improve before attempting an RfA. Nihiltres 18:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Ok. First I will say that your Wikipedia edits may be a bit too little for some people's liking since you are planning to become an admin. Lots of RfA voters like to see a good deal of Wikipedia edits, so it is a good idea to get some more of those. I like the work you have done on vandalism and silly pages, but on the talk page of the author of How Do Pigs Get To Hospital?, you neglected to give a note that you put page up for speedy deletion. Maybe you don't need to tell users that you put their pages up for speedy deletion, but it is probably a good idea just so that the user knows his or her page might be deleted. Captain   panda  23:51, 17 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?
 * My number one favourite would have to be Shade's Children, a novel that I really liked. With help from other editors, it's gone from an inaccurate and misleading stub article to a decent B-class article, although my research for sources with which to improve the article hasn't turned up much. I have made many more edits to that article than any other editor, and I continue to improve it, although it could use some work. Nihiltres 22:38, 16 April 2007 (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?
 * A long time ago, I was involved in a Request for Arbitration since I had tried unsuccessfully to mediate a dispute that grew out of control - I don't remember how I handled that, but since I was only involved tangentially and I was a newbie, I'd prefer to ignore that case. More recently, I tried standardizing the spelling of some colour articles, both to "colour", with reasonable justification. Unfortunately, my edits sparked some annoyance among other editors who thought I merely wanted to change it to the Commonwealth spelling, which happens to be my preferred spelling as a Canadian. I justified my actions and allowed users to standardize the articles according to the Manual of Style's policy, which resulted in both articles being standardized - my original intent. My current conflict (unfortunately, I have a current conflict) is with an anonymous user who seems to be a logged-out registered user, who is pushing his own version of a group of articles at Photoshopping, Photoshop contest, and Photoshop tennis. He ignored consensus, assumed bad faith, and made personal attacks. I responded by trying to reason with him, until the point that his actions were clearly vandalism as defined by Wikipedia's policy. At that point, I warned him, and the main page we disagreed upon was protected. He waited until it was unprotected and resumed pushing a version. I've been working towards consensus with other users on the talk page of the articles in question, and encouraging the user to be constructive. He has been blocked for a month for other reasons, so I think that the article cleanup and merging/moving in progress will be finished when he is unblocked. I have no qualms with ignoring his opinion at this point since he seems to be the only person in objection to the current consensus. In other words, I think that I'm reasonably good at dealing with edit conflicts, although I much prefer to avoid them, since our project here is to improve an encyclopedia rather than to work out arguments. Nihiltres 22:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A long time ago, I was involved in a Request for Arbitration since I had tried unsuccessfully to mediate a dispute that grew out of control - I don't remember how I handled that, but since I was only involved tangentially and I was a newbie, I'd prefer to ignore that case. More recently, I tried standardizing the spelling of some colour articles, both to "colour", with reasonable justification. Unfortunately, my edits sparked some annoyance among other editors who thought I merely wanted to change it to the Commonwealth spelling, which happens to be my preferred spelling as a Canadian. I justified my actions and allowed users to standardize the articles according to the Manual of Style's policy, which resulted in both articles being standardized - my original intent. My current conflict (unfortunately, I have a current conflict) is with an anonymous user who seems to be a logged-out registered user, who is pushing his own version of a group of articles at Photoshopping, Photoshop contest, and Photoshop tennis. He ignored consensus, assumed bad faith, and made personal attacks. I responded by trying to reason with him, until the point that his actions were clearly vandalism as defined by Wikipedia's policy. At that point, I warned him, and the main page we disagreed upon was protected. He waited until it was unprotected and resumed pushing a version. I've been working towards consensus with other users on the talk page of the articles in question, and encouraging the user to be constructive. He has been blocked for a month for other reasons, so I think that the article cleanup and merging/moving in progress will be finished when he is unblocked. I have no qualms with ignoring his opinion at this point since he seems to be the only person in objection to the current consensus. In other words, I think that I'm reasonably good at dealing with edit conflicts, although I much prefer to avoid them, since our project here is to improve an encyclopedia rather than to work out arguments. Nihiltres 22:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)