Wikipedia:Editor review/Omegatron

User:Omegatron
I've been an admin for almost two years. Lately I've found myself in a lot of tense disputes, and I hate it. I checked my edit count the other day and was dismayed to see that several of my top-edited articles are only due to these disputes; not because I'm especially interested in those topics. Then yesterday I typed in ALL CAPS in an edit summary (something I absolutely despise when others do it), and am therefore checking myself into rehab. I don't think I'm being uncivil or breaking rules, but I'm not sure I'm contributing to an idyllic, cooperative atmosphere, either.

I am looking for feedback on the way I've been handling myself lately (don't just criticize; give me concrete examples of things I could have done better), and advice on how to lower my blood pressure while still saving the world. ;-) — Omegatron 02:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Come-on. You got a bunch of wiki-scars. That's all. Keep-up the good work. Take off some stuff from your watchlist and enjoy some beautiful things. --Ligulem 23:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But if I take stressful things off my watchlist, the barbarians will take over and the world will end! — Omegatron 23:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

 Comments 

 Questions
 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
 * A quick look, not a review, shows that you are a good editor. However, I compare you a little bit to pschemp (in case you have not worked with her, she is an admin also).  I got into a slight dispute with her a bit back, and I became bitter.  But the other day I've found myself defending her practices.  I told an upset user that "Her methods may be unorthdox and may be unliked by many, but she is a very good editor and administrator and contributes greatly to Wikipedia."  This seems to describe you as well.  I think it may be wise to cool down a little, but it is not necessary.  I find that you seem to be a good contributor already and should keep up your good work. Cbrown1023 03:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. I find the fact that you are doing this in the first place to be a big plus and it seems that you are at least aware of your faults, if any. It shows you have taken an initiative to do better, which is a very good adminly (is that even word?) thing to do. Cbrown1023 03:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What little direct contact I have had with Omegatron has been in a most professional, helpful, and courteous manner. Indirectly, I seem to see Omegatron everywhere reverting vandals, fixing markups, bringing common sense and wisdom to discussion pages and doing exactly what an admin is supposed to do.  While it is indeed forthright to submit oneself to this process, I don't really see a need for it.  Omegatron you are an inspiration to new editors such as myself.  Keep up the great work. L0b0t 15:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * Hmmm...
 * I once met a girl who had found Wikipedia very helpful in writing a research paper, who was amazed when she found out I had written much of the Thermoelectric effect article she had been using. The best feeling is hearing coworkers read off articles to each other without knowing I've contributed to them, or seeing articles used in online debates.
 * There was an old newsgroup posting of dubious authority that was passed around and around about the different colors of noise. I converted it into an article, which has since become infinitely superior, with references, up-to-date facts, sound clips, and images.
 * Articles that are mostly my work (because they are too technical or obscure for others to contribute much): SICI, Gyrator
 * I've also done site-fixing things like making the loudspeaker icon clickable for, rewriting the Listen templates for accessibility, and adding the icon after PDF links (in some browsers, at least...)
 * 1) Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress?
 * Absolutely. That's the focus of this review.  Recent disputish concerns:
 * Most recent comments on my talk
 * See history of Reliable sources
 * Otheruses template
 * Talk:Renewable energy (nuclear stuff)
 * Articles for deletion/Kryder's law (second nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Kryder's law (second nomination)