Wikipedia:Editor review/Pats1

Pats1
The user planning on nominating me for an RfA has suggested this review for me. I have been editing full-time at Wikipedia since March of 2007 and have gradually become familiar with (and actively used) many of the processes and guidelines for Wikipedia. I strive daily to improve on some of the things I've been weak on, such as edit summaries. Most of my work is divided between anti-vandalism/recent changes monitoring tasks and editing articles and templates associated with WP:NFL.  Pats 1  T / C  00:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 
 * You might want to work on your edit summary's you are currently only giving them about 60% of the time. I personaly do not think that they are that important but good editors will often get opposed on an RFA for not using them. I would sugest going to you preferences and checking the forced edit summary box. -Icewedge 18:32, 27 September 2007 (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 was involved in the overhaul of all NFL roster templates last spring. These, listed at List of current NFL team rosters, I have also maintained on a daily basis with a few other editors for almost 6 months now. I have also worked on re-writes and improvement drives for such pages as 2006 New England Patriots season and San Diego Chargers.
 * 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 will readily admit I have been in multiple situations like this. San Diego Chargers is the major one, where I was involved in an edit conflict with a newer user. I didn't follow WP:BITE as well as I could of, and this regrettably resulted in the page being protected for a certain period of time. This is certainly something I have taken account of in my editing in the four months since. In those months, I have also been a witness to a minor content dispute escalating into an Admin's Noticeboard incident. One of the editors involved I do a lot of NFL editing with and I know from outside of Wikipedia, so I was asked to comment on the situation. And through this, I learned more about WP:POINT, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, and WP:CONSENSUS than I ever have wanted to (I was familiar with all of them prior to the incident, but had only reported users for 3RR). While I was only involved in the original content dispute and not its escalation and repercussions, I followed the situation closely enough to get a very good understanding of what can happen when editing takes a back seat to flamethrowing and perpetual irrelevant and unnecessary disputes.
 * I will readily admit I have been in multiple situations like this. San Diego Chargers is the major one, where I was involved in an edit conflict with a newer user. I didn't follow WP:BITE as well as I could of, and this regrettably resulted in the page being protected for a certain period of time. This is certainly something I have taken account of in my editing in the four months since. In those months, I have also been a witness to a minor content dispute escalating into an Admin's Noticeboard incident. One of the editors involved I do a lot of NFL editing with and I know from outside of Wikipedia, so I was asked to comment on the situation. And through this, I learned more about WP:POINT, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, and WP:CONSENSUS than I ever have wanted to (I was familiar with all of them prior to the incident, but had only reported users for 3RR). While I was only involved in the original content dispute and not its escalation and repercussions, I followed the situation closely enough to get a very good understanding of what can happen when editing takes a back seat to flamethrowing and perpetual irrelevant and unnecessary disputes.