Wikipedia:Editor review/Petiatil

Petiatil
I would like the input of other users in regards to my editing, because I edit a lot of articles that have been vandalized, and would like to know if I'm keeping a NPOV. Additionally, I would like to hear any ideas on other areas I could contribute, because I don't really know where to go from [reverting vandals] here. I'm very open to suggestions and welcome criticism. petiatil &raquo;User &raquo;Contribs 02:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * In general I typically only fight vandalism, using various tools. Recently I've started using Auto Wiki Browser to go through pages and find errors, etc. Generally I pride myself on reviewing edits through Huggle, because I've found that a lot of people tend to make nonsensical edits. Other than that, I find myself reading a lot on en.wiki and traditionally will correct typos if I discover them and also added tags/templates to articles.
 * 1) Have you been in any disputes 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?
 * Generally I try to stay neutral by using templates while warning users and only if necessary will I actually comment on a talk page (particularly user talk pages) to help clarify why I've reverted something or removed content. Generally the edit disputes I've encountered tend to be related to removing additions of [dubious] unsourced content, and some users don't understand our policy on reliable sources and including an informative edit summary especially if removing content.
 * Generally I try to stay neutral by using templates while warning users and only if necessary will I actually comment on a talk page (particularly user talk pages) to help clarify why I've reverted something or removed content. Generally the edit disputes I've encountered tend to be related to removing additions of [dubious] unsourced content, and some users don't understand our policy on reliable sources and including an informative edit summary especially if removing content.

 Reviews 


 * All in all, I would say you are a great contributor to the project. You have done a great many vandalism reversions and csd nominations. Your editing rate is impressive- over 1300 edits in February!  I hope you keep it up!  However, I do have a few recommendations to further your work on the project.  On the deletion theme, I think you should definitely get involved at WP:AFD.  I would also recommend more content work- from what I can tell (although I may have missed something in reviewing your contributions), you haven't really contributed any significant amount of content.  No content work is fine- do what you love- but you may want to try working on a few articles, even if just to better understand the other editors on this project.  Lastly, I would also recommend that you work on communication with other editors.  You don't seem to make many comments on talk pages (except user warnings).  In reading through your talk page, I noticed a few flustered new users asking you to stop reverting their good faith edits.  While it was mostly content that deserved deletion, in a few cases it was in good faith.  I noticed just recently you telling a user that though their content and link were good, they weren't formating the link properly and that it would be deleted- if not by you, by someone else.  I would recommend that in that situation you take the new editor under your wing and either format the link for them or direct them to WP:MOS.  Please don't take offense at what may appear to be a negative review.  On the contrary, I think you are a great editor.  You have really done some great things here and I wouldn't be surprised to see you at WP:Rfa soon.  Good luck, and keep editing! E♴ (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Review by VictorianMutant:
 * Civility towards the community: As E♴ said, don't bite the newbies. I'm kinda sensitive to that myself since I'm sort of a newbie (although I edited as an IP for a long time).
 * Article contributions: I'd like to challenge you: find an article which needs work and make it your masterpiece. Doesn't matter what topic, just find it and turn it into the best article that it can be. Vandal fighting is important and can be "fun" at times, but the ultimate gratification(on wikipedia at least) is building an article. Some people may be a little intimidated by it or afraid people won't like it, but the more you do it- the better you become at writing articles.
 * Edit count analysis: As mentioned above, try to do more work with article writing. Maybe some more work with AfD would be helpful, but first I would concentrate on article writing.
 * RfA-worthiness: With some more work with building articles and eventually AfD and other areas, I would gladly support you in an RfA.
 * Final thoughts: I just noticed that according to your user page, you are from Lakeland. I myself grew up in Bartow and do a ton of work on Polk County articles. If you need suggestions of articles to work on close to home, I could give a few. But do find that article which is crying out your name and make it a great article even if it means staying away from vandal fighting for a while... don't worry- someone else will pick up the slack. Thanks for your hard work and dedication. VictorianMutant (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Overall I think you are a great editor and have made great contributions to Wikipedia. Your edit summaries are informative and you've done a great job catching vandalism. My only criticism is you weren't very nice to me when I removed info that was clearly false, especially considering I was new to Wikipedia. I agree with others that you could try adding content to articles, however dealing with vandalism is very important. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! Bobertoq (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)