Wikipedia:Editor review/RUL3R

RUL3R
As I am approaching my 1000th edit, I would like comment on my contributions so far. Wikipedia is both amusing and upsetting. I try to take it as a hobby, but I would like to know how good am I at it. - RUL3R *trolling *vandalism 20:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Review by &oelig; &trade;

Up until now it looks like you have been showing the typical pattern of a valuable editor with a good future.. you start with the gnomish cleanup edits, learn a little about policy, start participating in discussions, then start getting a little more bold, and if you stay on this pace pretty soon you'll be right in there voting at RfA's, on the road to becoming an admin yourself. After reviewing your edits I do see potential in you. Although you just recently started becoming more active I'm pleased to see a good distribution of edits in various namespaces and participation in AfD's. And keep adding references! That's about the best way to quickly improve an article. I trust you've put the Scientology issues behind you and I see you've maintained your cool throughout that situation which is a plus, but it may be best for you to just take the Scientology article off your watchlist, I know how hard it can be to maintain an objective neutral point of view when dealing with a subject that's important to you, and how easy it can be to get into disputes over it. The best advice I can give you is learn from your mistakes! Study what other more experience Wikipedians do, heed their advice and take their suggestions. But above all you have to have fun! This is meant to be an enjoyable hobby.. remember what got you hooked in the first place and keep in mind that once it starts becoming a chore then it loses its appeal, you lose your enthusiasm, the quality of your edits may slip, and Wikipedia suffers for it. If something starts getting to you just let it go. Regards, &oelig; &trade; 02:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * Initially my contributions were about slight cleanups, in format or refencing. But lately, I have preferred taking part in discussion about material to be added, since I have found that most changes require some kind of consensus. I try to be bold in edits. If I know the topic and I belive a ref is needed somewhere, I add it, but I mostly reword articles for the sake of prose. I currently feel fine about the slight additions I made to the Monterrey article, and the tweaking I am making into E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (video game).
 * 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 few a while back, specially when editing Scientology. I have found that most editors, while clearly annoyed or angry by the edits I intially made, mantained civililty. While it was kind of a huge issue for me, that made it easy to follow. After reading certain policies (and being given a final warning), I decided to take WP:SNOW and WP:COI, and so I limited my Scientology-editing only to reverting blatant vandalism, or slight rewording of what currently is written. This gave me some experience on consensus, and so, slight dispute resolutions I have found from there on have been resolved by requesting third party comments, or in extremes, reporting to an admin.
 * A few a while back, specially when editing Scientology. I have found that most editors, while clearly annoyed or angry by the edits I intially made, mantained civililty. While it was kind of a huge issue for me, that made it easy to follow. After reading certain policies (and being given a final warning), I decided to take WP:SNOW and WP:COI, and so I limited my Scientology-editing only to reverting blatant vandalism, or slight rewording of what currently is written. This gave me some experience on consensus, and so, slight dispute resolutions I have found from there on have been resolved by requesting third party comments, or in extremes, reporting to an admin.