Wikipedia:Editor review/SGGH 2

User:SGGH
I've had an editor review before, however I have requested a second as I have been thinking about RfA and am interested in what more experienced wikipedians think about my chances. While my statement on my other editor review (Editor review/SGGH) still applies, I have since then taken over leadership of the WikiProject Law Enforcement and begun patrolling recent changes and recently created pages, as well as attempting to resolve editing disputes on pages in the Law Enforcement wikiproject and anywhere else I find them. I've also become an adopter and adopted another user. As for my poorer qualities, I know I have a low number of edits, and I haven't always been summarise them...but I am making sure I do now!SGGH 10:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

 Reviews 

delldot's review: Hi SGGH, you're doing a great job. Some points:
 * You're obviously a serious article contributor. I can tell folks are impressed with your work.  Your talk page is full of people thanking you for the great work you do (e.g. on History of women in the military).  I'm jealous of all your awards!
 * I also notice from your talk page that you are friendly in response to advice, or even abuse from other users a great asset. I couldn't find the edit you mentioned in "edit edit" of question 2: could you link to it (If the above wasn't it)? From what I see of your interaction with other users, you're super friendly, and I'd be surprised if you handled that badly.  I agree that it's not a conflict if only they get abusive: it takes two to fight.
 * I didn't notice a link to a talk page archive on your talk page, but the first note was from like october. Is there an archive, or are you removing comments?  I'd suggest archiving rather than removing, since old comments can still be useful for other users.
 * You seem to make a lot of small changes to an article in a short period of time. Might I suggest using the show preview button more?  It's easier on the servers.  Don't worry about this too much if it would be hard for you though.
 * Your edit summary usage is OK but could improve. You might want to change it in your preferences so it prompts you if you go to save without one.
 * You've been active since about June: Not uber long, but probably long enough for an RFA. You might want to wait a bit.
 * Is your email enabled? Folks sometimes insist on that in an RFA.
 * Another RFA related point: you don't seem to do much RC patrol (correct me if I'm wrong).  Now, I think that's fine, and your skills are probably better used adding content to articles in the area of your expertise (I mean, my cat sometimes does RC patrol, it's not exactly skilled labor).  However, there's this thing in RFA where people want to see that you have a need for the tools, and some folks object if there's no vandal whacking.  Do with this info what you want.
 * Your edits look well spread for an RFA: very good numbers of wiki and wiki talk edits (not that this higher count makes you a better editor, but it will probably count for something in an RFA (sigh)). Huge number of talk edits (do you tag talk pages with templates or something?).  I did notice that you're doing a lot of edits in a row on talk pages, sometimes editing your comments, and sometimes, it looks like, editing those of other users (e.g. ).  I'd use extreme caution when doing that, since it can be confusing for readers and could even seem dishonest to some (though of course, in this case, it's clear that it was not: you were removing items from a to do list that you'd taken care of.  I'd suggest striking out using and rather than removing stuff. But that's awesome that you did all that grunt work to merit removing stuff from the to do list in the first place!)
 * I think the best thing about your contributions is the hard work you do in the article space making substantial contributions. Definitely keep it up.  You're an asset to the project!  delldot | talk 04:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review delldot! In answer to some of your points:

Many thanks
 * "it looks like, editing those of other users", in that case, I was removing the point as I had furfilled that part of the plan that the user in question laid out for the article, but yes I should have used strike through instead, it didn't occur to me at the time.
 * "Huge number of talk edits" I add the Law Enforcement Wikiproject banner to alot of articles that should be in the project.
 * " you don't seem to do much RC patrol " i haven't done many recent changes you are correct (though i will begin soon) at the moment I have been patrolling the new pages log, locating and AfDing where necessary.
 * "Is your email enabled" not sure, will check.
 * "You might want to change it in your preferences so it prompts you if you go to save without one" i didn't know you could do that! Would you mind showing me how to do this?
 * "Is there an archive, or are you removing comments" there isnt an archive no, should I get one? I have been deleting the military history wikiproject newsletter and prods about image tagging because once iv read/dealt with them I was worried about them cluttering up my talk page, I'll try to avoid that in the future and go for archiving. SGGH 12:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd go for archiving, couldn't hurt no matter how trivial the posts are, and otherwise folks might think you're hiding something. You can check out archiving talk pages for more info.
 * Btw, don't worry overly much about not posting multiple times to talk pages; if you save and then think of something else to say, that's perfectly valid. I was just saying if you have a couple things to add, you might want to use the "show preview" button rather than the save page button and do it all at once.
 * For the edit summary prompting thing, you hit "my preferences" at the top of the page, go into the "editing" tab, and it's the last box on the list, "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". You check that and save and you're good.  Keep in touch, definitely let me know if I can be of help or anything.  delldot | talk 15:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

 Questions

''Edit: I didn't get any backlash, so no I haven't ever been in an edit conflict. If I ever was in one, I would step back and look at everything calmly, and if I still disagreed I would say so, politely and in a manner of no-confrontation, on the users talk page. I would still leave my polite "many thanks" or "kind regards" as always.'' ''Edit edit: my first conflict, a user left a rude message on my talk page blaming me for changes to an article that I hadn't actually performed. I hope that I handled it correctly (was told be another user that I did) when i said i was sorry that he disagreed with the changes and then reminded him that wikipedia is a dynamic thing, articles are rewritten all the time and when one writes an article one must expect it to be changed all the time. I also reminded him to be less aggressive next time, but I did it in a nice enough way... SGGH 19:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * While i am still pleased with my ongoing work on the Mozambican War of Independence and my work on History of Women in the Military and Youth Offending Team, I am also pleased to see the growth of the WikiProject Law Enforcement since I joined and was subsequently given leadership. The project has grown from containing two inactive users when I took over, to twenty users with over 600 articles under its belt. I am also enjoying patrolling recent changes, much appreciating the help of Dina.
 * 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?
 * ''While to significant conflicts have arisen, I have had one or two users who, when I tag an article they have created with AfD or wikify or cleanup or something, have left me an abusive message on my talk page no matter how polite I was on theirs... alas... but I don't think that constitutes a conflict. I have recently corrected a mis-rating on a Law enforcement article by a certain user, and having followed him back to his user page I noticed that an edit war was possibly on the horizon between him and another user, and I have just this morning attempted to avoid that by suggesting they disengage from the article in question, so I might get some backlash if they don't appreciate my suggestion...
 * ''While to significant conflicts have arisen, I have had one or two users who, when I tag an article they have created with AfD or wikify or cleanup or something, have left me an abusive message on my talk page no matter how polite I was on theirs... alas... but I don't think that constitutes a conflict. I have recently corrected a mis-rating on a Law enforcement article by a certain user, and having followed him back to his user page I noticed that an edit war was possibly on the horizon between him and another user, and I have just this morning attempted to avoid that by suggesting they disengage from the article in question, so I might get some backlash if they don't appreciate my suggestion...