Wikipedia:Editor review/Sleddog116

Sleddog116
I've been on Wikipedia for about a year and a half now and have contributed a little over 800 edits. I would like to be reviewed because I would like to eventually (though not yet) perform sysop work on Wikipedia, and I'd like to know where I need to gain experience. I've had a few recent missteps in areas where I had never worked before - I had some (resolved) image licensing problems, and I misunderstood a few of the CSD criteria. Sleddog116 (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I edit just about any article I come across that is in need of cleanup, but my primary contributions are to articles related to weather and spaceflight. I also frequently watch the new users log and welcome new contributors, and clean up vandalism where I see it.  I am probably most pleased, however, with my contributions at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, where I actually feel most useful.
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * As someone who assists at DRN, I have been a neutral third-party to quite a few disputes. I was actively involved in one dispute, however, at Insanity defense, before I understood the dispute resolution process; in spite of my lack of knowledge of the WP process, I still feel like I conducted myself with decorum (for the most part), and the issue was resolved to the satisfaction of both me and the other editor.  If I were involved in a dispute in the future, I would likely try to discuss it on the article's talk page and, failing that, request comments or a third opinion (both of which I have done).  If the issue was not then resolved satisfactorily, I'd likely just edit somewhere else or go to WP:DRN as a disputant.
 * As someone who assists at DRN, I have been a neutral third-party to quite a few disputes. I was actively involved in one dispute, however, at Insanity defense, before I understood the dispute resolution process; in spite of my lack of knowledge of the WP process, I still feel like I conducted myself with decorum (for the most part), and the issue was resolved to the satisfaction of both me and the other editor.  If I were involved in a dispute in the future, I would likely try to discuss it on the article's talk page and, failing that, request comments or a third opinion (both of which I have done).  If the issue was not then resolved satisfactorily, I'd likely just edit somewhere else or go to WP:DRN as a disputant.

 Reviews 


 * I haven't had any direct interactions with Sleddog116 but I have seen several of his edits in various spots, and I just looked at a couple of dozen more before writing this. I think he (she?) has just the right touch - friendly and helpful with confused newbies and firm but fair with some of our more *cough* "aggressive" editors. Here is a good example of this. In this edit Sleddog116 treats the editor with respect and kindness, while at the same time making it crystal clear what the prospects are for that user actually getting Wikipedia to remove all images of Muhammad. On the other hand. take a look at this message to a newbie; here we see a welcoming and friendly attitude. The firm-but-fair attitude which was so appropriate in the previous example would have been wrong here. In other words, Sleddog116 "gets it" --Guy Macon (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)