Wikipedia:Editor review/Strdst grl

Strdst grl
I have been editing for more than two years, but I have never received any feedback before and I want to know if I am on the right track. strdst_grl  (call me Stardust) 16:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)  strdst_grl   (call me Stardust) 16:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I contribute mainly to WikiProject Children's literature, on administration tasks as well as articles. I am particularly proud of my work assessing the backlog of unassessed articles, although after a recent bot tagging this category is full again, the creation of the CHERUB task force, and my redesign of the project pages on 21st February. As for articles, I have never acheived a Good or Featured article, but I am still proud of my work on Deutscher Jugendliteraturpreis, Ghostgirl, The Echorium Sequence and its related articles, and, more recently, Marilyn Kaye. I also just finished creating the subcategories at Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption.
 * 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?
 * I have never really been in an edit dispute, as the articles I edit are generally neglected and not regularly visited. However, some of my suggestions at WikiProject Children's literature have led to complaints from other users, particularly the bot tagging of articles needing infoboxes, which many users complained was unneccessary and had not achieved consensus. In this case I did my best to remain calm and explain my point of view, and eventually I accepted that my actions were at fault and requested for the bot edits to be reverted.
 * I have never really been in an edit dispute, as the articles I edit are generally neglected and not regularly visited. However, some of my suggestions at WikiProject Children's literature have led to complaints from other users, particularly the bot tagging of articles needing infoboxes, which many users complained was unneccessary and had not achieved consensus. In this case I did my best to remain calm and explain my point of view, and eventually I accepted that my actions were at fault and requested for the bot edits to be reverted.

 Reviews 

I really liked the design & the wording of [Deutscher Jugendliteraturpreis]]. Great writing there. Also, its good that you were able to concede the point regarding the bot edits. Many people would have a hard time admitting that they're at fault. Bladerunner100 (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Review by PrincessofLlyr

I see that you have already been reviewed, but thought I would add my thoughts. Here are a few things I noticed after looking through your userspace and contributions:
 * You are very friendly and helpful new users. Obviously, by the messages on your talk, that is much appreciated.
 * Your work for WikiProject Children's Literature is terrific. I happened to notice you assessing several articles on my watchlist. That would explain the massive number of article talk edits.
 * I think you have done the right thing in trying to remove yourself from editing disputes, particularly if you good reason to not participate in them.
 * The only major suggestion I would make is that you work more in articles. Behind-the-scenes work is necessary, but I think article building is also a very good experience.

I hope these comments help. Feel free to leave any questions or comments here or on my talk page. PrincessofLlyr royal court 02:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment by Belovedfreak
 * I second the comment above about welcoming new users, it's a really good thing to do, as I know I found those welcome links really useful when I first started editing, and I can see that they are appreciated by the messages on your talkpage. One suggestion though, and I know I've mentioned this once before on your talkpage, but it would be even better if you could take a few moments to check on the kinds of contributions that editors are making. I've noticed a few times, even since I last mentioned it, that you have added welcome templates to editors that are only spamming, or who have blatantly promotional usernames. An example from today: User talk:ATSDR. If you look at their contribs, you can see that there are potential problems. Users with names that are clearly against the user name policy should be reported to WP:UAA. If you don't feel comfortable doing that yet, that's ok, you can warn them with uw-username or uw-coi-username. Other users that are spamming can be warned with uw-spam1 etc. Template messages/User talk namespace has a whole range of warning templates, as well as the welcome ones. I realise that perhaps you prefer to welcome users rather than warn them and that's fine too - everyone's a volunteer here and you should only do what you enjoy doing. It's just that if someone's only contributions are detrimental, it can be frustrating to find that the only talkpage communication they've received is a cheerful welcome - after which they just merrily carry on with their problematic edits! I hope this comes across as constructive criticsim - that's how it's intended. Carry on welcoming people though, because that is helping the project!-- Beloved  Freak  19:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)