Wikipedia:Editor review/Taelus

Taelus
I have been an editor on Wikipedia for over 4 years now, however 3.5 of those were spent as many dynamic IP address doing small article work here and there. As my userpage says, I eventually encountered a blocked IP, so I dug up this old account again and then decided that after so much time I should dive into "behind the scenes" work to help out, and learn the policies better. As you might assume from me having spent so long editing under IP addresses, I do struggle to be bold at times and for a long time was worried about breaking the wiki, although I am now making bold edits here and there, but still have my uncertainties. Thus I thought I would request an editor review, am I being too bold sometimes, or am I not being bold enough in places? Also I would like feedback in general as currently I help out in AfD, RfD, PROD, New page patrol, Random page patrol and WP:VG, and would appreciate any comments that could help me improve my work in such areas. Thanks in advance. Taelus (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My primary contributions are small article edits, with about 50% of all my edits being to the article namespace. Whilst the majority of these are clean-up or small content changes, I have written an article: Console exclusivity which I am quite pleased with, and I helped re-write Warcraft (series) to include more references, and to lose its in-universe tone. I have also contributed to several other video game pages with chunks here and there, and have helped to add references to many pages I see across AfD and when patrolling. Outside of article work, my primary work is probably with redirect discussion, as I feel particularly motivated to help here as during my 4 years I have met many strange and confusing redirects. However, my project work is spread out over several areas as stated above.
 * 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?
 * The one which comes to mind would be when I saw some video game news on Gamespot as soon as it was posted, and thought I would be bold and add it into World of Warcraft. Unfortunately I did make a mistake and gave it undue weight by placing it in the lead section, rather than a subsection, and thus my contribution was reverted which upset me somewhat. The involved editors and I then proceeded to move around the information and change it whilst discussing on the talk page. Thankfully by the end of the day when everyone took a step back we could all see that our passionate editing, and very fast Bold, Revert, Discuss movement had led to the best middle ground, and apologies and thanks were given all around for the potential hurt feelings that passionate editing can give. In retrospect, I suspect that alot of the problem was misunderstanding, as the sourced citation was changed three times quite quickly after it came out, making the debate of "Thats not what the cite says!" quite difficult. All is well that ends well of course, although at the time it did dent my enthusiasm a bit as in a way I felt my feelings were too fragile for bold content edits, but thankfully in retrospect I can see it worked out positively.
 * The one which comes to mind would be when I saw some video game news on Gamespot as soon as it was posted, and thought I would be bold and add it into World of Warcraft. Unfortunately I did make a mistake and gave it undue weight by placing it in the lead section, rather than a subsection, and thus my contribution was reverted which upset me somewhat. The involved editors and I then proceeded to move around the information and change it whilst discussing on the talk page. Thankfully by the end of the day when everyone took a step back we could all see that our passionate editing, and very fast Bold, Revert, Discuss movement had led to the best middle ground, and apologies and thanks were given all around for the potential hurt feelings that passionate editing can give. In retrospect, I suspect that alot of the problem was misunderstanding, as the sourced citation was changed three times quite quickly after it came out, making the debate of "Thats not what the cite says!" quite difficult. All is well that ends well of course, although at the time it did dent my enthusiasm a bit as in a way I felt my feelings were too fragile for bold content edits, but thankfully in retrospect I can see it worked out positively.

 Reviews 


 * Hi Taelus, sorry for the delay in getting a review for you - we're slowly catching up with the backlog! On to my review...


 * User conduct
 * Edit summaries: Used pretty much all the time, useful comments left so that page watchers can see what you have done!
 * Constructive comments on talk pages: Your comments are well thought-out from what I can see, and constructive - being with a clear target of improving Wikipedia
 * Attitude towards others: Again, well thought out comments, explaining what is you are doing or what you would like others to do. I didn't see any evidence of incivility or sharpness.


 *  Edits
 * Automated Edits: 10% of your edits are using Twinkle or Friendly - and there seems to be an accurate use of these tools
 * Article vs non-article: Almost 47% of your edits are to articles, with a further 10% on article talk pages, and 15% on user talk pages - and a further 22% on "Wikipedia" space - mainly Redirects for Discussion (an area which can be a bit neglected at times by many editors) and WP:VG - a good mix of edits, and they look good to me!


 * Summary
 * Too bold or not bold enough: I think you've struck the right balance!
 * I think you are doing well - continue with the kind of things that you are doing!


 * Regards, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)