Wikipedia:Editor review/Terrillja

Terrillja
I passed 5K edits fairly recently (now approaching 7K), and wanted some feedback on how people think I am doing. I started off in August/September mostly doing NPP, but have since changed my philosophies, and have moved on to other areas of the project. I still occasionally patrol new pages, but these days I am involved in other areas like patrolling the user creation logs for WP:U violations as well as users creating multiple alternate accounts, for which I created the template. I am also very involved with the account creation process, something that most users can't see (or don't know about). Recently, I have been checking out WP:AfC, trying to help out with the backlog there and help anon and new users write articles rather than just killing articles. Terrillja talk  18:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

 Reviews 
 * You seem like a great editor who patrols articles and warns users of disruptions. You also seem to be a good article editor. The only thing I recommend is to do more work around WP areas, such as WP:AFD or WP:AIV, or even here at WP:ER. I like the way you handled the situation in your first conflict, its best to talk about arguments instead of edit warring, so if you follow that example in all conflicts, you should have no problems and will be on your way to being one of Wiki's best. -- TRU  CO   22:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would currently support you as an admin per User:A_Nobody in that you have never been blocked and your argument at Articles for deletion/Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends) was reasonable, i.e. you didn't simply say [WP:JNN|nnotable]], but rather also provided a link to a Google search as well. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would not support you as admin. Your recent handling of the Heidi Montag article is all it would take for me to oppose you.  You reverted my addition of an  tag without discussion on the talk page, then after reverting, you left an annoying note on my talk page, rather than at Talk:Heidi Montag, and you did not replace the tag with another tag which might have been better.  Interfering with any attempt to remove unreferenced assertions is counter to each of our core policies, ' and I could not support installing such a person as an admin, and would feel it appropriate to oppose adminship being given. And your reference to having 5000 edits is cute, but completely irrelevant to your suitability as an admin.  If you are behaving globally as you have behaved within my view, there is likely a trail of bad edits in your wake. User:Pedant (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You left a unreferenced template on an article with 37 references without any explanation of what you were seeing as the problem. Not refimprove, not primarysources, but unreferenced. Is it really that horrible to ask you to be more specific with your concerns?-- Terrillja talk  13:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

 Comments 


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

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I have been pleased with my contributions to the Proctor Academy article, something I took from a bare bones article and greatly expanded. I will continue to expand it as I have time, and have been in touch with the school about getting historical photos from the archives, so that the history will be accented with images. I hope to take this article to GA eventually. I have also done some cleanup on other articles such as Finger Lakes AVA, adding refs and working with users to fix problems that they have. I tend to lurk on IRC on #wikipedia-en-help, and have answered many helpmes, something I am proud of, as my help there has hopefully assisted some new users and kept others active within the project.
 * 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?
 * Probably the 2 biggest/ most recent ones I can think of are with Maine Coon and MacBook.
 * Probably the 2 biggest/ most recent ones I can think of are with Maine Coon and MacBook.


 * Maine Coon: With the Maine coon article, one user (SPA) wanted a picture of their cat included, reverting anytime someone changed any of the info that they had added. They also wanted there to be info in the article about "ear muffs", a physical characteristic that no one else could find (reliable) evidence of. Both myself and other users tried to discuss with them on the article talkpage about how the reference that they provided for the ear muffs was not acceptable, but the user either did not reply or would not budge. Eventually, after it was clear that there was not a reliable source supporting the ear muffs, I removed it, leaving the image of their cat. IMO it was a fair compromise. Their insistence on having this info held the article back for a while from GA, and while I understood that they wanted the bit in there about ear muffs, it was more important in my opinion for the article as a whole to reach GA status, then the ear muffs could be added back in later, which was agreed upon on the talkpage. I then made the edit to remove the agreed text. I feel that I acted well in that situation, by opening a dialogue on the talkpage and working with other users to find a suitabloe comprimise.


 * MacBook: In the MacBook article, users (mostly anon users) kept trying to add NVIDIA graphics information for the aluminum MacBook to the polycarbonate MacBook specs. I kept having to revert and tell the users that the info was wrong, which got annoying after 15 or so reverts. Finally Apple has released a NVIDIA graphics based model, which should hopefully stop the users trying to add incorrect information. As for how I dealt with it, I just simply assumed that they were mistaken, didn't get too worked up over it, and reverted back to the correct information.