Wikipedia:Editor review/The Interior

The Interior
I started editing Wikipedia in 2008, but didn't jump in with both feet until the summer of 2010. I find working here intellectually stimulating, and as a writer, it is a great avenue for feedback and research. I like to think I'm doing good work here, but would love a second opinion. The Interior (Talk) 00:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My contribs so far have been composing short articles on Canadian geography and biography, as well as expanding and improving existing topics. I dabble a bit in XfD's and Speedy deletions.  I like to help newcomers when possible.  I engage in some quotidian tasks, such as Dab-delinking as stress relief.  I also copyedit, review at DYK, and fight vandalism on the 1200 pages in my watchlist.  I am most pleased when creating articles, especially if I have spiced them up with my own photos, such my latest effort, Dunn Peak.  I am also greatly pleased when I am able to copy-edit a decent article that was scaring away readers with poor grammar.
 * 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.
 * I have involved myself in several heated debates on WP. My tendency is to join debates after they have gotten going; I like let a discussion progress until it becomes clear the other editors are at a stalemate and the debate needs fresh ideas.  I recognize the physical symptoms of anger (for me, my ears get warm), and usually will leave the discussion for hours or days until I have come up with something constructive to say.  As far as edit wars, if I am reverted, or my revert is, I take it either to the talk page or the editors talk page.  I have no problem letting an edit I disagree with stand for a few days (or forever!) until the issue is hashed out.
 * I have involved myself in several heated debates on WP. My tendency is to join debates after they have gotten going; I like let a discussion progress until it becomes clear the other editors are at a stalemate and the debate needs fresh ideas.  I recognize the physical symptoms of anger (for me, my ears get warm), and usually will leave the discussion for hours or days until I have come up with something constructive to say.  As far as edit wars, if I am reverted, or my revert is, I take it either to the talk page or the editors talk page.  I have no problem letting an edit I disagree with stand for a few days (or forever!) until the issue is hashed out.

 Reviews 
 * Alright! I've finished now!
 * Antivandalism : There is not a whole lot of this (only 7 reports to AIV). Have you considered installing Twinkle or Huggle and taking a quick look at the recent changes (Huggle does this automatically) to see what kinds of vandals there are?
 * Namespaces : Nice dedication to improving articles! However, you don't seem to converse and discuss much with other editors, as you have only 7% of you edits to talk, project, and project talk namespaces. Good contributions to reviewing submissions at T:TDYK!
 * Article contributions : Nice work on European chafer. However, I see on Adams River (British Columbia) that you nominated it for GA with this unreferenced claim: "These events did end the sockeye runs on the Upper Adams and the nearby Salmon River, but the Lower Adams was able to slowly recover." I would recommend looking at other recently-passed GAs and to find out how to write a GA. Nicknames of Vancouver also appears to have many unreferenced statements.
 * Policy : I see some knowledge of policy displayed here and here! Keep up the good work. (Note that Twinkle has an automatic XFD nomination capability.)
 * Other comments : Good work repairing disambig links!
 * Overall : I see a good editor who may need to learn a bit about reliably sourcing articles so that they are verifiable. If you learn that and expand the river article a bit more so that it focuses on the river and clean it up, I see no reason why it should not pass GAN. If you are looking to become an admin eventually, please reply here with what you would want to do as an admin and I might be able to give you some pointers as to how you can improve that. Good luck editing!
 * Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)