Wikipedia:Editor review/True Pagan Warrior

True Pagan Warrior
I was honored to be nominated for adminship a month or so ago (prior to my username change), and one of the participants had as a personal RfA requirement, "editor has had two or more editor reviews." I do not know if I will stand for RfA again, but I think having a second editor review is reasonable in any case; my previous review was two or more years ago, and my the focus of my work here has changed significantly since then. ~TPW 16:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * Most of my work is gnomish in nature, with the most recent accomplishment I really was pleased with was creating the disambiguation page Lifestyle and manually moving links to Lifestyle (sociology). I originally quailed when I discovered the volume of links to move and wanted to find an automated way to do it, but after doing it I don't believe it could have been done well with a script or bot.  The few articles I've started take me forever to create because I write for a living and never seem to find the time to do so as a volunteer; little gnomey bits of editing are much more easy to fit into my life.
 * 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 answered this question differently in the past, but now I must say "no." If an edit of mine is reverted, I let it stay that way unless it is vandalism.  If I try to work out an issue on an article's talk page and others disagree with my position, I assume consensus is against me and move on.  I understand that written words can be much more inflammatory than spoken ones because our minds fill in the tone of voice and body language, and they don't always do it correctly.  I use a Limbaugh-Gale model to change my perspective:  if I am annoyed by a particular comment, then my brain is probably inserting the tone of voice that Rush Limbaugh uses when he is looking to be condescending and inflammatory.  In my mind I remove his voice, and insert that of Judy Garland when she was playing Dorothy Gale.  It's a lot mroe difficult to get upset at a written message if you imagine a sweet little girl in pigtails saying it.
 * I have answered this question differently in the past, but now I must say "no." If an edit of mine is reverted, I let it stay that way unless it is vandalism.  If I try to work out an issue on an article's talk page and others disagree with my position, I assume consensus is against me and move on.  I understand that written words can be much more inflammatory than spoken ones because our minds fill in the tone of voice and body language, and they don't always do it correctly.  I use a Limbaugh-Gale model to change my perspective:  if I am annoyed by a particular comment, then my brain is probably inserting the tone of voice that Rush Limbaugh uses when he is looking to be condescending and inflammatory.  In my mind I remove his voice, and insert that of Judy Garland when she was playing Dorothy Gale.  It's a lot mroe difficult to get upset at a written message if you imagine a sweet little girl in pigtails saying it.

 Reviews 


 * You look like you know what you're doing, and you do it well. It's kind of rare to find an editor that hasn't been in an editing dispute. I made my account fairly recently, and I've already been in a couple disputes. You've probably been here longer than I have, and I would like to say I was amazed when I read you haven't been in any disputes. Keep up the good work. Regards, The Utahraptor (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)