Wikipedia:Editor review/UseTheCommandLine

UseTheCommandLine
STATEMENT UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I have been around for less than a year. My contributions were initially on medical topics. I have become more active on social-science and historical topics, which has led to some friction, and which is why I am asking for editor review despite my newness. I am particularly pleased with my contributions to Aspirin because it required a substantial amount of work to sort through the primary-source cruft, and it served as a significant learning experience for me.
 * 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 been involved with a number of disputes, and generally make reference to policies. I interpret my behavior as asking for clarification, but I have been accused of wikilawyering. Previous conflicts have led to a short wikibreak, and my main excuse for returning has been to help oversee a school project that involves introducing new editors to Wikipedia on medical topics.
 * 1) What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
 * I would mostly like review of how I handle conflicts, particularly at White privilege and Huey P. Newton. I think it is important that my standards and processes be based on community norms, and I hope to be able to adjust my handling of conflicts based on the input I get here. I would also like to get some direction and advice on how to more effectively contribute. I feel like there are avenues where i could contribute substantially but which are not clear to me. I am open to any comments about any part of my editing.

 Reviews 


 * I'm not really sure there's a lot to say. Some people use accusations of "wikilawyering" to dismiss what they see as bureaucratic and tedious elements of Wikipedia policy.  According to the essay in question, wikilawyering requires an active attempt to deceive others (mens rea); if you're not actively trying to deceive others, then you're not wikilawyering.  It looks to me like you're staying calm, using the proper Wikipedia dispute resolution measures, and quoting relevant policies/guidelines.  While this may be tiring and/or tedious to editors who just want to write an encyclopedia, it's the proper course to take.  Maybe you could be a bit more polite at times, but the same could be said about most of us when we're feeling wikistress.  Sometimes a request for comment is helpful to determine consensus, as it brings in uninvolved editors.  It's an option to think about if you're deadlocked on a talk page and the other party is tired of debating.  One way to avoid excessive debate is to choose articles that are not prone to POV edits.  Editing articles about which you are apathetic can also reduce stress. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)