Wikipedia:Editor review/Loganberry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Loganberry

Loganberry (talk ยท contribs) I've been here for a couple of years now and made several thousand edits, but I would be very pleased to hear any comments on my editing and/or suggestions as to how I might do better in the future. Incidentally, I am not interested in obtaining admin status in the foreseeable future, which factor may (or may not!) influence your replies. Loganberry (Talk) 03:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • You seem to have alot of edits, and with it I'm sure you've gained a lot of experience. An RfA wouldn't be a bad Idea, but just make sure you have a high understanding of templates, style, usage of images, etc. I see you've been doing a good job of using edit an edit summary when you make a change, and that's all good. In your talk page, I can't seem to find anything but good comments and easy going disputes/disagreements. Your a great all-round user, and I hope you continue to contribute whenever you can. Ard0 01:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks! As I say, though, I'm not intending to go the RfA route at the moment: frankly I feel that doing the job properly would involve more commitment to administrative tasks than I'm willing or able to put in. I want to spend my time writing articles for the most part. Loganberry (Talk) 02:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem. You don't need to be an admin to contribute, thats the point of Wiki right? If you don't want to run an RfA, nobody is going to force you. I feel the same way, I wouldn't have enough time to make use of the sysop tools.. Ard0 07:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I'm rather proud of Graeme Hick, the great majority of which was my own work and the rest the product of a collaboration with another editor. I'd like to try to get it up to Featured Article status at some point, but the complete lack of free images of Hick (until and unless someone takes one next summer!) is a barrier to that. (Also on the subject of cricket, I did contribute towards the successful drive to get The Ashes to FA status last year, but mine was very much a bit part there.) I'm also pretty happy with the articles dealing with hillclimbing, a branch of motorsport that was essentially uncovered on Wikipedia before I started writing on the subject. Shelsley Walsh Speed Hill Climb is a good example of an article I have created that I feel quite pleased with.
  2. 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?
    I've managed to avoid any major rows, I think, although it's fair to say that I don't do a huge amount of editing on very controversial topics. I recently had a small (and fairly friendly) argument with another editor over the Watership Down article, and whether a book should be described as being "titled" or "entitled" [whatever]. (US usage favours the former, but British usage favours the latter, and I felt that an article about British book should reflect British usage.) In the end I found a mutually acceptable solution involving minor rewording of the passages in question so that neither term was used. I think that friendly discussion on article Talk pages is the best and most productive way to solve this sort of minor dispute.