Wikipedia:Editor review/Michaelas10 (2)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] User:Michaelas10
Michaelas10 (talk ยท contribs) I've been a member of Wikipedia since April this year, and an active member since June. I've been active in many namespaces and projects on Wikipedia, and gained over 6000 7000 edits. Since my previous editor review in September, I've pretty much improved in all of the given fields, as can be seen in my total Wikipedia namespace edits. I would like to hear feedback on my progress so far, and suggestions for future improvements. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Reviews
[edit] Anchoress's review
I think you should be slower to revert, gentler with newcomers, and quicker to assume good faith. I also think it's discourteous to remove discussions in progress, and I think the message at the top of your talk page is unnecessarily combative. Anchoress 21:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've answered your concerns through your talk page, please try to be less quick to make negative judgment on other users. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- To be honest, Michaelas10, I think your response to this is unfair. You submitted the editor review, surely you should be prepared to accept the negative comments with the positive. I feel that the points that Anchoress brings up are valid; we're talking about leaving a test message on the page of a newcomer who asked a question (which was maybe not a great question, but was hardly vandalism or trolling). The definition of vandalism is quite narrow, and the term is not applied to potentially good faith edits and newbie errors like asking a policy question. It looks as though you've retracted the test message, which I commend: it shows that you're willing to admit errors and take steps to correct and learn from them. I might have also left an appology or an explanation on the user's talk page. Admittedly, I haven't done the most thorough of research on this, so i could be missing something (e.g., maybe this user posts this same question every day or something), in which case please accept my appologies. delldot | talk 18:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well I've already apologized for the vandalism reversion mistake and removed the warning off the IP's talk page, but I don't feel that there is any reason to tie an automated warning template to WP:BITE. The other parts of the critisms were criticizing my answer while I still did not understand the situation and the moving of talk page messeges to subpages, which is perfectly normal. This edit did seem a lot like vandalism or a completely non-related question from first sight and I hope other vandal-reverters would understand my decision. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- To be honest, Michaelas10, I think your response to this is unfair. You submitted the editor review, surely you should be prepared to accept the negative comments with the positive. I feel that the points that Anchoress brings up are valid; we're talking about leaving a test message on the page of a newcomer who asked a question (which was maybe not a great question, but was hardly vandalism or trolling). The definition of vandalism is quite narrow, and the term is not applied to potentially good faith edits and newbie errors like asking a policy question. It looks as though you've retracted the test message, which I commend: it shows that you're willing to admit errors and take steps to correct and learn from them. I might have also left an appology or an explanation on the user's talk page. Admittedly, I haven't done the most thorough of research on this, so i could be missing something (e.g., maybe this user posts this same question every day or something), in which case please accept my appologies. delldot | talk 18:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dfrg.msc's review
Now I get to return the favor Michaelas. You have 2641 main space edits, which is an excellent achievement and 6000+ total. These are the many things to ensure you have and you are doing:
-
- A Strong edit history
- Varied experience
- User interaction (helpful and polite)
- Trustworthiness
- Helping with chores (RC patrol and XFD)
- High quality of Articles (Featured Articles, Featured Pictures and Featured Lists)
- Observing policy
- Edit Summaries (Accurate and Constructive)
I'm sure you are more aware if you are doing these things than I could ever be. It looks that you are doing an exemplary effort in most of these categories. So, continue to work hard and expand in area's that you think you are lacking. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 00:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sr13's review
You have made over 7000 edits since your initiation to Wikipedia in April 2006. That is pretty remarkable! It is only a matter of time before you become an admin (if you wish to become one). Just ensure that you have strong grounds in the areas mentioned above by Dfrg.msc and work on areas where you may be lacking. Sr13 19:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Comments
- View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- I'm mostly proud of my GA class South Park episode articles, and my nearly-featured list List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes. I am also proud of the WP:WYF, which has nearly 100 members now, and my tons of vandal-reverts and welcomes.
- 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 been through many conflicts while being newbie, but I didn't manage to handle them very well. My more recent conflicts are usually involving vandalism reverts, or minor edits. At these, I try to stay as much civil as I can and provide the corresponding Wikipedia guidelines over the issue. If I see I'm wrong, I don't usually tend to continue the conflict further. No, I don't think any conflicts caused me any stress, and no matter conflict I'll have in the future, I'll still keep being active.
