Wikipedia:Editor review/Redmarkviolinist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Redmarkviolinist

Redmarkviolinist (talk · contribs) I am a frequent Wikipedia editor that spends time over a wide variety of subjects, that include Recent Changes, Making Military History Articles, Reverting Vandalism, CSD, and creating many articles. My favorite of these articles so far that I am currently working on would have to be Siege of Calcutta, or Battle of Marion. I currently have 1400+ edits according to my preferences page. Redmarkviolinist (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

It's a minor thing, but telling other users not to edit your user page is probably not a good idea. Friday (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I was just quite angry that Porcupine blatantly removed a simple joke on my page that took quite a while to make. Redmarkviolinist (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Understandable. Like I said, it's a minor issue at best. Friday (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. Redmarkviolinist (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Refusal to remove part of your userpage that clearly irritates a number of users show disrespect for the other editors of the community. ➪HiDrNick! 19:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Other editors cannot remove a simple joke like this one from a user page simply because it frustrates them, especially without asking. Porcupine blatantly deleted content from my user page without permission. Also, if you look at some comments on that page, many people are quite amused by it and give it support. Redmarkviolinist (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Well... this is a wiki. As a general rule, editors don't need prior permission to edit. I edit user pages sometimes, but not without a good reason of course. Whether this was a good reason is debatable. Friday (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
First, I think your user page says a lot about you. And its not all good. Wikipedia is about editing an encyclopedia, sometimes its easy to forget this. Don't get too into edit counts. Quality is the thing that is useful. Adding tons of welcome templates is all well and good but editing articles is better. Likewise patrolling for vandalism is nice but content is better. I'd suggest you balance your edits away from vandal fighting, welcoming and user space and contribute more to articles. Having said this you have been working on the Battle of Marion page. BUT, you are plagiarising from this web site here. http://www.bencaudill.com/documents_msc/battle_of_marion.html This is not good. Besides the plagiarism the page is not written in an encyclopedic style. If you want more input I'll be happy to give it. David D. (Talk) 22:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with the other editors who have observed that the simulated 'you have new messages' banner on your userpage is distracting and discourteous. It's not nice to inconvenience other people for your own amusement, and spoofing the MediaWiki interface is strongly discouraged: Wikipedia:User page#Simulated MediaWiki interfaces.
Look at this. Redmarkviolinist (talk)Editor Review 16:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Your point is that others can be discourteous? I think the take home here is that whether you keep the joke on your page or not is up to you, but consider how such jokes reflect on you in the eyes of others; your signature too (as mentioned below). How you choose to present yourself here is up to you but don't be surprised when others judge or criticise you based on your choice. Maybe this is not fair, but it's quite reflective of real life. David D. (Talk) 17:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Your signature is also rather 'loud'. Is there any reason why it has to be both <big> and coloured? Attract attention and recognition through the quality of your writing, not the size of your signature. Again, your 'enhanced' signature style is discouraged: Wikipedia:Signatures#Appearance and color.
While neither of these things is likely to ever see you blocked or otherwise sanctioned, they are apt to encourage other editors to make judgements about you—warranted or not. This is a collaborative project; we depend on courtesy and cooperation to get things done. It's just not nice to waste other people's time with fake message banners, and it's not attractive to have an oversize signature that draws attention to you and breaks the normal spacing of lines on talk pages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend better edit comments. I would also like to see more involvement in maintenance type areas like WP:AFD, WP:TFD, WP:MFD. Cheers - - GtstrickyTalk or C 17:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Review by Master of Puppets Hi, Redmark (hope you don't mind me calling you that). Well, I must say your mainspace contributions are impressive; I looked through a few and they're thorough and quality, which is good. I'm also pleased with your user talk contributions, because I think communication on Wikipedia is vital to both the growth and continuation of the project. One area I think you could expand into is the WP:XFD process, as that provides very good experience article-wise. But that's pretty much it! Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺) 04:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I would have to say that my best contributions would have to be either articles to Military History Wikiproject, such as Battle of Marion, or Siege of Calcutta, or welcoming new users. Also, I have spent a bit of time lately reverting vandalism.
  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?
    Not much stress or arguments in the past, but in the future I will deal with it calmly and I will attempt to discuss it in a humane manner.