Wikipedia:Editor review/Dreamafter 4

Dreamafter[edit]

Dreamafter (talk · contribs) I have grown a lot, and I have changed and am quite willing to learn from criticsm and suggestions in this editor review. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 22:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by delldot
Hey Dreamy, I've seen you around a lot. Nice work overall. Some specific comments:

Your talk edits that I looked at were all friendly and successfully collaborating to bring an article up in standards. Great work! I looked at your RfA and saw that you responded well to criticism (though a lot of people are annoyed by the candidate responding to every oppose).
I like how you approach editing and interacting with an attitude of humor!
A couple months back, I saw an interaction at WP:Request an account between a group of scientists that all wanted the same username and someone who I think, but I'm not sure, was you (and I'm not going to trawl through the deleted revisions to find out if I'm right. If you don't participate at this page, you can ignore this). Whoever that person was, I think they messed up there. Basically, the group of scientists all wanted to edit under an account with the name of their group, an unquestionably bad idea. But instead of patiently explaining to them what the problems would be with that, this user just refused the request (though they did point the scientists to the relevant policies). Finally, the scientists gave up and decided not to edit at all. I feel like we could possibly have gotten them as contributors, which would have been really valuable, if the person reviewing their request had put a little more effort in. I left them a note on their talk page thanking them for their willingness to contribute to the project, explaining various reasons why they would probably end up wanting their own accounts anyway (editing at the same time, communicating, etc.) and making various suggestions about how they could accomplish what they wanted from the group account, but they were already gone by the time I saw the exchange. Anyway, if this wasn't you, pardon the irrelevant diatribe. If it was, I'd recommend keeping in mind that new contributors are very valuable, and it's important not to run them off, which is really easy to do. If you're not willing to put forth the extra effort to reach out to them, you should consider whether you have time to deal with their requests at all.
Looks like you've had some image copyright troubles. Have you reviewed those policies?
I also noticed on your talk page a couple notes from people who had problems with GA reviews you had done. Are you being careful with those now? The repeat problems could suggest you're not taking advice to heart and changing based on it, but I didn't find evidence either way.
I noticed several people asking you for clarification on your talk page. This includes edit summaries and explanations on talk pages. Maybe try to reread posts before you hit save and make sure they would make sense to someone uninitiated (I am so guilty of this too).
You go out of your way to show appreciation to people for their hard work, giving out barnstars and nominating people for adminship. This is great, we need to make the community a more rewarding place. Good job!
Overall, you're clearly a prolific editor and you've been contributing high-quality material. Doing an awesome job in the mainspace. You've had civility issues in the past, and you may or may not have failed to reach out to new users in the past. But I see no recent conflicts, and you take criticism well. You're involved in a variety of areas in WP, e.g. BAG, RfA, wikiprojects, etc., and seem to be contributing positively in those areas. Great work overall. delldot talk 15:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Legoktm
Hi Dreamy, I have been seeing you alot around WP:FOWL (as you are the lead coordinator) and I wanted to review you.

Great job working on Minor Artemis Fowl Characters as now it is much more organized than before.
Also, on talk pages you are usually polite and you assume good faith.
At your RFA, you admitted you had made mistakes, and you took responsibility for them.
The only negative thing I can think of was at your third RFA where you highlighted your number of edits, which many people did not like.

I think you should go for another RFA soon and I would be happy to nominate you. Awesome Job ~ Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 22:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Attention This user has been accused of Sock-puppeting to further himself at the WikiProject MilHist Coordinator Elections. View the evidence and comments at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamafter. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 02:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool

Previous editor reviews: first, second, third.

Previous Request for Adminship: Dreamafter.

Questions

Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
My best contributions would have to be Legion Belge and Minor Artemis Fowl Characters, and Anzio War Cemetery. I created them/revamped them. I would also like to say Flight Cadet, Second-in-command, Wolf Armoured Vehicle, Heuschrecke 10, and Battle of Gondar. The reasons that I am proud of these articles are as follows : I either created them, or revamped them, and they are the articles that I have brought up in status.
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 haven't been in any major edit conflicts, so I guess that I have been "lucky". I am mediating a case, as mentioned above, and I would deal with all of the future edit conflicts I might get into in the same way. I would like to deal with them in a good mannered nature, and with discussion, not with blocks. The only semi-major one was at this. It was fixed.
Do you still claim to be the copyright owner of Image:Vincenzo Camporini.jpg? How about Image:Waffentrager.jpg? -Nard 23:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]