Wikipedia:Editor review/Rebroad

Rebroad

Rebroad (talk · contribs) Would be nice to have a sanity check to ensure I'm contributing to Wikipedia in the correct way. Thanks for all your comments! Rebroad 19:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

Yikes! You're a feisty creature. I skimmed your talk page and some of the controversies you've been involved with. Here's what I found:

1. You have been active in Wikipedia primarily in Nov.-Dec. 2004, and again in the last two months. You claim that you have learned from your newcomer mistakes of then, and to some extent, this is true.
2. You have a nose for politically charged issues. In 2004 you cast about ten votes in the ArbCom elections, and most of them were to oppose. You also got into a massive brouhaha on the archived talk page on the September 11 attacks. Frankly, I must agree with the other editors (such as SlimVirgin) that terrorist is a NPOV usage in the case of 9/11. Why do I mention this? Isn't it a two-year-old argument, gone and forgotten? No. My point is that, just because somebody holds a minority viewpoint, doesn't require that viewpoint to be given equal weight, or any weight at all sometimes, in a Wikipedia article. For a full discussion of this point, read WP:NPOV carefully.
3. On February 12, you were blocked for violating 3RR, and you know it. That's not good. You've gotten into many content disputes before, so the one on radioactive dating should not have been any worse. Since the talk page discussion was active, you should have waited to revert until a consensus was reached. And as to the substance of your edit, refer back to my last point.
4. So how should you improve? My personal preference as an editor is to work on articles that, for one reason or another, have been abandoned or ignored - such as WP:DEAD or WP:O. I suspect that's not your cup of tea. I would recommend that you become active in Wikipedia:Wikiprojects, which are small communities of Wikipedians devoted to a particular subject. I suspect that the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject European Union would happily welcome you. By participating in Wikiprojects, you will learn to work together with your fellow Wikipedians, and not in opposition to them.
5. I wish you good luck. YechielMan 02:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

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

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

   I think I don't tend to devote a lot of time to any one article, but rather try to improve already existing articles. I guess I'm likely to be pleased with changes I have done that stay around, and I'm less pleased with changes that are deleted or overwritten quite quickly!

3. 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?

   When I first came to Wikipedia back in 2004, I started off quite quickly rubbing up the wrong way some fairly well established users. Looking back I kinda dived in at the deep end, and probably picked the most hotly debated and POV-vulerable articles I could have chosen to edit. When my contributions were quickly reverted, because I was so new to wikipedia, I think I remember finding that quite unreasonable! That was a while ago now, and these days I mostly use wikipedia for research into various subjects, and to add information that i have found recently that is not already in articles. Now and again I do find myself in minor revert war scenarios, but now that I am more familiar with wikipedia policies I am able to resolve disputes via talk pages, reach compromises, sometimes with or without input from others.