Wikipedia:Editor review/Ryan4314

Ryan4314

Ryan4314 (talk · contribs) Hi, I just graduated from adoption by J-stan and he advised me to get an Editor Review. I should add that I don't want to be an adminstrator, ever! Ryan4314 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

• I looked through your contributions and am impressed. You've done a lot of comprehensive editing on mainspace articles. You also have a healthy amount of talk page edits; I personally believe that communication is a vital part of the encyclopedia, as if we didn't talk to each other we'd all do opposing things. The only thing that would drag you down in an RFA is your lower-than-average amount of edits; most users like to see a substantially larger amount. In my opinion, editors should be judged by the quality of their edits, not the quantity; however, it is true that editing for a longer time broadens your experience and gives you more wisdom.

• Two suggestions that I have; try to participate more in requests for adminship (as in supporting, opposing, commenting, etc.), as not only does this involve you more in the community, you also see how the inner workings function. Also, try to participate at WP:XFD a bit more; that also is an excellent way to learn.

• All in all, you're going very strongly. Keep up the good work! Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 00:09, 6 December 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?

   Yes there is. Firstly I created the Justice League of America (TV movie) article after just 6 months of editing experience to Wikipedia. Then I got the article up to a "start" class from a "stub". The article has grown a lot from it's humble beginnings here, and I think I've dealt reasonably well with the stresses of WP:OWN.

   Then there is the Terran Federation article, when I got there an editor had taken extreme liberties with the source material, it was full of original research and probably not very neutral. You can see here how much it's changed.

   And finally a very special article; British Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001, it's table had been effectively abandoned, missing some 24 fatalities. Since then I've kept the table up-to-date, tidied it a little. But have avoided editing the rest of the article, out of respect and wishing to stay out of the politics.

   On a side note I know these 3 articles have my biggest edit count, but there are single edits I'm rather proud of, such as adding I photo I took to the Royal Free Hospital article, a bold edit here, and my 1st category page.

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 never edit warred, but I've had a few barneys tho. I'm well aware of "Don't feed the trolls" and am a active member in the fight against vandalism, however on this occasion I thought I could get away with a few choice words to a racist vandal, as I thought he was literally about to be blocked (he wasn't, but he's never edited again). You can read our "interaction" here and here. I will say in my defence though, that me confessing this should help towards exonerating me a little... please lol.

   Other than that the only other thing that bugs me is when there is a discussion to move/merge/delete, and everyone is chucking all these policy names around. It seems policies can be interpreted to be either for or against in an argument. I mean the 1st policy u see on Wikipedia:List of policies is "Ignore All Rules" and under it, it says; "Every policy, guideline or any other rule may be ignored if it hinders improving Wikipedia". But because they're so long, no one really bothers to read em, so people just accept there catchy titles as lore. Which leads us to a little irk I had here lol.