Wikipedia:Editor review/Shimeru

Shimeru

Shimeru (talk · contribs) Suppose it's about time I looked for some feedback. I've been an editor since December 2004, but I've only been consistently active since the end of September 2006. I may be interested in submitting an RfA at some point, but I do not currently have any immediate plans to do so. Shimeru 03:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

Excellent editor. The work on Kitsune was outstanding; and Shimeru showed he could respond to objections and work with others to achieve consensus and an improvement in the article. I have also seen Shimeru comment on FAC, and I would like to see more of that, even in areas not within his specialisms. This is because Shimeru has an impressively clear and encyclopedic prose style, something which the majority of articles lack. I can't fault Shimeru so far; and I hope we will see some more FAs from his hand as time goes by. Only a small number of Wikipedians can make FAs, and he is one of them. qp10qp 02:06, 28 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'm very happy with Kitsune, which I spent the better part of two months researching and improving first to GA and then to FA status. I'm certainly not the only contributor (User:BrianSmithson, in particular, contributed an impressive prose rewrite), but the majority of the content and citations were my additions. I'm also pleased with some of the new articles I've been able to add to Wikipedia, including Kyogen and Harvey Littleton -- the first, from my initial Dec. 2004 editing period, the second from July 2006, hopefully showing some improvement along the way. Most recently, I added a variety of stubs (centered around the "hub" article Kamui) regarding Ainu mythology, an area which Wikipedia had no coverage of beyond two one-sentence stubs (one of which was incorrect); while these are very much works in progress, waiting on my collection of further sources, I'm still pleased that I was able to add something about the topic. Outside of the main space, I participate fairly frequently in AfDs, patrol new pages and recent changes on an occasional basis, and deal with vandalism as I come across it. I've also been involved with the latest WP:SCHOOL proposal, which I optimistically hope is making progress toward reaching a consensus that's been years in coming.

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?

   I think it's inevitable for users to be involved in editing conflicts, but I don't feel others have caused me stress. While I sometimes argue a point forcefully if I feel it's warranted, I try my best to keep my emotions separate from my Wikipedia editing and to remain calm and somewhat detached. To the best of my knowledge, I have always remained civil. I've attempted to discuss, in cases of conflict, and to walk away for a while if I feel myself becoming too emotionally involved in a dispute. I have had others "read" me as upset when that was not the case, however. The limitations of a text medium vis-a-vis tone, body language, and similar nonverbal communication may be to blame, but perhaps there's something about my approach that conveys this false impression (perhaps I'm misapplying emphasis or making bad word choices, for instance); that's one of the reasons I'm requesting this review, I suppose.