Wikipedia:Editor review/Skater

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Skater

Skater (talk · contribs · count) My third editor review and I think I'll let this one stay. This is my 2000 edit checkup. I still edit the main things I have really since the start of my wikipedia career. Participating in Wp:XfD, killing Vandals with Huggle, Lupins, and New page patrolling. I am also involved in the wikiproject on outlines where I'm creating the one on Grid Iron football. SKATER ^Speak. 17:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

• Hello. I came across your username while reverting vandalism on your userpage. I reviewed the last couple hundred edits or so, and you seem to be doing a pretty good job. I would recommend cutting down on your userpage edits (which you seem to be getting better at the last few days) and to maybe work on an article or to. Reverting vandalism is great, but balancing that out with some article improvement can help. If you wish to continue reverting vandalism, I would suggest becoming very familiar with WP:AIV. Overall, you're doing a pretty good job. Keep it up!--LAAFan^sign _review 20:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I'm very proud of my vandalism1 No, just kidding I've never vandalized. I'm very pleased with what I've done on the vandal task force, and I'm very proud of Greg Boone, the first article I created which I plan to expand in the near future.

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've been in a few minor disagreements, seperating a flame war which cause me to have to report them both to wikiquette alerts. One of the user involved and I are on good terms and the other was indef blocked genre warring. Then there was the minor incident with the user that was edit warring on History of Terrorism, which I reported.

• Hi, I'm another anti-vandalism editor. I noticed that you reverted the edits of 159.91.151.97, here [1]. Although this editor does make many mistakes, I wouldn't say this, overall, was one that should have been reverted. It's a little bit of a judgment call in a couple places, so the appropriate thing to do would either leave the edit, or to tweak it. 1) Removal of dash in date - anon was incorrect. 2) Adding wikilinks to "East Bengal" and "Kolkata" - anon was exercising reasonable judgment - not links I would have added, but not wrong. 3) Addition of sentence starting "Later in life..." - anon was correct, although you need to be familiar with their editing to know this. The phrase "Later in life" is not necessary, but isn't wrong.

The problem with 159.91.151.97 is that they *never* explain anything they do. But you didn't either. So that makes the task of someone coming along later doubly difficult. (My anti-vandalism tool (MWT) does not leave comments in the article, but only on the user page. So I'm not exactly "clean" in this respect either, but I've asked to have the MWT modified.)

Overall, I'd say your revert was inappropriate. But. It didn't really do much harm, either, and anti-vandalism editors can't spend infinite amounts of time reviewing the situation from every perspective. So as long as you keep the inappropriate edits down to a dull roar, it's all to the good. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.