Wikipedia:Editor review/The Haunted Angel 2

The Haunted Angel

The Haunted Angel (talk · contribs) Hey; I suppose I went for this editor review as a clock in to see how I'm doing. I suppose the ultimate goal is adminship, but I wouldn't say I'm quite ready for the admin coaching yet. This is just a bit of a check up to see just how I'm doing 'n all :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Reviews
Hey The Haunted Angel. I've known you around Wikipedia for a while now, and you're a very helpful user who does very good edits. You've helped with the Coheed and Cambria articles greatly, that article just one of many. You're a nice, calm editor, who has a good sense of humour, but while maintaining a humourous way, your edits are still up to scratch. As with any good editor, you revert vandalism well and warn/notify the user of it. I can't really think of any advice for you, you seem to do everything so well. You seem to have done more mainspace edits than me overall, something which I have improved greatly on now. As with me, I believe you would make a good admin in the months to come, and I wish you the best of luck with that. To sum this review up:

• Keep up the great work! Aim high, you'd make a good admin some day.
• Keep up the good anti-vandal work
• Try and focus on one more thing rather than just mainspace and anti-vandal work; perhaps take part in some consensus' related to Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

Keep it up, — jacĸrм (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far, you are impartial even when your own feelings and beliefs are involved. You think about your moves before you make them, which is highly commendable and when you speak for me you even surpass my own chess moves.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :) ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 22:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

You proudly proclaim your belief that Wikipedia is not censored so I know you'll support my right to free speech when I say that the the grammar Nazi box (4.SS-Division) on your user page makes me think you're a dickhead. Nick mallory 15:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Between the poles of freedom and suppression, Nick, our policies do call for self-restraint in our speech. HG | Talk 19:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Haunted Angel, currently running for adminship, currently has a box on his user page which says he'll respond to comments with apathy and 'doesn't give a fuck'. If the user is happy to use words like 'fuck' on his user page I assumed he wouldn't be upset with the word 'dickhead'. What word would you use for someone with a nazi symbol on his page which proclaimed his membership of the S.S.? Nick mallory 01:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

First, you tell me that I cannot update the Gorgoroth page without sourcing my claims. So, I go back and source my claims perfectly and you still delete what I posted and give me a warning. You just don't care about keeping this article accurate. I made the same changes from before and this time added sources and links to official band pages that PROVE my statements to be true and you still delete them. UNBELIEVABLE! - 13:51, December 27, 2007

No such source was provided other than Infernus' own website; and Infernus no longer has authority over the band. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 22:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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 quite like the work I've done on the Cradle of Filth and Coheed and Cambria articles. I started the Coheed Wikiproject, and although it's going a bit slow, I feel it has drastically improved the quality of all articles that fall under its scope; not to mention I've met and befriended new Wikipedians thanks to it!
   With the Cradle of Filth articles however, the main concern their is keeping their genre NPOV. Doing so isn't easy, especially as new editors come, wonder why they are not one particular genre, and start the same discussion that has been over many times in the past. However, an editor I work with on the Cradle page has put a great opening statement on the talk page, trying to stop these arguments before they start.
   Another area I feel I've worked well on is the South Park episodes. I would regularly read episodes on here, only to find that they have the most ridiculous trivia. I went through each individual episode, and cut out trivia which could be considered irrelevant or unencyclopedic. That's a lot of episodes! I did not cut out all trivia, just the bits which I felt defied WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR. After that, I realised that the "goofs" that the pages had were just as unencyclopedic, and had no place here, so after a slight discussion, I went through the episode list again and removed all the goofs. Now every episode is on my watchlist, and I keep careful eyes on them!

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?

   Back in my early editing days, I had a few tiffs with a Religious vandal, and I admit, I handled it poorly, as I was simply feeding the trolls. However, that is long in the past, and I feel I have learned greatly from it. Now I have the odd argument with someone (usually an IP) who feels that I am "ruining" articles by doing the things I explained above. Generally, cutting out the trivia and goofs that IP's add in the South Park episodes doesn't go down well. Should they contact me, I would inform them about Wikipedia's WP:OR rules, and that'd usually be the end of it.
   I have had a bit of recent trouble with one particular user (I won't mention his/her user name, but it won't be hard to find) regarding the Cradle of Filth genre. I have tried to explain to him/her many times about why it'd be POV to define the band as a genre, including him pointing to the opening statement on the talk page I mentioned earlier, but the user generally wishes to ignore these rules. His/her abusive attitude has resulted in him/her banned once, and although it appears that the arguments have ended, I suspect that the same problems will explode once more in the future. However, I have done my best not to feed the trolls, nor cause trouble where there is none, and generally keep the peace when the discussion get a bit extreme.