Wikipedia:Editor review/Vox Rationis

Vox Rationis

Vox Rationis (talk · contribs) I've been editing Wikipedia for a while, and I've done a number of maintenance-related tasks. I'm looking to see what else I could/should do, and mostly what I can do better. Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 22:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

• All in all, your edits look quite satisfactory. You seem to be doing more that just maintenance, you've contributed to Mainland High School quite a bit. You have a high Mainspace to userspace ratio (10:1), and your edits contribute a lot to Wikipedia. Keep up the great work ^_^ Nol888_(Talk)^{(Review me please)} 21:23, 21 March 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 am most pleased with my contributions to the page Mainland High School. Before it oscillated between vandalism and next to no content. Now, it is a half decent article, but it still has a ways to go. That article is the only article I have really seen grow from the ground up.

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?

   A couple, both over conflicting views. One involved an image of a mouse trap (with mouse inside), and I made a comment on the images talk page about its somewhat gruesome nature. Another editor then "attacked" me with inflammatory remarks, including generalizing due to my political affiliation (which used to be posted on my user page, but I've since removed it). I politely urged him to calm down, while reverting his remarks as inflammatory. He posted more inflammatory remarks about how my political affiliation does not like to allow differing points of view. I then realized that my comment was to inciteful (at least for him) and so I removed both comments and just put up a {{talkpageheader}}. I also left him a subst'd user warning template regarding his inflammatory remarks. The other occasion was regarding an excessively long talk page. While on patrolling RC for vandals, I noticed a user deleting large sections of a talk page without an edit summary, so I reverted his edits. He exploded. He claimed he was cleaning it up, and how I was so rude to revert (and then left his remark unsigned). I explained to him that it was not reccomended to delete talk page material, but rather to archive the material. He wouldn't really listen, and when another editor came in and warned him as well, I dropped the matter (I didn't want to get into a debate with him, especially since most of th stuff being deleted was not very legitimate discussion; also, to note, when I was recovering my own remarks for archival on my talk page I had to search through his talk page history, as they had been deleted!). All in all, I think that I am very good at remaining civil and polite, and many times through in a bit of kindness, and I hope to keep this as I expand my boundaries.