Wikipedia:Editor review/Mrt3366
Mrt3366[edit]
Mrt3366 (talk · contribs · count) Since June 2012 I have been a steady contributor to Wikipedia (at least that is what I like to believe). I have contributed to a number of areas, especially new page patrolling, reviewing submissions at articles for creation, and fighting vandalism. With that said, let me clarify right away that I am not thinking of running for adminship in the near future. I would just like a general review of my edits in order to hone my skills as an editor. That's all. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Questions
- What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
- My contributions started out in the category of Military History, to be precise, developments of missile technologies possessed by Asian nations. Then as time progressed, I took the liberty to shift my focus towards more controversial and contentious topics, eg. human rights abuses in various parts of South Asia.
From a general point of view I would say, I am pleased with the experience and knowledge I have gained so far. If I were to cherry-pick one or two from the few articles I have created, I would probably point to Comparison of ICBMs and Missile defense systems of various nations.
- My contributions started out in the category of Military History, to be precise, developments of missile technologies possessed by Asian nations. Then as time progressed, I took the liberty to shift my focus towards more controversial and contentious topics, eg. human rights abuses in various parts of South Asia.
- Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
- Oh, yes. Sometimes knowingly but most of the times unknowingly. And yes, initially they used to cause me a lot stress because at that stage I didn't understand the accurate mechanism of Wikipedia. To over come the stress I used to read a lot of essays (such as, Wikipedia:Don't take the bait, User:Eastlaw/Don't get in over your head, Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic, WP:WINNER to name a few).
I don't wish to sound dismissive but now-a-days the disputes seem more like occupational hazards to be dealt with caution. Now when I get involved in a dispute, I try to understand the root-cause of the opposition that I face, I weigh the contesting rationales as fairly as I can. If my opponent persists disregarding my approach and seems impervious to my reasoning and if my opponent and I are alone talking to each-other, I try to move the discussion to an appropriate noticeboard so that external input from experienced editors may guide us. Having said that, these-days sometimes the sophisticated rationales in an on-going dispute cause more astonishment than stress. But yeah, I am also a human I have spoken out of turn in past and I rue it.
- Oh, yes. Sometimes knowingly but most of the times unknowingly. And yes, initially they used to cause me a lot stress because at that stage I didn't understand the accurate mechanism of Wikipedia. To over come the stress I used to read a lot of essays (such as, Wikipedia:Don't take the bait, User:Eastlaw/Don't get in over your head, Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic, WP:WINNER to name a few).
- What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
- As I said, I am not looking to run for adminship nor am I looking for any review of any specific area of my contribution, albeit if you would comment on any particular piece/fragment I would appreciate it.
Reviews