Wikipedia:Editor review/PrestonH (3)

PrestonH

PrestonH (talk · contribs) I request an editor review because I have done numerous vandal revisions in the past and I need feedback/criticism so I can become a better editor. I didn't have enough feedback on my first 2 reviews so I needed a third review. I have 3,000+ edits and I do not wish to be an admin. I attempted VandalProof but it was too hard. Thank you in advance! PrestonH^{(Sandbox) • (Sign Here!)} 05:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

• You have a very well balanced edit count as well as edit summary usage. The only thing upon which I think you should improve is just try to gain a few more Wikipedia namespace edits, however, if you're not interested in becoming an admin, disregard that last statement about the Wikipedia namespace edits. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 02:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Preston, you are focusing narrowly on anti-vandal work. This is very valuable and you are doing an effective job. Thank you. You are an outstanding editor, and you know it, but you want some explicit confirmation, so here it is. Would you please consider doing some GA nominations or some GA reviews? The GA criteria are fairly modest. One reason that you should do this work is that the inroductory paragraph of an article should be understandable and useful to an "intelligent 12-year-old." Unfortunately, intelligent 12-year-olds who are willing and able editors are quite rare. -Arch dude 02:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Very good mod Sportsandweatherfreak
  • Uhh, I'm 12. If you review my contribs, you'll also find that I have participated in many XfDs, Anti-Vandal work, copyediting, et cetera. I guess TeckWiz - Sorry, R - and I are virtually the only prolific 12 year old contributors. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 16:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No, You'll find I had approximately 1350 edits last month, and I only turned 12 last month. So I'm pretty active. —A • D ^Torque 23:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Preston, You're editing is valued and a positive force in Wikipedia (if not a little too forceful). An editor review is more suited to editors making controversial and article content edits, as there is only so much that can be said about maintenance tasks (even if they are done well). Bennyboyz3000 12:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• Hi there. Great job at reverting vandalism. My only comment would be to include article names in your warnings. Other than that, keep up the good work =) --koder 02:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

• View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

   My high vandal revisions because I'm trying to protect Wikipedia from long term vandals. Vandalism tends to be a problem and I will be part of the one who fixes this problem.

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 don't have any stress-related issues on Wikipedia, but on rare occasions, I tend to lose my mind and think my work has been unappreciated. Another annoying situation is two different IPs vandalizing the same article and the rollback is useless. The way I solved this problem is to check the history and restore the proper version. I am a little ashamed with my occasional bad desicion to distinct from vandalism and real information and this most notable is this diff. The way I fix it is to actually read the context and to see if it is vandalism or not.