Wikipedia:Editor review/Purplewowies
Purplewowies[edit]
Purplewowies (talk · contribs · count) Hi! I've been an editor since late 2007 and made approxmately 2,500 edits. I'm interested in becoming an admin, but not anytime soon (especially not in the next 3-4 months, because I won't have regular internet this summer). I'd really like to know any concerns you have with my editing, things you think I can improve, and places where you think I'm doing a good job. Purplewowies (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Questions
- What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
- Well, I do a lot of small edits, reverting vandalism and the like. I also hang around the help desk a lot. Regarding mainspace edits, there have really only been a couple of articles to which I substantially contributed. I did a lot of work on the Signing Time! article in my early years, though I feel that's not some of my best work, partially because I was young and immature when I did a lot of the edits there. I also brought Dylan and Cole Sprouse to GA status after it was demoted last year. I'm working on trying to get it up to FAC standards, and suggestions from the latest peer review are on my to-do list, though I'm too burned out by real-life work and projects to really get into editing that again right now. I've also substantially rewritten History of deaf education in the United States.
- 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.
- I've been in edit wars with editors who were in the "wrong" before (blanking sections, being incivil, adding back material that pretty much all involved agreed shouldn't be in the article), but I only really feel that I've been in one true dispute. In this dispute, a well-meaning IP editor was adding way too much character information to a book's article, and I was removing what was obviously unimportant and crufty (having never read the book), but the IP kept adding it back. I tried talking on the IP's talk page, but it was as if the editor didn't know that talk pages of any kind (including their own) existed. I received no response, and I took it to DRN. After that, it kind of petered out. The article that dispute was around (Lemonade Mouth) is still rather crufty, and I plan on reading the book this summer so that I can competently remove/rewrite information in the article when I'm able.
I almost always feel that the first step when in a dispute should be to contact the user, and that is what I plan to do if I'm ever in a dispute again.
- I've been in edit wars with editors who were in the "wrong" before (blanking sections, being incivil, adding back material that pretty much all involved agreed shouldn't be in the article), but I only really feel that I've been in one true dispute. In this dispute, a well-meaning IP editor was adding way too much character information to a book's article, and I was removing what was obviously unimportant and crufty (having never read the book), but the IP kept adding it back. I tried talking on the IP's talk page, but it was as if the editor didn't know that talk pages of any kind (including their own) existed. I received no response, and I took it to DRN. After that, it kind of petered out. The article that dispute was around (Lemonade Mouth) is still rather crufty, and I plan on reading the book this summer so that I can competently remove/rewrite information in the article when I'm able.
Reviews
Review by Cntras (talk · contribs)
After a quick look at your last 1000 edits and your talk page discussions there doesn't seem to be any immediate concerns. Your mainspace edits seems to be quite substantial and your work at the help desk is definitely valuable. There is also a lot of discussion on the article talk pages, which is also a good sign. As a general editor - you're doing well. But if you're interested in being an admin then you need to focus more attention on WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:ANI, closing WP:AFD, WP:CSD etc. To gauge the general expectations and questions, take a look at some of the recent RFA nominees. -Cntras (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Review by Dodger67 (talk · contribs)
Just a brief comment rather than an in-depth review - I often come across this user on help pages where he/she is a courteous, knowlegable and all round very good helper. Roger (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Review by Seraphimblade (talk · contribs)
I am not familiar with this editor, but am impressed with the editor's handling of unexpectedly being collateral damage to a checkuser hardblock. Purplewowies handled the situation very calmly and without rancor, resulting in its quick resolution. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Does anybody else have a review or anything to add? I don't feel like I received much criticism or anything, and I got a message from a bot saying this page would be archived soon. - Purplewowies (talk) (How's my driving?) 03:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)