User talk:Arctic.gnome/Review 1
Arctic.gnome (talk · contribs) Hi. I've been here for just short of two years. Most of my edits are on lists and groups of very similar articles in series, but I also spend a healthy amount of time on regular articles. Most of my edits are on Canadian politics but I’ll edit anything that I see needs some help. I also have done some work with images and templates. Recently I’ve been spending more time in the WP: namespace, mostly on featured discussions. I recently found this review process and I’d like to make sure that I haven’t been committing any big faux pas in the Wikipedia community. Thanks. Arctic Gnome 08:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Reviews
delldot's review:
Hi Arctic.gnome, your contributions look good to me. A few points:
- Kudos for the featured list, an accomplishment indeed. You're obviously a serious contributor.
- Your edits are "well spread" with a ton of talk edits (must be due to the tagging talk pages for wikiprojects), and a large number of WP: and WT: space edits. This will be good for an RFA if you're considering one.
- You've made a great leap in participation lately, with edits topping 1000 for the past two months. I actually don't know if anyone would care in an RfA , they might want to see a more consistent level of participation, but I doubt it would be a big deal.
- Good contribution to wikiproject and other project-namespace related activities.
- Pretty good use of edit summaries, I'd consider changing it in your preferences so that it prompts you if you go to save without one, so you can get those last few. Edit summaries are helpful to other users and some folks in RfA look for 100% usage.
- It looks from your contribs and talk page like you're willing to do your homework, you ask questions and work with other editors to improve articles.
- What's the "revert war" referenced on your talk page about an image of Stephen Harper? Have you really participated in a revert war on this? You've been around longer than me, so you don't need me to tell you that continually reverting someone's edits is not a good way to handle disputes, reguardless of who's in the right. However, I also suspect you weren't really in a revert war. I don't see evidence of it in your contribs from around the time the message was left. Your answer to Q2 was good, bringing in unbiased parties to settle a dispute is a good idea.
- I didn't see any evidence of incivility in your talk or user talk edits that I looked at, so this is good. You respond to criticism by explaining yourself, a fine way to handle it.
- I'd say you're ready for an RfA if you want one (though it's a brutal process, and you should read WP:GRFA and the admins reading list and evaluate yourself to determine if you're ready before making that move.) Sorry to be so RfA minded, you didn't mention one but I've noticed some folks that ask for a review do have that in mind. Either way, I think you're a great contributor, didn't find any substantial problems (if allegations of revert warring are untrue), so keep up the great work. delldot | talk 22:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments
- View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
- You'll have to scroll past a couple hundred edits of me adding pages to WikiProjects to find my real edit history. --Arctic Gnome 23:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- I'm proud of all of my featured lists, especially List of Canadian federal parliaments. In those cases I (with others) have taken a simple list of links and turned them into what is probably a better source of quick information than anything online or in any book. I'm also happy that there are no longer any gaps in the series 1st to 39th Canadian Parliament and 1st to 28th Canadian Ministry, even though most of those articles are fairly short.
- 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’ve been in a few some drawn-out debates, the most stressful being in Lengths of science fiction film and television series and Canadian science fiction where a user and I have opposite views about how something should be defined. I’ve found the best solution to offer compromises, like giving him a footnote to make his point or splitting the article in two. If the user doesn’t accept the middle ground, I ask members of a related wikiproject to break the stalemate.