Wikipedia:Editor review/Xnuala

Xnuala

Xnuala (talk · contribs) Hi everyone! I have been a Wikipedian since December 2006. I am seeking out this editor review, because I feel that being a productive member of the community requires some community input as well. I think I'm on the right track, but am sometimes a bit concerned that I don't recieve a lot of feedback. Maybe that is a good sign, but I'd rather make sure I'm available to recieve any constructive criticism that I am due! --Xnuala (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

• I enjoyed reading the Bridlewood article. Consider adding information about local government, economy (industries? completely residential? shopping district?), who developed Bridlewood (developer? individuals just built homes one at a time?), transportation, geography (located in a valley near Ottawa or high in the hills or nothing to comment on?), any demographical data (old people live there, few old people, etc.), any points of interest?
• Consider doing some editing, such as changing "17000" to "17,000", changing "Bridlewood Community Association" to "Bridlewood Community Association (BCA)" because later BCA is used without any explanation. I'll leave you the task of editing rather than doing it myself.
• There is no one correct formula for all editors to follow, other than striving to edit well. Some like to correct grammar, others like to create articles or just edit existing articles. Someone may be interested in one subject, such as writing about Ottawa or Canada, while someone else may be writing on many topics, such as Canada, law, history, science, entertainment, etc. Still others like to do purely administrative tasks, such as editing on "Editor review" or looking for vandalism, etc. There are many outlets for editing other than articles but no requirement to participate in all or any of them.
• If you are interested in the WP:ADOPT adoption program, I would be willing to consider taking you on as an adoptee.VK35 23:19, 29 May 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

• This editor was very civil with me and willing to explain things to me, even when he strongly disagreed with me. That's a rare and commendable trait. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions

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

   My strongest article contribution has been the improvements to Bridlewood. The changes that have been made since my first encounter with this article are evident here: [1]. I know that the article has a long way to go, but after noticing the comment on Talk:Bridlewood I agreed that something needed to be done. Other areas that I have contributed to include taking care of Wikipedia:Redirects from misspellings, participating in Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, and Wikipedia:Articles for Creation is somewhere where I have just begun spending time, as it looks to be largely neglected.

2. 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?

   Actually, I have not been involved in many conflicts at all, which is one of the reasons I have sought out an editor review. I have worked with one editor on an article that was subsequently deleted, so you can see some of my interactions at User talk:Neil zusman and User talk:Neil zusman/sandbox. I think this situation had the potential to turn into a conflict, but we all avoided that possibility. There was a short discussion with User:Toa Mario about the suitability of certain articles for inclusion on Wikipedia: [2], but I think my actions attempted to defuse the conflict. The only thing causing me stress is related to a feeling of never catching up with some of the backlogs!

Additional Questions from Dfrg.msc:

Borrowed from Glen (talk · contribs), I'm sure he wont mind. These should test you editing skills, and show if you have any weaknesses which you can work on. So, just write your answer next to the Question. Good luck.

Speedy Delete or not:

1. CSD1 I would PROD in this case, as there is a tenuous assertion of notability.
2. CSD2 CSD A7, no assertion of notability
3. CSD3 Again, I would go with PROD. 90 markets worldwide could be notable, but I would require sources for that conclusion.
4. CSD4 CSD G1, patent nonsense
5. CSD5 CSD A7, no assertion of notability

Vandalism or or not:

1. [3] Not vandalism, but also not NPOV or particularly encyclopedic (without sources, that is!)
2. [4] Assuming good faith, not deliberate vandalism. Possibly a test edit, or a good faith error.
3. [5] Vandalism, but not excessively offensive.
4. [6]Not vandalism, but not likely appropriate for the article.
5. [7] Not vandalism, unless this was deliberately going against consensus.
6. [8]Definitely not vandalism. May or may not be appropriate for the article.

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That was fun! Thanks for asking me!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)