Wikipedia:Editor review/Dora Nichov
Dora Nichov (talk · contribs) Basically, I'm a fennec fox that can use a computer, maybe the only one. I simply want to know what I can improve on while editing Wikipedia. Dora Nichov 12:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Reviews
- Reviewed by Moonriddengirl
- You typically seem to make positive, incremental changes to articles, and it's obvious that you're motivated to look after the articles that you take under your wing. That's a good thing. :) (As long as you watch the ownership issues, which I note you address on your user page.)
- I see that you very seldom use edit summaries, as you were advised to do at your talk page some time back. These can useful to other editors in quickly determining what you've contributed to an article—say if they're trying to track down a particular edit in the history or if they're watching "recent changes" for signs of vandalism. We're encouraged to use them always, whether editing articles or talk space. You may want to go under "my preferences" to the "editing" tab and ask Wikipedia to prompt you if you forget. This was a very useful tool in helping me remember, and once in a while it still catches me. :)
- You generally seem calm, articulate and polite, even in potentially tense situations, such as at User_talk:Dora_Nichov/Archive_1#Original_Research_On_List_Of_Apex_Predators. Sometimes, though, as I imagine you know, you cross the civility boundaries, as here at User_talk:Radical3#Madrilenian_butterly and here. I'd encourage you to try to keep that cool always, practice good "Wikiquette" and assume good faith. It would be helpful to this end if you would be careful with the term "vandalism" in the edit summaries you do make. We're advised at WP:Vandalism that "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism." I'm not sure that the following edits you reverted recently would necessarily qualify as bad faith—[1] and [2]. As far as I can tell, both of these could have been well-intended edits, even if misguided or incorrectly done. We particularly want to avoid biting newcomers, especially when we can sometimes help them correct their behavior with a simple, friendly note. :) Unless an action is clearly vandalism, you should try to use a more neutral term in your edit summary.
- A few other points: I imagine it goes without saying that evading blocks is not a good idea. Also, try to be consistent when adding new references as here with existing citation styles. It's a good idea to use one standard within an article. :)
- You ask specifically what you might improve on. The two challenges I'd set for you right now would be addressing your use of edit summaries to be sure that you use them routinely in both article and talk space and monitoring your tone of discourse with other editors to make sure that your intention is not misunderstood and that you help make Wikipedia a smoother environment to work in, even for newbies who may not necessarily do things right.
- That said, you seem to be knowledgeable in your field and truly interested in protecting and building the project. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Comments
- View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- Not really, I simply want Wikipedia to be a better place, with less vandals.
- 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?
- Yes, plenty. It usually depends on how the other editor behaves to me. I can deal with things calmly if the other editor is willing to, but I will be fierce (sometimes overdoing so, though) if the other editor is hostile.