Wikipedia:Editor review/Jsharpminor

Jsharpminor

Jsharpminor (talk · contribs · count) I have recently started using Huggle. Before that, despite considering myself a fairly active editor on-and-off, I had a grand total of 700 revisions. Since starting using Huggle yesterday, I now have 1500 and counting fast. Although I have never vandalized or otherwise made a single edit that wasn't in good faith, I want to get an editor review, possibly looking on some of the feedback I've received on my userpage, before a hundred angry editors come and slam my userpage with "Why did you revert this???" and "What the $!@# do you think you're doing!?!?!?" Jsharpminor (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
Mostly I poke around, often contributing a small edit when I see a grammatical error when I had intended to come to Wikipedia just for research. I've occasionally patrolled recent changes, and now with rollback and Huggle, that's a major part of what I'm doing.

I contributed greatly to the Kentucky Mountain Bible College page, taking it from a [stub] with no images and little useful information to the page it now is. (Yes, I did attend there; the article is still mostly NPOV and very well cited.) I also added the Disambiguation pages, and greatly improved accessibility for folks who might be searching for KNBC, or KMBC-TV.
I inserted an extremely useful (but probably unread and unloved) FAQ on the Presidential approval ratings page to help clear up a few errors and quash an edit war, without contributing to the fighting.

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 have been in several editing disputes. Recently, two of them have gotten people blocked. I try to avoid actually contributing to the edit wars, as is extremely evident in those two incidents.

I was attempting to add sourced material to a page when another editor reverted it. I stopped, double-checked everything, and a good revision to the page is in the works.
Other than being screamed at for reverting vandalism and unsourced material, I really don't find myself in too many edit conflicts any more. When I do, I tend to look to policies for guidance, checking both the other editor and myself.

Reviews

Review of RC Patrolling by Monty845

I have a couple comments on your recent changes patrolling. You may want to AGF more when reverting material, for instance this, while maybe not a great question, doesn't seem to rise to the level of something that needs to be reverted when it is on someone's talk page, in one sense it could even be thought of as a compliment. The second point is that you may want to make use of the drop down list of edit summaries that huggle provides (both on the revert and the revert+warn options), for instance it is not clear to me why this was reverted. On this revert, it may well be a proper revert if you think the changes are factually wrong, but I don't think the change is so crazy that it is unambiguous vandalism, an edit summary would help a later editor figure out if you thought it was just intentionally wrong, or perhaps the editor who changed it had committed other vandalism and so it was clear this was just more of the same. Finally on this edit, while I would probably revert it, I would make sure I gave a good reason in my summary (you can enter a manual one too) along the lines of: "too much coverage of the music video, WP:UNDUE, also hard to follow" and then do a revert only without warning. Don't get me wrong, your counter vandal efforts are overwhelming positive, and while many editors don't do it, I think it would be best practice to use informative edit summaries in all but the most obvious cases of vandalism (and may as well then too, its only one extra click in HG). I hope this doesn't discourage you from continuing with your recent change patrolling, keep up the good work! (I left the not yet reviewed tag because I only covered one aspect of this editor's contributions) Monty ₈₄₅ 19:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]