Wikipedia:Editor review/Ajaxfiore
Ajaxfiore
Ajaxfiore (talk · contribs · count) I have been contributing to Wikipedia for some time now and I feel that this review will provide important feedback to grow and improve as an editor. Ajaxfiore (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Questions
- What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
- I have contributed to Wikipedia by fighting vandalism. I have also created two articles, and two more articles that are waiting for review at Articles for creation. I have been very involved in the article for La Luz del Mundo Church, have added lots of sources, and hope to get it to GA status.
- 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 editing disputes (mostly with one editor who has now vanished) and even edit wars (I was blocked for that). I have taken and will take content disputes to DRN and behavior disputes to AN/I.
- What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
- I hope to receive instructive criticism from this review so that I can improve and continue contributing to Wikipedia.
Reviews
Hello, I’ve had a look through your edit history, especially in relation to the articles that you list on your user page. Overall, I would say that you have made a great deal of quality edits to articles and make good use of talk pages. You also appear to be admirably dedicated to polishing the articles that you are closest to. In many cases, I found that you express very clear logical flow during argumentation, which I personally appreciate. Likewise, in the majority of cases, you handle yourself well socially; explaining actions, acknowledging the contributions of other editors and opening up content issues for discussion. These communicative skills also flow into fighting vandalism and AFDs, which I think you are doing well.
Nonetheless, as you have stated, your work in the Jorge Erdely Graham article has been interpreted as highly contentious and even as vandalism. Frankly, after reading through the talk page, I am of the opinion that, while not productive to the editing process, being blocked while arguing your case seemed unnecessary. Even so, in the future you should keep in mind that there are numerous articles that could benefit from your attention, and that time is lost every second you spend consumed by an edit war.
You are involved in some interesting, yet, politically charged topics. Be aware that you may have a conflict of interest. For one, I have noted that Sanjuana Martínez, a reporter for whom you created an article, was greatly disputed as a source in another context. Journalism is tricky because media spin is always questionable. I strongly suggest that you gravitate towards more academic sources to help alleviate some of these tensions. If nothing else, there are a few online tools for checking and balancing source bias. For example, there is a Google Chrome extension called Balancer (http://balancestudy.org/) that analyses the bias of news sites and gives suggestions from the other side of the spectrum. Although, I’m not sure if it handles other languages, as I’ve noticed many of your sources are in Spanish.
Other than that, keep doing what you are doing. If you feel like branching out to new articles and tasks, SuggestBot (User:SuggestBot/Requests) is fairly helpful. Additionally, if you haven’t looked into it already, tools like Twinkle or Huggle are helpful for speeding up the vandal fighting process.
Enjoy your wikibreak and happy editing. (Megatron Omega (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC))