Craw-daddy (talk · contribs) I'm curious as to how other editors might view my contributions, and how I might improve myself as an editor. While I've contributed here and there to other topics, most of my edits have been generally confined to articles related to board games and role-playing games. I feel that I know something about these subjects and have tried to improve upon the coverage here. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Hello! Well, might as well get this started for you. My focus will be on deletion discussions: [1] (you should indicate where you looked for sources), [2] (reasonable comment), [3] (the problem here is that material was added to the article under discussion that could be merged and that was thus not already at the main article), [4] (article has improved since that comment), [5] (reasonable comment, but I think this like the one for Sonic can and should also be applied to the Robotnik discussion), [6] (it's best to not simply say, "See X", but to say something like, "Hi! I think the article does not pass" and mention some specific aspect of trivia), [7] (it is of prime importance to be open-minded and give efitors the benefit of the doubt when changes are being made), [8] (never cite anything with "cruft" in it as a reason for an argument as someone will almost assuredly reply with WP:ITSCRUFT), [9] (don't call the word of established editors into question), [10] (lots of material we cover exists elsewhere, but that's not a reason why we shouldn't cver it as well; also it's good to avoid subjective terms like WP:JNN), [11] (not necessary to pile on delete when there's enough editors already doing so), [12] (somewhat reasonable), [13] (avoid "strong" as they seem to annoy people...from personal experience and trying to be witty with the chainsaw comment as that also I have found puts people off), [14] (we cannot merge and delete per the GFDL), [15] (totally reasonable), [16] (reasonable), [17] (don't merely look at the sources in the article, but see what you can find from your own sources as well), and [18] (totally reasonable). My overall suggestion would be to consider putting more effort into trying to improve some of the artices in question and returning to the discussions and reconsidering your stance when they are improved or new sources are added. For some other ideas, you may want to read User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#Articles that all editors should read. Anyway, I hope that helps! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool

Questions

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

   I suppose it's the obvious things, namely the two articles that I have helped promote to GA. These are Ogre (game) and My Life with Master. For both of these articles I didn't have to assume WP:AMNESIA as I had played neither (nor even owned a copy of either) before working on those articles. I had certainly heard of Ogre before I started to work on it, but I stumbled across the article on My Life with Master (MLwM) while I was assessing the pages having the {{RPGproject}} banner on them. They can both still be improved, and I'll likely work some more on MLwM now that I actually own a copy of the rulebook and can add a little bit from the designer's comments.

   Over the course of February and March I assessed the pages covered by Wikipedia: WikiProject Role-playing games and Wikipedia: WikiProject Board and table games, as well as updating the project templates to use the {{WPBannerMeta}} template (and I did the same update for the Go and Star Trek WikiProjects). I attempted to outline my methods for performing the assessment, at least in regard to the "importance" rating. I explained my reasoning on the talk pages of both of the projects for how I chose this rating.

   I have also attempted to add references to many articles, and still continue to do so (although my editing has dropped of late as work-related obligations have sapped my strength and will). I am still somewhat surprised that the only references citations to be found in Baron Münchhausen are the ones that I added that are related to the RPG.  :)

3. 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?

   There has been some conflict with one editor that was resolved, I suppose, but it wasn't particularly satisfying. This conversation can be seen at Talk: List of miniature wargames. There has been some conflict, with one editor in particular, for some of the RPG articles, mostly in relation to Dungeons & Dragons articles. While this editor's intentions are overall well-intentioned, I'm not certain they have been performed in the best manner, and he has at times seemed resistant to input from other editors. This has mostly been about notability of various things, and notability of some RPGs too. As I said, this has mostly been good-intentioned, and many of these pages do need work, references, etc. (Of course, many pages on WP need similar attention.) After some time, I generally backed away from pages involved with this editor, and worked on other things. (This is really how I decided to work on the articles that I helped promote to GA, i.e. find something else to do that was unrelated to pages this editor was working in.) In the end, I think I have realized that what goes on here in WP isn't that important that I must get stressed over.