488:, I had a bit of a heated edit war with another editor regarding the structuring of production information. There were some changes of his that I had found unreasonable, and when I tried to improve on them, I found myself reverted. I tried to contact him on his talk page, but he didn't respond for some reason. The situation didn't escalate, and I made use of his beneficial changes while tidying up the ones that didn't seem as useful. The other instance was regarding the removal of Myspace blogs. Several film directors have Myspace blogs that they use to share production information, but an editor was removing links using AWB, citing that Myspace and blogs were not valid sources. I tried to present my argument to him that these blogs were appropriate since the authors are authoritative (being directors of their films) and that Myspace.com was not always imperative to delete. I was able to figure out a solution by working with an admin to add certain Myspace blog links to a spam whitelist so they could stay, but the ordeal was exhaustive as my argument seemed like it fell on deaf ears.
246:
for either him and you is a concern to me as well (and I hope both of you are not the same person; that's what makes it a concern). As there is little edit history to substantiate the backgrounds of either you or him, it's difficult to determine if the reviews are put forth honestly by an editor who has clearly worked on
Knowledge (XXG) for a while. While I don't wish to limit dialogue from anonymous editors, the lack of identity makes me concerned about the authenticity of such statements, which I feel are borderline harassive toward me. I ask you not to address the manner further, as unlike your edit summary said, this was not "A review", but a persistence of the first one by a different(?) editor. I allowed the first review to remain despite its aggressive nature because I don't believe I handled that situation to the best of my ability, but I also took a moment to note that I was not in full agreement with his accusations of my actions. —
213:'s comments. That's the sort of aditude that will look *really* bad if you're ever up for adminship. Cut it out, you still have things to learn or you wouldn't be looking for review. Don't just accept what makes you feel good and reject what you disagree with. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true; in fact, it probably means it's something you can learn from.
363:
For once, I agree with
Viriditas here (and that is saying something, ideed). Erik's contributions to Knowledge (XXG) extend well past simply improving articles. He mentors new users to create better editors, taking the time to explain policies and working to head off problems before they occur. He is
231:
Please consider that the initial reviewer may not be right in all his accusations. While I don't feel that I presented the most civil behavior possible, I still stand by my actions in preserving the status quo, as the editor never explained to me how he justified his own adjustment of the importance
349:
I'm sorry, but some of these anon reviews read like sour grapes from users involved in personal disputes. In any case, Erikster should have been made an admin a long time ago. He mentors new users, invests a lot of time into improving film articles, and has a reputation for neutrality and assuming
373:
An impressive array of resourcefulness, talent and versatility beneath a frequently-prickly initial demeanor. Erik is deserving of admin status (and indeed holds himself to an administrative/mentor-level standard across multiple disciplines, including but not limited to consistency, purity/quality
156:
Of course, you're free to blank this review, but doing so will indicate a lack of openness on your part that may count against you. You will be certainly better thought of if can show willingness to link an ostensibly "negative" editor review from your userpage. Especially if you can prove you have
245:
Additionally, I'm disappointed that the reviewer chose to quickly review me a mere handful of hours after the conflict at hand, and also made harsh accusations in the belief that he was totally justified in his actions and words, where I wasn't. In addition, the lack of registration of a username
120:
When discussing a topic, abuse is never acceptable: "You are charging people who revert you for POV and OWN, when it seems that you are having your own POV in choosing how film articles should be re-categorized. And please don't try to become a neutral party all of a sudden, when you were clearly
65:
editor, though I'm not sure if my attitude is too cavalier. I've tried to explain policies to dissenters of my reverts. I also hunt down vandalism and have pursued trails of linkspam with the spammer's contribution list. Basically, I just want to know how I'm doing as a
Knowledge (XXG) editor.
317:
Please don't command me to do something that is entirely up to me. The review, while flawed, did help me understand how to be more civil in dealing with new editors, so that notion is appreciated. However, the harassing tone of the review was unnecessary and could have been delivered much more
109:
First of all - do not engage in revert wars of the tit-for-tat variety. If user A says "i'm changing this because its not x" dont revert saying "i'm changing it back because A's edit is not x". Dont descend to that level. Keep level-headed discussion on the talk page. Reversion are for vandalism
281:
I prefer to remain anonymous as I edit, and I'm behind a DHCP server. I assure you that I am the person who wrote the response to your response to the first anonymous reviewer, who I am not. Again, this is not the place to rehash old debates. You asked for review, now accept it graciously.
148:
Finally, after the dust had settled, it seems you *were* willing to discuss in a less combative way. Your initiation of a possible solution debate shows signs of maturity and a willingness to work to improve wikipedia rather than using it as a battleground with "turfs" that you
144:
is not an acceptable apology for making an editing mistake. "You said X so i'm gonna say X back" is childish playground nonsense. Please grow up. If you made a mistake, put an honest apology on their talk page and take it on the chin. You failed to do any of those things.
364:
good natured, and his interests range widely. Importantly, when he doesn't know something, he says so. He then seeks out the answer to that question so as to provide an answer. He is an example of what a good editor is. He is what I expect an administrator to be.
137:
a MMORPG. Don't assume an "anon" is a vandal, or a "lesser" editor. Remember, there are many sysops, admins, developers etc who prefer to edit anonymously - indeed, many of us choose to use this method to weed out disruptive or combative registered editors.
132:
You must remain neutral. This means not favouring your wiki-friends over strangers in content disputes, just because "you know them". Offline strategising with wiki-friends to "win" arguments is frowned upon. Don't treat wikipedia as a "battle" to "win" -
232:
scale. Never being a fan of the importance scale, I attempted to bring the issue to WikiProject Films that day to determine if it could be removed in its entirety. Unfortunately, though, nobody is interested in undertaking that major adjustment.
387:
page. Erikster was clear in his communication, had good knowledge of relevant policies, and was quick to graciously conclude the issue when the relevant actions were completed. I hope we can 'work together' again on other topics.
447:
up to GA status mostly on my own, and I'm proud of tracking articles of upcoming films to correct bad information. I've also tested the waters of working on articles of already released films, such as
121:
going on your re-categorization mission before you encountered resistance. " This kind of smug ad hominem arguing is NEVER acceptable under any circumstances. Its a prime violation of
480:
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?
102:
17:17, 7 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Pulp
Fiction (film) (Don't remove the importance just because someone disagrees with your own perspective of re-classification.)
96:
17:18, 7 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day (Revert violation of own POV... your re-cats are not the gospel truth, especially without consensus.)
99:
17:18, 7 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Toy Story (Revert removal of importance due to bad-faith removal just because someone disagreed with your recat.)
153:. If you continue down that path, you can undo the damage caused by this unnecessary spat and recover enough to be considered in the future.
209:
You don't seem to get it. When you asked to be reviewed, you solicited others' opinions. There's nothing to debate here, or anywhere, about
331:
259:
195:
472:, two articles that were in terrible shape this past summer, and I feel like I've helped enormously in making them high quality today.
424:
173:
374:
of research, and comic/sci-fi canon), though I suspect softening his characteristic sharp edge(s) will be a lifelong endeavor. --
113:
Dont assume bad faith. Your edit summaries clearly do so. One even specifically cites "bad faith" - this can be construed as a
327:
255:
191:
75:
105:
17:16, 7 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Platoon (film) (Revert... where's YOUR justification of the re-classification?)
58:
50:
17:
182:
Thank you for your input. While I may not agree with all of it, I will not debate these issues with you here. —
54:
437:
Of your contributions to
Knowledge (XXG), are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
161:
468:
169:
214:
283:
210:
165:
110:
only, not content disputes. Nobody comes out well from edit-warring, no matter what their intentions.
23:
409:
384:
443:
355:
319:
247:
183:
67:
323:
251:
187:
89:
This series of edits will not be well-thought of if you ever wish to be nominated for adminship:
71:
406:
122:
61:
to gauge the build-up to announced films' actual productions. I also consider myself a fairly
450:
398:
402:
126:
62:
150:
134:
114:
389:
351:
44:
290:(Editor has harassed me twice, thus I do not consider his opinion valid in my review.
57:
have generally been in the production area, and I also keep a sort of a watchlist for
456:
53:) I've been active with various film articles, mostly those that are coming up. My
462:
412:
392:
378:
368:
365:
358:
335:
286:
263:
217:
199:
79:
397:
I respectfully disagree with your deletions to multiple movie articles based on
375:
93:
17:19, 7 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Tenebrae (film) (Revert POV re-cat.)
460:, but it is still a work in progress. I'm currently keeping a close eye on
40:
484:
A couple of instances come to mind. When I was working on
295:
291:
142:
383:
I interacted with
Erikster regarding an issue on the
8:
441:I've been pleased with how I've brought
24:Knowledge (XXG):Editor review/Erikster
401:that United States movie ratings are
7:
423:View this user's edit count using
157:learned the lessons. Bye for now.
31:
425:Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
1:
369:15:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
359:14:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
336:20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
287:19:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
264:14:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
218:09:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
59:User:Erikster/Future articles
18:Knowledge (XXG):Editor review
200:22:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
80:01:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
506:
413:14:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
407:indiscriminate information
379:03:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
393:23:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
176:) 18:43, February 7, 2007
385:Sunshine (2007 film)
211:User:82.2.139.211
178:
164:comment added by
22:(Redirected from
497:
177:
158:
27:
505:
504:
500:
499:
498:
496:
495:
494:
469:The Dark Knight
159:
115:personal attack
38:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
503:
501:
493:
492:
491:
490:
478:
476:
475:
474:
429:
428:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
238:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
224:
223:
222:
221:
215:132.161.187.25
203:
202:
107:
106:
103:
100:
97:
94:
37:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
502:
489:
485:
482:
481:
479:
477:
473:
470:
467:
464:
461:
458:
457:Batman Begins
455:
452:
449:
445:
442:
439:
438:
436:
435:
434:
433:
426:
422:
421:
420:
419:
415:
414:
411:
408:
404:
400:
395:
394:
391:
386:
381:
380:
377:
371:
370:
367:
361:
360:
357:
353:
350:good faith. —
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
318:neutrality. —
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
297:
293:
289:
288:
285:
284:132.161.33.98
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
239:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
220:
219:
216:
212:
207:
206:
205:
204:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
180:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
154:
152:
146:
143:
139:
136:
130:
128:
124:
118:
116:
111:
104:
101:
98:
95:
92:
91:
90:
87:
86:
82:
81:
77:
73:
69:
64:
60:
56:
55:contributions
52:
49:
46:
42:
36:
33:
25:
19:
487:
486:The Fountain
483:
471:
465:
463:Spider-Man 3
459:
453:
446:
444:The Fountain
440:
431:
430:
417:
416:
399:your opinion
396:
382:
372:
362:
348:
280:
208:
166:82.2.139.211
160:— Preceding
155:
147:
140:
131:
119:
112:
108:
88:
84:
83:
47:
39:
34:
125:and indeed
451:Spider-Man
410:64.24.5.67
432:Questions
418:Comments
390:Anchoress
352:Viriditas
174:contribs
162:unsigned
123:WP:CIVIL
85:Reviews
51:contribs
366:Arcayne
328:contrib
256:contrib
192:contrib
127:WP:DICK
76:contrib
403:biased
376:Sskoog
332:review
260:review
196:review
151:WP:OWN
135:WP:NOT
141:This
16:<
466:and
454:and
405:and
356:Talk
334:) -
324:talk
320:Erik
262:) -
252:talk
248:Erik
198:) -
188:talk
184:Erik
170:talk
129:.
78:) -
72:talk
68:Erik
63:bold
45:talk
41:Erik
35:Erik
117:.
354:|
330:•
326:•
298:.)
294:,
258:•
254:•
194:•
190:•
172:•
74:•
427:.
322:(
296:2
292:1
250:(
186:(
168:(
70:(
48:·
43:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.