46:) Hi everyone! I have been a Wikipedian since December 2006. I am seeking out this editor review, because I feel that being a productive member of the community requires some community input as well. I think I'm on the right track, but am sometimes a bit concerned that I don't recieve a lot of feedback. Maybe that is a good sign, but I'd rather make sure I'm available to recieve any constructive criticism that I am due! --
75:
writing on many topics, such as Canada, law, history, science, entertainment, etc. Still others like to do purely administrative tasks, such as editing on "Editor review" or looking for vandalism, etc. There are many outlets for editing other than articles but no requirement to participate in all or any of them.
74:
There is no one correct formula for all editors to follow, other than striving to edit well. Some like to correct grammar, others like to create articles or just edit existing articles. Someone may be interested in one subject, such as writing about Ottawa or Canada, while someone else may be
66:
I enjoyed reading the
Bridlewood article. Consider adding information about local government, economy (industries? completely residential? shopping district?), who developed Bridlewood (developer? individuals just built homes one at a time?), transportation, geography (located in a valley near
70:
Consider doing some editing, such as changing "17000" to "17,000", changing "Bridlewood
Community Association" to "Bridlewood Community Association (BCA)" because later BCA is used without any explanation. I'll leave you the task of editing rather than doing it
167:
Actually, I have not been involved in many conflicts at all, which is one of the reasons I have sought out an editor review. I have worked with one editor on an article that was subsequently deleted, so you can see some of my interactions at
218:), I'm sure he wont mind. These should test you editing skills, and show if you have any weaknesses which you can work on. So, just write your answer next to the Question. Good luck.
164:
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?
183:, but I think my actions attempted to defuse the conflict. The only thing causing me stress is related to a feeling of never catching up with some of the backlogs!
117:
This editor was very civil with me and willing to explain things to me, even when he strongly disagreed with me. That's a rare and commendable trait. –
152:
67:
Ottawa or high in the hills or nothing to comment on?), any demographical data (old people live there, few old people, etc.), any points of interest?
176:. I think this situation had the potential to turn into a conflict, but we all avoided that possibility. There was a short discussion with
148:
101:
156:
110:
173:
43:
251:
245:
242:
Again, I would go with PROD. 90 markets worldwide could be notable, but I would require sources for that conclusion.
239:
233:
227:
215:
17:
147:
I agreed that something needed to be done. Other areas that I have contributed to include taking care of
169:
133:
Of your contributions to
Knowledge, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
300:
196:
140:. The changes that have been made since my first encounter with this article are evident here:
316:
51:
37:
271:
Assuming good faith, not deliberate vandalism. Possibly a test edit, or a good faith error.
144:
79:
266:
Not vandalism, but also not NPOV or particularly encyclopedic (without sources, that is!)
159:
is somewhere where I have just begun spending time, as it looks to be largely neglected.
209:
177:
325:
303:
121:
88:
55:
297:
193:
143:. I know that the article has a long way to go, but after noticing the comment on
118:
312:
47:
33:
137:
82:
adoption program, I would be willing to consider taking you on as an adoptee.
205:
83:
291:
Definitely not vandalism. May or may not be appropriate for the article.
230:
I would PROD in this case, as there is a tenuous assertion of notability.
180:
about the suitability of certain articles for inclusion on
Knowledge:
286:
Not vandalism, unless this was deliberately going against consensus.
136:
My strongest article contribution has been the improvements to
281:
Not vandalism, but not likely appropriate for the article.
289:
284:
279:
274:
269:
264:
181:
141:
8:
276:Vandalism, but not excessively offensive.
153:Knowledge:Disambiguation pages with links
109:View this user's edit summary usage with
149:Knowledge:Redirects from misspellings
7:
309:That was fun! Thanks for asking me!
254:CSD A7, no assertion of notability
236:CSD A7, no assertion of notability
100:View this user's edit count using
24:
157:Knowledge:Articles for Creation
102:Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
1:
174:User talk:Neil zusman/sandbox
78:If you are interested in the
342:
192:Additional Questions from
326:02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
122:01:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
304:07:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
89:23:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
56:16:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
248:CSD G1, patent nonsense
18:Knowledge:Editor review
222:Speedy Delete or not:
259:Vandalism or or not:
170:User talk:Neil zusman
151:, participating in
333:
324:
86:
341:
340:
336:
335:
334:
332:
331:
330:
310:
145:Talk:Bridlewood
84:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
339:
337:
329:
328:
295:
293:
292:
287:
282:
277:
272:
267:
256:
255:
249:
243:
237:
231:
204:Borrowed from
189:
187:
186:
185:
184:
178:User:Toa Mario
162:
161:
160:
125:
124:
114:
113:
111:mathbot's tool
106:
105:
92:
91:
76:
72:
68:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
338:
327:
322:
318:
314:
308:
307:
306:
305:
302:
299:
290:
288:
285:
283:
280:
278:
275:
273:
270:
268:
265:
263:
262:
261:
260:
253:
250:
247:
244:
241:
238:
235:
232:
229:
226:
225:
224:
223:
219:
217:
214:
211:
207:
202:
201:
200:
198:
195:
182:
179:
175:
171:
166:
165:
163:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
139:
135:
134:
132:
131:
130:
129:
123:
120:
116:
115:
112:
108:
107:
103:
99:
98:
97:
96:
90:
87:
81:
77:
73:
69:
65:
64:
63:
62:
58:
57:
53:
49:
45:
42:
39:
35:
29:
26:
19:
320:
294:
258:
257:
221:
220:
212:
203:
191:
190:
188:
127:
126:
94:
93:
60:
59:
40:
32:
27:
296:Have fun!
138:Bridlewood
128:Questions
95:Comments
216:contribs
80:WP:ADOPT
61:Reviews
44:contribs
119:Quadell
71:myself.
321:Review
313:Xnuala
155:, and
48:Xnuala
34:Xnuala
28:Xnuala
298:Dfrg.
194:Dfrg.
16:<
317:talk
252:CSD5
246:CSD4
240:CSD3
234:CSD2
228:CSD1
210:talk
206:Glen
172:and
85:VK35
52:talk
38:talk
301:msc
197:msc
319:)(
311:--
54:)
323:)
315:(
213:·
208:(
199::
104:.
50:(
41:·
36:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.