The Fwanksta ( talk · contribs · count) Hey there. I've been contributing to Wikipedia on a semi-regular basis for a couple of years or so now, although my contributions have not been very intensive. I would like to embark on some more detailed contributions, particularly in the area of Canadian history, so I figured now would be a good time to get reviewed before I started this new chapter of my Wikipedia experience! As well, I've been involved in a pretty heated argument (actually, twice, over the same issue), so I thought it would be a good idea to get some feedback on that, as it seems inevitable that I'll run into it again. The Fwanksta ( talk) 21:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I find that I contribute mostly to video game-related articles as well as those pertaining to Canada. Unfortunately, most of my work I believe has been more around the edges, so to speak. The one article I particularly keep an eye on is The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, where I've been pretty involved in a particular issue: whether or not it's acceptable to put in a sentence stating that the game is widely seen as one of the greatest of all time. I'm pretty happy with my work there, but as the editing got quite hot, I figured it would be good to get some feedback on how I handled it.

3. Have you been in any disputes 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?

   My biggest experience here comes with the Zelda article, as I mentioned above. I believe I handled the issue fairly well, as I used the talk page extensively and (in my opinion) engaged in pretty rational and reasonable debate, with someone who was banned at the end of it. That was also the second instance of an argument over the same issue, and the other editor I was arguing with was also subsequently banned.

Reviews

Greetings! I've done a quick review of your contributions and paid special attention to the Ocarina of Time issue because you called it out (I am assuming you want emphasis on that in the review).

• The Basics

Edit Stats: I took a look at your edit stats. The only thing that pops up as a point of criticism is your use of edit summaries. You're currently at 79% summary usage on your major edits. That said, you're at 93% on your last 150 major edits, so you appear to be correcting this trend. Keep that up (and heck, push it to 100%! :).

• General Attitude

Interactions with other editors: This is usually where one would talk about an editor's work on other user talk pages in addition to general Wiki talk spaces. You seem to have minimal contributions in other user talk pages (which isn't a problem at all, just noting that), and quite a few on article talk spaces. Broadly speaking, you clearly have a positive attitude, are a very effective communicator, and seem to be friendly. Good stuff. So, without further delay, let's get to the Ocarina of Time bit.

• Ocarina of Time Debate

I'll put it plainly: outstanding work. That was a very heated debate, and you were dealing with an editor who was (in addition to apparently sockpuppeting) clearly Wikilawyering, clearly uninterested in reaching consensus, and frankly disruptive. Not helpful. More importantly, at no point did you lose your cool. You were calm, rational, direct, and to the point, in all your contributions to the debate -- and your contributions did a lot to advance it, rather than getting stuck up on process minutiae. I'm frankly impressed. Your work in that debate augurs extremely well for your contributions to Wikipedia.

No real summary to add here, I think the Ocarina of Time bit says it all. You're doing excellent work, and if you are planning to get more heavily involved with Wikipedia than Wikipedia can count one more superb editor among its ranks. I sincerely hope you embark on your Canadian history contributions -- I'd be interested to see what you do! Good luck, and let me know if you have any questions about this review or anything else. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 07:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Further Questions

Thanks very much for the praise, I really appreciate it. And I think I will take you up on those questions:

1) Of the edit summaries that I have provided, is what I'm saying adequate?

2) As I said, I'd like to make some substantial contributions to Canadian history articles. I study Canadian History in university, so what I'm most hoping to do is make use of my access to academic resources. Do you have a suggested reference template or framework for something like this? I would mostly likely be focusing on relaying the work done by a small number of experts on a single topic, and from what I understand it's not ideal to keep putting "Ibid." "Ibid." "Ibid." in the references. For example, I'd like to do some work on the Robert Borden article, and the vast majority of my citations would come from the standard scholarly biography.

Thanks again for all your help. The Fwanksta ( talk) 18:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Answers to Further Questions

• 1. I just looked at your last 100 or so contribs. When you supply summaries, they are more than adequate. However, I do note inconsistency in terms of supplying them. You should supply a summary for every edit, ideally -- even edits to talk pages, minor edits, etc. But yes, when you provide them, they are at least adequate.
• 2. Wikipedia:Citation_templates#Using the same footnote multiple times. Is that what you're looking for? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 04:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• 1 Thanks. I'll be sure to improve.
• 2 To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure, but I'll make sure I take a look at that style when I start writing.

Thanks again for all your help. The Fwanksta ( talk) 21:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply