Wikipedia:Editor review/Grsz11

Grsz11

Grsz11 (talk · contribs) Just want some general feedback on my edits and actions, as I've gotten more and more involved with different aspects of the project. Grsz^talk 00:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

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?

   2007-08 Pittsburgh Penguins season, an article I significantly contributed to recently passed GA status. I like writing articles when I can, and this is one of few chances I've had to do that because most of my other interests are already well-developed with little to add. I've also created several articles on hockey players, however, as they're not very notable players there is little information to add. I'll be continuing with those articles as more is available. I also contribute to the random history or political article - those interests come and go. Grsz^X 00:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

1. 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?

   I was interested in editing articles about the 2008 US election, obviously a contentious topic. Conflicts at Barack Obama and Sarah Palin are frequent, and I learned from my earlier experiences at Obama. Following an unrelated wikibreak after some conflicts at Obama, I've been involved at Palin and feel I'm better able to handle these issues that come up. Grsz^talk 16:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• comment: on 3RR, you were extremely uncivil and rude. if i were an admin, i would have banned you immediately. please do not be rude to other wikipedians. i am *extremely* surprised you haven't been banned yet. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

But you aren't. And this is a review of editing, not opinions. Grsz^talk 06:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Being uncivil/rude is an example of an edit. And I can't say your "but you aren't" comment won't look bad overall as well BMW(drive) 13:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Some context. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 01:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• comment: On Obama talk pages, you gave me the feeling of being prickly, and short. And then you template warned me which I found appallingly rude. For a liberal I thought I had you pinned as a people person, but you obviously aren't. Very unfortunate. Digital^Ninja 19:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Specifics? Or was that a rant? And who said I'm liberal? And where does it say I can't template warn you? Grsz^Review! 20:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The specifics are pretty much any communication we've shared on the Obama talk page. However, IMO and from what I understand Wikipedia's purpose is, your editing is informative, passionate, and reasonable. You close pointless discussions at proper times, you correct mistakes (e.g. mainspace vio's), and your generally knowledgeable when pointing out certain policy and using the spirit of such instead of the letter. This is my honest review, happy now? On a personal note I bet it would be interesting debating with you, as long as we're out of arms reach :) Digital^Ninja 20:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Question by Hobartimus

1. How would you describe the events that lead to your block log, were the blocks unfair, was it due to admin abuse etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobartimus (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the question Hobartimus. I'll go at them one by one. The first on 24 April at Barack Obama I feel was an unfair block. The block was placed over 14 hours after the edits were made (history section here). Seeing as "the purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment", I don't believe the block should have been made. In the 24 hour period in question, I made 4 reversions to the page. I could argue that this was vandalism and that this edit was inline with WP:BLP, as the text in the previous version was not reflective of the source. The other two edits are open to interpretation, but even if they are counted to 3RR, that makes a total of 2 reversions in that period. As for the merits of the block, I highly respect User:Josiah Rowe, however, he was frequently involved in the Obama article, and many argue that involved editors should not make dispute blocks.

The second at Jeremiah Wright controversy is in this field. Undid here; this undo was to reflect the source; These two were reverts, and this one restored deleted sourced material which could be considered vandalism per WP:VAN#Types of vandalism.

I believe the third, most recent one was completely unfair. It involved another editor with a history of incivility and disruptive editing. The timeframe is here. All edits are open to interpretation based on a no consensus RfC. While the other editor thought he was justified in added the content, it could justly be countered by WP:BLP and WP:TERRORIST, as the RfC resulted in no consensus to change the previous wording. Still though, Noroton went ahead and added some text. What he failed to realize is that the text he was adding was already in the article in a section titled "Described as terrorists". The text Noroton added was nearly identical to the text already in. I reverted him once and twice. In the third edit I copied Noroton's wording over the previous section. This should in no way be considered as a revert. I made one other edit, an undo, in the 24 hours before this. My reverts of Noroton were construed to violate 3RR, while many could argue that adding duplicate information is vandalism, at the very least the third edit were I simply moved his text cannot be counted.

I hope this thoroughly answers the question, please feel free to ask any more you may have. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 16:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment This revert is quintessential Grsz11. The revertee is an enemy Grsz11 vanquished. 141.217.173.37 (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)