Wikipedia:Editor review/Jersey Devil

User:Jersey Devil

Jersey Devil (talk · contribs) I'm just here to see what other editors think about me and my edits. I previously had an RFA which failed, though most of the oppose votes were because of lack of edit summaries which I have since improved. Anyway, I'm not really here for that, just want to get some feedback. Jersey Devil 18:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

I've noticed Jersey Devil make some very sensible, level headed, and swift descisions to improve the encyclopedia by afd'ing bad categories, pages and other bits and bobs that are not up to scratch. Jersey also expands knowledge on various subjects that are under-represented on wikipedia. For this he should be commended as a highly valued editor, and one that I would trust to approach a problematic issue with a sensible head. I haven't identified any areas for improvement yet! Keep up the good work.--Zleitzen 06:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
Comment One of the "issues" in the previous Rfa was a low edit summary use...looking over past 1,000 contributions, this appears to no longer be an issue. Other items such as the now long past Rfc, which was basically a vindictive effort, are of little concern as the "issues" mentioned there are no loonger applicable. I can see no reason at this time to not promote this editor to admin.--MONGO 06:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: In particular I am pleased with my contributions to the Ollanta Humala article (which has since been listed as a good article), the Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada article, the Cory Booker article (which I've really worked hard to maintain updated), TeleSUR, Open Veins of Latin America, Pacifica Radio, and the Alan García article (though for this one I can only take partial credit as most of my work in that article is in the "The second García administration" section). I have a list of "articles created", "articles contributed to", etc... in my user page which lists more contributions.

On vandal fighting I always remove it when I see it. I occasionally patrol for new pages and put speedy tags on vandal pages. I've also been active on fighting vandalism on the Democratic Party (United States) article, which seems to be a huge target of vandals (at least once a day it gets vandalized).

I help maintain the Portal:Peru (adding monthly updates for news, pictures, selected articles, and selected bios) and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Peru.--Jersey Devil 19:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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?
A: I was in a "conflict" with User:Striver for some time over his insistance on placing down, what I feel was information from unreliable sources (9/11 truth type blogs and such) in articles in a manner which I felt worked to promote his 9/11 truth POV. Along with that also the creation of articles which I felt were unencyclopedic. Anyway, since administrators have been more keen on the user this has died down and the entire incident is pretty much over. I really don't hold any grudges.--Jersey Devil 19:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can you say a little more about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil? --Guinnog 20:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A: The RFC was started by the aforementioned user and I think it is pretty clear what the feeling about the RFC was. In the outside view by Pegasus1138 which stated This RFC is a blatant example of not assuming good faith just because someone disagrees with having articles they have worked on AFDed. This is a pointless and hostile RFC. 23 Wikipedians signed on to it. Other statements in that RFC are similar.--Jersey Devil 20:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]