Jackson Peebles

Jackson Peebles (talk · contribs · count) I am an anti-vandal, pro-education editor who is dedicated to broadening the applications of Wikipedia while expanding the base of individuals who constructively edit it! Jackson Peebles (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

   My primary contributions focus on combating vandalism, largely using STiki, the creation of the Video Tutorials Project, and reviewing new pages, then providing useful feedback to the editors. I find this especially rewarding, as I often find accidental mistakes, fix them, add categories, un-orphan, pass this information along to the creator along with a kind welcome message, and all of the sudden we have a new Wikipedia Editor who really feels like I listened to and helped him/her. On occasion, I'll also make a little copy edit here and there.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I most certainly have been in editing disputes, but they almost always end favorably. It is very easy to get disgruntled online. In a case where I am wrong, I instantly admit fault, and I've had tremendous success with this. Even the most irate editor can't argue with an honest, easily-reversible mistake. However, if the issue is not so easily resolved, I have no problem addressing things within userspaces, where these discussions belong, rather than article talk pages or, worse, the articles themselves. Finally, I am happy to use WP:3 or the other mediation tools that are available or to report "bad" users to the administrators noticeboard, though I do always assume good faith.

3. What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?

   Initially, this editor review was created for guidance on how I can improve as an editor, and it remains that way. However, my vantage point of it has shifted, slightly. As I grow more experienced on Wikipedia, I want to know what the editors, both new and seasoned, think of my editing habits, how fair I am, and what I could potentially contribute best, to. I initially had a template userbox that said that I never desired to be an administrator, but as time goes on and I run into more instances where I could use the tools, I am certainly becoming interested in potential adminship if it is for the good of the community. I would like feedback primarily pertinent to my vandalism reversion (rollback rights), my reviewing actions, and how I handle disputes. Video tutorial feedback has its own page.

Reviews

Review by Bradyjack

Hi Jackson,

Please allow me to take this opportunity to thank you for the minor edits that you made on our page entitled "Risk Inclination" and your suggestions on how to develop it into a valuable addition to the existing literature of Wikipedia.

Thank you again for your kind and valuable assistance.

Very sincerely, Brady

Review by AutomaticStrikeout

Hi Jackson. I don't like to spend time making thorough reviews (so I don't), but I am not averse to stopping by and letting you know that I've been impressed by what I have seen of you. Keep up the good work would be my advice. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  03:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Whoisjohngalt

Hello Jackson, I want to thank you for everything you've done on Wikipedia especially encouraging new editors. It is my belief that everyone has something to add to this project and we should encourage new people to come aboard and feel comfortable enough to add what they know to this large collaborative effort. I'm not the greatest editor on earth, but you make me feel welcome. You come across fair and friendly and that is what's needed on Wikipedia right now. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by JoshuaWalker

Jackson: your edits reflect an invaluable contribution to the project. Your work in supporting new users is especially encouraging, as is your efforts in vandal and good faith edit patrol. I notice some limited contributions to project-based discussions, so might I suggest increased activity in this area, especially if considering administrator tasks in the future. All of this, coupled with your excellent turn of phrase, makes for a very worthy editor, indeed! JoshuaWalker | Talk 21:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Tattoodwaitress

Jackson: as a new editor in training I want to thank you for your dedication to improving Wikipedia and the support that you have given me as an adoptee. I have found your "speech" to be encouraging, knowledgeable, funny, and most educational. You make a huge effort to respond to everything that an editor says which shows that you really are a good listener. That in my opinion is one of the greatest qualities a human can have when dealing with others. You are slow to respond (if at all) when people are less than civil and that is a commendable quality, and by slow I mean you respond thoughtfully, with respect and civility. You do not react! Your qualities make me want to be a better editor. Thank you for being you and for being an editor of the educational variety. TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 22:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by PantherLeapord

G'day Jackson; You've been a great help to me and many others through your adoption program. You are easily a net positive to the project and Wikipedia would be less without you. Keep up the good work! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 12:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Casliber

Write something - try write a GA or DYK and list it on your userpage. Review others - even driveby comments at Peer Review will be gratefully accepted by article writers. The First Pillar is what we're all about after all. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]