Wikipedia:Editor review/069952497a

069952497a
I've been on Wikipedia for almost a year now, and have amassed over 10,000 edits in that time. I'd like a review partly because I might want to run for adminship in the future, partly because I just want a general review of what I've done and maybe some suggestions on what I could do next.  069952497a  (U-T-C-E) 18:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * Primarily, my work can be separated into three major areas: fighting vandalism, new page patrolling, and content creation. In terms of fighting vandalism, I have used STiki over 13,000 times and am currently 18th on its leaderboard. In terms of new page patrolling, I mainly do categorization work. Finally, in terms of content creation, I've created over 60 articles, of which 13 have appeared on the Main Page as a Did you know article. I also have two good articles (2010 Guatemala City sinkhole and West Triangle Economic Zone).
 * 1) 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 haven't really been in any serious disputes so far. Most of my interactions with other Wikipedians have been fairly calm, though we might have had differing viewpoints. As for stress, I can't really say any other users have caused me much of that.
 * 1) 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?
 * Mainly, I'd like a general review just so I can know what I've been doing right and what I can improve upon, as well as some advice on some other areas of work I could go into. I might also want to run for adminship, but probably not in the near future.

 Reviews 

Hi. I've had a look through your stats and contributions, and everything looks good. You've got 50% of article space contributions, and the fact you've taken two articles to GA and created over 60 articles means you clearly understand the basic policies that make up an article.

The only thing I was slightly concerned about with West Triangle Economic Zone is the review picked up on a lot of uncited claims, although you fixed them all quickly. Particularly after you've copyedited something, you can leave text at the end of the paragraph not cited to a source. Just something to watch out for.

Your AfD stats look good. I think the only one in the last 50 that was in any way questionable was David Morgan-Mar and even that was a borderline case. Some of your comments at AfD have occasionally just been "Keep/Delete per 'x'" - I usually try to add a little myself even when I broadly agree with a very good argument somebody else has made.

On your talk page, I see you keeping a cool and level head, particularly when an editor was trying to make legal threats to you, as discussed on ANI.

As to where you want to go in the future - as an editor I think just keep doing what you're doing. You might want to try taking another article for GA - everyone you do is a big improvement to Wikipedia's quality, and is well worth doing. If I had to point to a concern, I think it would be the copyvio notice left on your talk page. Possibly you are familiar with copyright policies and just don't get involved often with situations that require knowledge, but areas like Files for deletion are understaffed and so if you do run for an RfA, some might cross-examine your knowledge in this area in the hope you can help reduce the backlog. Another thing you might want to consider before going for a RfA is participating in Village Pump discussions or the various RfCs that turn up from time to time. The editors that contribute in there are the same ones that take part in RfAs, and if they recognise your knowledge and understand from previous interactions, it should go in your favour.

Happy editing, whatever happens. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   16:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review!  069952497a  (U-T-C-E) 17:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)