Wikipedia:Editor review/AQu01rius

User:AQu01rius
Just want to know how well I am doing. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites) 05:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * I think you're doing pretty well. Nothing about your edits strike me as particularly controversial; in fact, they're all very good additions. Speaking of which, the link you have provided in Q1 shows up as a redlink, you may want to fix that!
 * You seem to be a level-headed sort of guy, and it would be nice to see your around XfD discussions – really helps to get a handle on policy, and it's good to see sensible people there.
 * If that isn't your cup of tea (although I have noticed you !voting on RfAs lately), you may want to check out peer review and featured article candidates, where you can help out with quality reviews. Basically, it would be nice to see you up your WP-space edits – learning about the internal workings of the 'pedia is pretty important.
 * Your user talk count is also quite low – remember that this is a collaborative project, and people love getting feedback on their actions, so be bold and give out a barnstar or two!
 * On a second and boring note, you should probably find out whether your signature violates WP:SIG – I know that images aren't allowed in signatures, but I'm not sure what the policy is on using your own image in your own signature. I'm bringing this up because signatures can be a contentious point in RfAs, should you ever consider running for adminship in the future – and even just to avoid problems in your habitual activities on talkspace.
 * But all in all, you're doing a good job. I look forward to seeing you around! Regards, &mdash; riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 02:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I wasn't sure of the signature policy as I never used it here before. Sorry about that. And I agree I should be more interactive. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites) 05:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comments 
 * Since essjay's tool is down, I will do it manually, so forgive for some mistakes when counting.
 * Around 95 user talk edits, with around 49 in your own talk page. I notice some of these remove things. However, you are not archiving. Removing information from your talk page may be considered vandalism if you delete valid warnings. I suggest not deleting unless archiving. See How to archive a talk page to know how to do it.
 * Around 58 edits in article talk pages. In total, you have around 100 edits in talk pages (user and article), out of just over 1000 edits. That is a pretty low percentage (around 5% of user talk and article talk pages). My own interpretation (which may differ from others', of course) is that you have little interaction with editors, both personally (when you talk to a user talk page you are talking only to him) and in group (when discussing articles in talk pages, you are giving an opinion that will be considered by the editors of the article, developing consensus for a determined target). Although you have many Tips of the days, which implies you have created a good number of articles, and that these articles have been expanded to be pretty useful, the low amount of article talk pages also indicates that you are a kind of "lonely wolf", writing (very useful) articles but with little interaction with others to improve others. I see you are a member of the Chinese military history task force, that should allow you to discuss with others about those topics.
 * An interesting fact that you don't really talk with others is shown in talk pages like Talk:Battle of Wuhan and Talk:Central Plains War. You don't indent your talks as specified by the formatting, thus conversations in talk pages are hard to read. I suggest you begin doing that.
 * Please, use edit summaries. Edits summaries are extremely useful for everyone. Others who are watching pages you are editing will know what you did (they may check what you did to see it matches your summary, however after some times, they will trust you and stop checking your edits everytime you do one, saving them some time). It also helps to quickly locate in a history page a determined version.
 * It is good to see you are lately warning vandals and reverting their edits. Remember to use the edit summary to mark them so that it is easier to check how many times one was warned by looking at the history of the page.
 * I see some contributions in AFDs and RFAs. That is usually considered a "second step" for an editor, passing from editing articles to participating in important decisions in Wikipedia. With time, you will "create" yourself a standard for selecting an administrator. Just be sure that standard is just and acceptable by the community.
 * I believe that is all I can say for now. Good to see you have changed your signature, and believe me when I said your contributions are extremely useful for Wikipedia. Keep going, and one day you may be writing a featured article per month. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 18:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * View this user's edit count using a PHP version of Interiot's tool.

 Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?


 * I spent quite amount of time on translating Chinese materials (generally military) into English. For my works, please see this page. I'm pretty pleased with my production since I only started editing in the midst of July.

2. 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?


 * No. I don't engage in talk page very often, and that's something I need to work on. I did solve an dispute in Nanking Massacre however.