Wikipedia:Editor review/AirplanePro

AirplanePro
I am interested in being reviewed because I am a new editor and I want to know what I can improve on in Wikipedia. AirplanePro RadioChecklist 23:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * As I consider myself to be an WikiOgre, I don't really know what I'm going to be doing from day to day, but most of the time I stick to something that I have started and would like to bring up to B-Class or higher.
 * 1) Have you been in any disputes 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 have not been in any edit wars or other disputes and I hope I won't be.
 * No, I have not been in any edit wars or other disputes and I hope I won't be.

 Reviews 
 * Okay so here's what I think. Your edits look good, but you should use edit summaries. It is helpful to other editors. Other than that, everything looks good. Homework2  Talk What I do!  00:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My thoughts:
 * You edits appear to be mainly in userspace so far. No big deal yet but do watch that you don't just end up editing only your own pages and forget you are here to contribute to the future of an encyclopedia!
 * I understand and I am currently trying to reverse this. AirplanePro RadioChecklist 22:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are creating pages which is a good thing: Arado Ar E.381 looks good and is now being further expanded by another user. However, do make sure that you aren't duplicating other pages: e.g. Rearguard (military) seems to discuss the same subject as Rear guard and will probably be redirected to that page sooner or later.
 * Also, as Hereforhomework2 says, remember to write something in the edit summary box: see Help:Edit summary for more on this.
 * Despite the quibbles above, in general you are doing well. I notice you have joined WikiProject dedicated to the Military: use the editors over at these wisely and collaborate as much as you can with them.  That way, you learn so much more than can be put into words  --Jubilee♫ clipman  22:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree that you're spending a few too many edits in user space. It might not be as bad if you spent some of those edits incubating articles, but that does not seem to be the case at first glance. Anything about 50% in any space of Wikipedia other than articles might hurt you in an RFA if you want to go down that route.
 * Also the similiar username to your brother might hurt you later on as well. Somebody might think you're socks. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well spotted! DQ is talking about Sock puppetry, in case you hadn't heard that term before.  If this becomes a problem, you can change your name (or he can!) via Changing username.  See Username policy for more --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think I (or he) should change it now, or when somebody accuses us of socking? AirplanePro RadioChecklist 01:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sooner is always than better. Sorry for the nomenclature, thanks to Jubilee there for the link. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sooner is always than better. Sorry for the nomenclature, thanks to Jubilee there for the link. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * About edit summaries: a user applying for a RfA who doesn't use edit summaries gets an automatic "Oppose" vote from me (and others).I reserve the right to deviate from my self-set RfA guidelines at any point. — m o n o   19:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Like who? AirplanePro RadioChecklist 22:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone who fits his description, basically. Airplaneman   ✈  20:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Like you? AirplanePro RadioChecklist 22:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too, probably. An edit summary is one of the most important tools on WP as it lets people watching the page know at a glance what has been done (assuming you actually do describe what you have done...)  They are also useful SMS tools: page watchers can also be sent quick messages through them.  Of course, WP:CIVIL applies to them, therefore: if you make an uncivil comment in an edit summary you can be taken to task over it.  I had to apologise for a bad call just today, in fact...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)