Wikipedia:Editor review/Alpha Quadrant

Alpha Quadrant
I would like feedback on how I am doing as a editor. Alpha Quadrant   talk    23:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I like to work in many different areas of Wikipedia. I primarily work in WP:AFC, but I also like to work on fixing articles and clearing backlogs, specifically the NPOV backlog. I also use Huggle and STiki to fight vandalism
 * 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 never really gotten in a bad content dispute. I have had a disagreement with another editor over whether a article needed merging. I resolved it by talking to the other editor.
 * No, I have never really gotten in a bad content dispute. I have had a disagreement with another editor over whether a article needed merging. I resolved it by talking to the other editor.

 Reviews  There are quite a few pages we have jointly contributed to, these mostly seem to be one-off vandal reversions, and I have spotted you on Your contributions seem friendly and you have others actively approaching you for help.
 * Review by Fæ:

AfC is a worthy backlog to address though if you have not already tried these you might enjoy lending a hand to other interesting backlogs such as WP:URBLPR and WP:RFF. If you wish to experience a little more around dispute resolution then WP:3O could be satisfying and provide a more rounded background on dispute resolution processes even though you might be good at avoiding getting involved in such content or user disputes yourself. Some experienced contributors use 3O, these cases may be at quite a different level to the newer user advice you have been providing lately.

Examining your edit contribution summary, just 33% of contributions are to articles making you appear naturally biased to quite Gnomic in interests with very low figures for the number of edits on your top edited articles (an average of 9 edits for your top 10 most edited). If you intend to advise other editors on best practice, you may want to take a look at Featured article candidates to find one or more in your sphere of interest to lend a hand with (I cannot see any ST related candidates but List of X-Men video games is current or you may want to nominate a good article you have been involved with). Applying the processes of collaborating, peer review, agreeing complex formats, rewrites, improving citations and researching the sources in detail to the rigorous level needed for FA status would be valuable experience to reuse in your other activities (such as user adoption). Fæ (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's great to see new users jump start editing to Wikipedia, and your one of them. With over 7,000 edits in less than six months, your on your way to a productive future full of Wiki. I must warn you though; you don't want to become a wiki-holic, rumor says its incurable.
 * '''Review by the one, the only tofutwitch11

Enough scary stuff, lets see what you've done here. It seems your nearing 8,000 edits, congrats. Your monthly edit count is also very high, more than my total edits.... puts me to shame. Your work to WP:AFC is outstanding, and it shows dedication to the community. There is often a large backlog, and users like you clearing it out is necessary. Even though your edit percentage to Mainspace wiki is just about 33% (2,000); that has no reflection on your overall status. Remember, quality over quantity. It seems you put care into your edits, and have many edits on your alternate account (Alpha_Quadrant_(alt)).

I have to say, Fae has done a good job at saying everything I wanted to say. Keep up the great work, your truly an asset to the community. Best of Luck. Tofutwitch11 - Chat - How'd I do?   01:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You are very helpful and polite your doing great. TucsonDavid (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Review by TucsonDavid