Wikipedia:Editor review/Angus Lepper

Angus Lepper
I first joined sometime around 2005 and made a handful of edits, then forgot about my account and made a couple dozen edits anonymously until winter '06 when I came back and started editing a little. When I got study leave in May, I had more time than I knew what to do with so I threw myself into it properly then. I'd just like to check that my editing's about on-track, and to make sure that I'm not too 'focussed' in my edits (I'd like to head to RfA in, say, a year or so). Plus, I guess, another eye checking over my actions is always good! Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * You are a great user, with plenty of exeprience in a variety of areas. You do discuss things a lot, shown by your high proportion of user talk/talk/etc contributions. One thing I would advise doing is trying to lower the number of edits to userspace - this is one thing that a lot of people are criticised on, especially in RfA's. Lastly, I would recommend finding one topic you like and editing that - currently your edits are very well spread out (which is NOT a bad thing), however trying to get one article up to something like GA or FA helps, and is shown by a large number of edits to that article. If you are planning a RfA, I would recommend going for it in the next month or two - you have a high chance of succeeding, especially with the diversity of your current editing. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.


 * View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I guess there's nothing very special yet, but I'm quite proud of Wolfson Microelectronics and Hylomorphism (computer science) because they're the two articles that I've created from scratch and challenged me in different ways &mdash; explaining the notability and sourcing the statements for one, and trying my best to bring the other, highly abstract, concept down to a level where an interested reader with a degree of knowledge can follow it (albeit I suspect a complete layperson wouldn't manage to, and I intend to remedy that). That said, neither would pass GAR, but I'm not really sure what to do to bring them up to that level yet. I haven't enough experience doing much beyond RC patrol and copyedit really, I guess.
 * 1) 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?
 * I'd say I've had one real conflict. I made this comment on a user's talk page (in reference to a fake 'new messages' box on their user page, redirecting to the Punk'd article), leading them to slap me with a vandalism3. This led to this discussion. I saught a third opinion, and was pointed to WP:TEMPLAR and advised to remove the warning but stay off the user's talk page. I think my initial edit was perhaps not the best idea, but feel that the other user overreacted. However, I think my response was fairly reasonable, if perhaps not quite as detached as would be ideal. In future, I'd basically avoid doing something quite so daft! Other than that, I think I've avoided most conflicts &mdash; including undoing my changes to Mujahideen when I discovered that what I thought was reverting removal vandalism was actually a content dispute, and that my request for page semiprotection from vandalism was misguided. Apologies to all, and a step back, got me out of that without any fallout.
 * I'd say I've had one real conflict. I made this comment on a user's talk page (in reference to a fake 'new messages' box on their user page, redirecting to the Punk'd article), leading them to slap me with a vandalism3. This led to this discussion. I saught a third opinion, and was pointed to WP:TEMPLAR and advised to remove the warning but stay off the user's talk page. I think my initial edit was perhaps not the best idea, but feel that the other user overreacted. However, I think my response was fairly reasonable, if perhaps not quite as detached as would be ideal. In future, I'd basically avoid doing something quite so daft! Other than that, I think I've avoided most conflicts &mdash; including undoing my changes to Mujahideen when I discovered that what I thought was reverting removal vandalism was actually a content dispute, and that my request for page semiprotection from vandalism was misguided. Apologies to all, and a step back, got me out of that without any fallout.