Wikipedia:Editor review/Avicennasis

Avicennasis
I am seeking some feedback on my editing on Wikipedia. From welcoming new users and reverting vandalism, to participating in MfD, to making spelling and grammar corrections, I am sure I can improve in some area. Avic enna  sis  08:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * Most of my edits are on talk pages, and the few ones that are in article space are spelling/grammar issues. In my opinion, the only "major" contribution was the creation of this article, although it could still be improved.
 * 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?
 * I have thankfully been conflict-free so far, and hope to remain so. In the event that a conflict does arise, I hope to solve it by calm discussion or mediation.
 * I have thankfully been conflict-free so far, and hope to remain so. In the event that a conflict does arise, I hope to solve it by calm discussion or mediation.

 Reviews  Greetings! Here are the results of my quick review of your contributions: I hope this was helpful! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  18:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC) I hope this helps!
 * User conduct
 * Edit summaries: You’re trucking along at a strong 96% rate on your major edits, which is very good. Keep that up. Edit summaries are extremely important, and often underrated. Making sure your fellow editors understand quickly what you’re doing with a given edit makes the process much easier and leads to much fewer misunderstandings. You’re helping with this. Heck, try to push that 96% higher!
 * Constructive comments on talk pages: You appear to routinely assume good faith. Your comments clearly come from a position of wanting to help people out, and are written in a clear, direct fashion that makes them easy to understand – even to the outside observer, such as myself.
 * Attitude towards others: Expanding upon the above point, you seem to, by default, want to be helpful to others. That is, obviously, an excellent thing! I see no evidence (in this quick review) of any patronizing, nasty or unhelpful attitude, and given that you are involved in a few areas that occasionally get heated, that’s good to see. Keep it up. Wikipedia can always use more level-headed editors!
 * Edits
 * Automated Edits: About 40% of your edits are automated, primarily using Twinkle and Friendly. This basically tells me that the majority of the time you are interacting directly with the encyclopedia and the many Wikipedians working on it, and given that your contributions seem to be positive, that’s excellent. Also, a ton of your automated edits appear to be sending Welcome messages. Love that. I remember getting my first welcome message and it was SO helpful in getting me acclimated.
 * Article vs non-article: A shade above 30% of your edits are in the article space, with the majority of the remainder (and the majority of overall) in the user talk space. I am assuming based on this quick review that this is a result of your work patrolling vandalism with Twinkle and, more importantly, welcoming people with Friendly. Regardless, given your stated goals within Wikipedia, this seems fine to me! Keep it up.
 * MfD
 * Looked through some of your contributions to MfD. You seem to be right on the money with your judgment there most of the time. I also love this comment when you –weren’t- right on the money: “Ah. I figured if userpages could be deleted so easily for spam, something more offensive would be doubly-so. A poor assumption on my part, it seems. (A learning experience, too.)” (from the MfD on User:Nitrogen acid. I would argue that it is just as important (perhaps more important) to demonstrate a positive, receptive attitude when one isn’t necessarily correct about something as often “grey area” as an MfD as it is to be “correct.” Additionally, that comment is one of many I could have chosen, just from a quick review of your user-to-user contributions here. You have an excellent attitude. If that’s a repeating theme of this review, so be it – it’s true!
 * Summary
 * Have I mentioned that you have an excellent attitude? No? Okay! You have an excellent attitude!
 * You are receptive to constructive criticism, and seem to actually learn from it. Awesome.
 * Your work welcoming new users is the kind of underrated, under-the-radar positive contribution that I always admire.
 * You routinely demonstrate good judgment.
 * Rock on. I suppose I should offer some constructive criticism at some point. I haven't really found anything to criticize, however. You can always expand your involvement, I suppose. Your interest and aptitude with MfD's suggests you could move to AfD's as well -- I work a bit in that space and it's often very interesting. Some of the debates can be fantastic.
 * Plain and simple, you seem like a very approachable and promising editor. Keep up the good work,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 01:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Ginsengbomb and Arbitrarily0. I hope to see a request for adminship in due course. PhilKnight (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)