Wikipedia:Editor review/Basket of Puppies

Basket of Puppies
After several months of editing Wikipedia and undergoing adoption I am genuinely curious to know how my edits have measured up. Your feedback is welcome! Basket of Puppies 01:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Too many puppies, being shot in the dark. Oh, sorry, excuse me. Primus got in the way there for a second. First things first, I like the 50% article edits, that's really cool. What can I say about your edits? This: you are awesome. If it's fair to judge personalities through wikipedia edits, than you are awesome. For someone only breaking 700, you have got some great article work done. A GA largely attributed to you, another article in the works. Did I mention you are quite polite exactly when you need to be. Don't even get me started on, "I mostly browse random articles adding refs, reflists and cleaning up as best as I can." Just don't. :P Judging by your contribs, our interests lie in different places, but I'd be quite honored to work with you at some point in the future. Happy editing! Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My primary contributions to Wikipedia have been in the realm of content. I am particularly pleased about New Waveland Cafe and Clinic, which I created and collaborated on to make into a WP:Good Article.
 * 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 believe I have not been in any major editing dispute. When the situation arises I make certain to carefully read the opinion of the other editors involved. I do my best to be humble and see things from their point of view.
 * I believe I have not been in any major editing dispute. When the situation arises I make certain to carefully read the opinion of the other editors involved. I do my best to be humble and see things from their point of view.

Comment by User:NVO. Perhaps four months of active editing do qualify as "several" but you should consider delaying RFA by a couple of years. No sarcasm here: after four months on the force, your actual content contribution rate is quite modest, very few articles actively edited, and those are either specialized medical topics or "places of local interest" - something that does not grab public attention and is not on many editors' watchlist. Your CSD tagging errors coupled with a desire to do CSD (per User:Basket of Puppies/admin) are a guarantee of failure for quite a while, so they better be AFD'd for good. Remember, folks at RFA don't sift through last 2000 edits, they go deeper. NVO (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to NVO Hi, NVO! First, let me thank you for your thoughtful comments. I do appreciate them. I reviewed the articles which I tagged for speedy deletion and I agree with you- it was a mistake for me to tag them. I will certainly be more thoughtful in the future. I am glad you pointed out those specific ones and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. As far an my content contribution, while modest I think they are well developed. I have been successful in creating and achieving Good Article status for one and am actively working on Good Article for another. However, I agree that my area has been a bit narrow. Once the current Good Article assessment has succeeded I plan on "branching out". As far as my admin aspirations, I want to make sure I am an excellent editor before any attempt at adminship- thus the reason for this Editor Review. Again, thank you for your thoughts and I will certainly incorporate your suggestions. :) Basket of Puppies  01:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)