Wikipedia:Editor review/Delldot

User:delldot
I've been around more or less active since October 2005 (I was finishing up writing a thesis last semester and over the summer, hence the big dip in my activity). I thought I'd ask for an editor review since I'm thinking of submitting an RFA in a month or two and I wanted to see if you all thought it would go smoothly. Be as honest as possible, I'm brave! delldot | talk 03:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC) delldot | talk 03:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews  I apologize on behalf of all users for not giving you a decent review. You have made over 2000 edits last month, which may help you with your RfA. I see that your thesis papers are the reason why you have inconsistencies in your monthly edits- just as long as you edit, you will be in good shape the apply for RfA. You can also add to your userpage to help others review your performance. On your talk page, I see editors thanking you for whatever reason- a kind editor is very trusted. Continue to work on areas you think you may be lacking. Cheers, Sr13 (T|C) Editor review 04:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

 Review from Ed Hi, Delldot! Looking at your talk page, this submission for Editor Review, and your contributions, I'm getting a good impression of you as a user!
 * You have had 8000+ plus edits since October 2005. Your contributions are plentiful in the mainspace and the user talk namespace. This number of edits is appropriate, since you seem to be an excellent vandal fighter and newbie welcomer. After taking a cursory look at your talk page, I can tell that you are very good at leaving thorough and thoughtful comments.
 * I suggest that you increase your edits in the Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, and talk namespaces. This is important for an RfA, since it might give the impression that you don't participate in that much collaborations, discussions, or debates. Perhaps you can try to participate in a collaboration, since this can improve your Talk space edits. Also, try to participate in XfD's, which would increase your Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk space edits. In addition, there are many Wikiprojects available for many different kinds of articles that you can participate in.
 * After looking at your edit count, I can see that the maximum number of edits you have made to an article in the mainspace is 13. As a Wikipedian, I feel that it is important to have substantially edited an article in an attempt to reach a considerably well-written article. This is not necessary, but could be helpful in an RfA.

-- Ed  ¿Cómo estás? Reviews? 05:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be trustworthy, you understand Wikipedia's policies and processes, you have demonstrated a commitment to the project, and you would have a use for administrative tools; I don't think there should be any problems. I'd like to add to the above comments by pointing out that at the time of my (unopposed) RfA, I hadn't edited a single article more than 3 times, and in those cases the edits were all minor fixes. Wikipedia needs people who can write quality articles, and it needs administrators; both are essential, but the requirements for each are different. Unlike adminiship, there is no formal procedure for identifying the most dedicated article writers; I imagine that seeing an article to which one has substantially contributed reach "Good Article" or "Featured Article" status is the closest equivalent (though having never produced one myself, I'm not qualified to assert this). I hope for your sake the RfA regulars haven't introduced yet another irrelevant metric to judge candidates against; if so, you'll have to hope other metrics work in your favour, or rely on those people who base their decision on the person rather than the statistics. Namespace distribution is almost as irrelevant – and misleading, too; I have nearly 10,000 edits in the Talk namespace, but I very rarely discuss the content of articles; most of these edits were just archive page tagging – Gurch 17:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 


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

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * Well, I get a kick out of vandal fighting, but I'm especially pleased when discussing things in a friendly way with vandals "converts" them and they cut it out. I do also enjoy interacting with folks and showing newbies around, I think it's really important to create a friendly atmosphere.  The articles that I've started or seriously expanded that I'm most pleased with are Gut flora, postconcussion syndrome, wound healing, and chronic wound (whoa, I'm kind of morbid!).  Most of the time when I start articles, though, they stay kind of short, like mitochondrial permeability transition pore and glutamate transporter.  I'm pleased about them because I think they're a positive contribution to the encyclopedia.
 * 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?
 * Nah, I don't really get into conflicts. I've had disagreements for sure, but nothing that discussing it couldn't fix.  And of course in the context of RC patrol, vandals sometimes get mad and call you names and trash your user page, but for some reason that's not stressful to me at all, whereas a sincere member of the community getting mad at me in the same way would probably stress me out a lot.
 * Nah, I don't really get into conflicts. I've had disagreements for sure, but nothing that discussing it couldn't fix.  And of course in the context of RC patrol, vandals sometimes get mad and call you names and trash your user page, but for some reason that's not stressful to me at all, whereas a sincere member of the community getting mad at me in the same way would probably stress me out a lot.