Wikipedia:Editor review/Dsimic

Dsimic
I'm hacking computers since my age of 10, and I want to share my notes with everyone else, through Wikipedia. I'd like my edits to be reviewed so I can see what I've been possibly doing wrong so far, and to see how can I improve myself in any weak areas. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * Articles about Linux, programming, computer hardware and networking – either by extending and improving already existing articles, or by creating (or starting) more than a few new articles.  I take pride in all of my contributions, and I'm especially pleased with the creation of articles like M.2 or SATA Express –  they've clearly filled important empty spots on Wikipedia.  Additionally, I have a huge watchlist (over 1,700 pages), for which I review all submitted edits on a daily basis.  In the end, I'm pleased to see that people really care about the content presented here, and that makes me very, very happy.
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * Of course, I've been there, and I'm pleased how well those ended up in most cases. It's all about providing facts, relying on published sources, and working out the whole thing through talk pages until a consesus or a reasonable compromise is reached.  Of course, sometimes it's simply time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.  Beside one user conduct, I have pretty much nothing to complain about.
 * 1) What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
 * I would like to see neutral-point-of-view reviews of my edits in general, so my weak spots are revealed – once that's available, I can work on any issues pointed out there, making myself better.  In general, my edits are either providing new content, or doing various cleanups and smaller improvements –  it would be great to have reviews of both edit categories, so to speak.  Thank you!

 Reviews 


 * The main problem when writing a NPOV review about Dsimic is that this user does many small edits. It is hard to detect NPOV issues in those edits. It would be easier if he provided some potentially controversial diffs to be reviewed.
 * Dsimic seems a cautious editor, not being involved in risky subjects, although those subjects would be a good way to test neutrality. He works towards reaching compromises, thus balancing possible bias out.
 * The articles the user has created do not seem to have NPOV issues. Regarding the Laravel article, there could be a problem with this . While the article content is faithful (according to the source, "listed as the most" would be more accurate), it would be better to smooth some conclusions: "popular in 2013" is neutral, "promising for 2014" is tendentious.
 * When talking about, the comparison section is biased because it only mentions when OpenLMI "is favorable". There is a missing "unfavorable" out there, something like "Puppet is better for cloud deployments" or "OpenLMI is not as mature as other solutions". However, I have been unable to find such source, so this is not Dsimic's fault. Perhaps the user will be able to find this counterbalance. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for a review! I've already slightly improved these two articles, so the wording is more neutral. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)