Wikipedia:Editor review/Floating Boat

Floating Boat
I've been here for exactly a year (as of typing this statement). I had an editor review when I'd been around for three months under my old username here. - a boat   that can float!   (watch me float)  18:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I generally revert vandalism and help out new editors. I am proud of pretty much everything I do as it will improve the encyclopedia, even if it's just a little bit.
 * 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.
 * Most people I revert don't so much discuss as vandalize my user page, but with those who do discuss I mostly keep my cool and remain civil. I find that most of the time they become more civil and the discussion is more agreeable.
 * 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 just want some feedback on how I'm doing and what I can do to improve. I don't plan on trying to get a mop for a few more years until I grow up.

 Reviews 
 * I think we met back in August, and since then our communication has been rather sporadic; regardless, I've definitely seen good things from you during your Wikipedia tenure since your first review. For one of our younger editors, you seem to be well-aware of policy, not lacking in clue... and all those other knick-knacks. You're able to respond appropriately to concerns without exploding, which is also always a good thing! You helped out at the CVUA, and while your student ended up being indeffed for socking, you personally seemed to have done a acceptable job, albeit with quite a limited amount of instruction. Now, let's get down to the more knitty gritty. Your CSD accuracy rate is ~90% (using numerator/denominator). Not great...but then again, you've only tagged 90 or so articles. If you have any more specific questions about your editing, feel free to pose them here...I just did a more general review. — theopolisme  ( talk )  23:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Only 20% of your edits have been to articles, and much of that has been gnomish. What you need to do is attempt some more substantial work on an article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)