Wikipedia:Editor review/Hughcharlesparker

User:Hughcharlesparker
I might go for adminship at some point, but I don't have a plan to any time soon. At the moment I'm heading towards a thousand edits so I thought I'd get some feedback. --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 19:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * You seem to be very active in article maintenance, such as adding/fixing tags, reverting vandalism, spellchecling/copyediting, removing uncyclopedic/unnecessary material, etc. and you are also active around WP:AFD (Articles for Deletion.) However, I do have a suggestion for you: If you are interested in certain topics (e.g.: chemistry) you may want to check out pages relating to that topic and see if you can add anything to those articles. If what you want to write is already there, try looking up that topic on the internet or visit a local library/bookstore and check out/buy books on that topic. After doing so, read it and write what you find out (don't forget to cite your sources.)

That aside, I think you are a great user and you would make an excellent administrator. -- Evan Robidoux 00:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * After looking through a random sampling of about 1/3rd of your conributions I have no complaints towards your behavior. I would say that your edits have been a great profit to wikipedia. Specifically your work fixing brocken links, hard work and little glory. I find that you keep a cool head in conflicts. I appreciate your work on RfD's and RfA's. Like me, you started out mostly in the article namespace but recently have ventured into the Wikipedia namespace. I would vote to support your RfA, and even nominate you should you ask me to(though many voters are very concerned about low edit counts). One thing I noticed was very little anti-vandalism work. I did not look at all your contribs so I may have missed it. Using tools like VandalProof allows you to whittle away hour after hour doing a tremendous good to this site. One more thing, making massive changes is an important contribution that wikipedia desperately needs more than anything else(imho). HighInBC 20:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

 Comments 

''  Questions
 * See this user's edit history with Interiot's tool and edit summary usage ''(Warning:Both tools have stopped updating and the edit counts are way off. Please consider using Flcelloguy's Tool or Interiot's Tool 2)


 * 1) Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I haven't made any massive changes to any articles yet. I started Acoustic Ladyland, Camouflage (album) and Last Chance Disco, and I uploaded their associated images.  I've done a fair bit of general wikignoming, a bit of vandalfighting, a bit of WP:MFDing, a bit of WP:RfAing and some WP:RDing.
 * 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've never been in a conflict as such. I've disagreed with people, but it's all worked out fine.  User talk:Hughcharlesparker is one example.  I've found that being matter of fact and assuming good faith avoid almost all potential conflict.
 * 1) What do you think you bring to the Wikipedia community as a unique editor? -- Evan Robidoux 00:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting question. The word "unique" is the key one here.  In making edits, whether they're to articles or RfAs or MFDs or whatever, I haven't been trying to introduce a Hugh Charles Parker flavour, I've been as close as I can manage to the ideal Wikipedian, which means in effect that I've been trying not to be unique.  We each edit according to our best judgement, and our judgement is born of our experience, so in that sense I'm just as unique as any other editor.