Wikipedia:Editor review/KrebMarkt

KrebMarkt
One year of active involvement in Wikipedia. I'm mainly in the animanga project and i wish an evaluation from editors outside that project KrebMarkt 10:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 Questions

Optional Questions from Doc Quintana
 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My main specialty is article sourcing. Being French, i provided animanga project better access to French RS coverages and also do French to English translation of materials and reviews. Aside of that i also a main evaluator in Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga and i'm also improving lists in Category:Lists of manga volumes and chapters to a minimum standard of quality. Article building wise my editing style revolve around sourcing (surprising?) always teamed with more English skilled to whom i provide "ammunitions" and use article Talk page intensively. This is mostly visible in Aria (manga), Cross Game and Torikaebaya Monogatari. My others memorable feat could be sourcing Dragon Ball soundtracks (still need to used) or finding a way to handle anime related soundtrack which eventually lead to Popotan soundtracks FL by another member of the anime/manga project.
 * 1) Have you been in any disputes 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?
 * The rare times i got involved in editing disputes, there were always a more experienced editors around to solve it. Animanga project has an awful proportion of +10K edits members. The other area of contention is Afd where my sourcing specialty tipped the balance a few time. I should admit that i used WP:BIAS as a strong deterrent to fend off some editors in some Afd.
 * The rare times i got involved in editing disputes, there were always a more experienced editors around to solve it. Animanga project has an awful proportion of +10K edits members. The other area of contention is Afd where my sourcing specialty tipped the balance a few time. I should admit that i used WP:BIAS as a strong deterrent to fend off some editors in some Afd.
 * 1) Why did you come to Wikipedia, and what do you get out of it? Doc Quintana (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically i started because of Aria (manga) then get dragged into the Anime/Manga project after seeing how valuable someone who can source articles in Afd. From there i take over myself to make early notability assessment & sourcing of the articles in Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga for the same reason. The rest is history. I find fun in making "durable" edits as i know that we are not in "Wikipedia Forever" (bad pun). We will all eventually leave. The best, i could leave are bits of edits and references that would still be here in 20-40 years. Another area i find fun is team work, making an ad-hoc editors group with complementary skills and set to a limited & clear objective. I try to balance what in my perception are fun edits and those which are less fun yet needed. The day i don't find edits fun anymore, i should take a break or retire. --KrebMarkt 07:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Hi KrebMarkt, sorry for the delay in getting a review for you - we're slowly catching up with the backlog! On to my review...


 * User conduct
 * Edit summaries: 99% use of edit summaries is very good! Most of them are brief ("(→Notable voice roles: +1 ref)") but you can see what you have done with an edit!
 * Constructive comments on talk pages: The comments you make are with the obvious aim of improving the article in question, including adding links to reviews etc.
 * Attitude towards others: Friendly, co-operative, positive: that is the impression I get throughout the contributions I sampled! The barnstars on your talk page is a good sign :D


 *  Edits
 * Automated Edits: only 23 automated edits (0.29%) - you prefer doing your edits by hand, which is good!
 * Article vs non-article: A healthy 40% of your edits are to articles (with a further 15% to article talk pages) - so over half of all your edits are to the main article space. The spread of edits to other areas looks good.


 * Summary
 * Overall, you are doing a good job! I see no problems, although I would recommend that rather than doing a lot of small edits to an article over a short period of time (for example, yesterday you did 4 edits to Ai Shimizu in the space of 5 minutes, followed by another few edits over the space of 6 minutes), you might perhaps want to do these in one go (using the preview facility if you don't already). If this is because you are checking references before adding them, that's understandable, but one bigger edit is generally preferred if possible, as otherwise there are more entries in 'Recent Changes' than are necessary!
 * I hope this review is helpful, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. How courageous of you to dig in my contribs ;)
 * I will reply about the burst of short edits, they are a form of silent protestation and i only do this while sourcing BLP articles. The rational behind this is there is a real lack of care toward editors improving Wikipedia from the bottom. If you check the first BLP RFC, you will notice that volunteer recognition was discussed as an afterthought. As for the Barnstar, i received for sourcing a BLP article, it occurred after some drama that why i would have gladly renounced to that one if it have prevented that kind of pointless drama. Wikipedia is currently unable to give formal recognition to editors improve the Encyclopedia from bottom. For further thought it bore ill to future initiative to improve Wikipedia quality from the bottom like the proposed baseline quality standard for all articles (strategy:Task force/Recommendations/Wikipedia Quality) and this time there will be no threat of deletion as a big stick. --KrebMarkt 08:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)