Wikipedia:Editor review/Matty.007

Matty.007
Mat ty. 007 15:07, 18 July 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 (using STiki), look at new pages, and generally help out on #Wikipedia-en-help on the IRC webchat.
 * 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.
 * No, I generally get on well with other users. I would respond to one by talking to the other editor(s) involved, and trying to settle the issue. However, if it doesn't resolve, there are various places to request outsider's views, such as here.
 * 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 am not thinking of running for adminship yet, I will wait a while first so I can get more experience. I feel that getting other's opinion on how I edit will be beneficial to all.

 Reviews 

I've had a look at your contributions, and I don't see any immediate problems. You've been making copyedits and general improvements, and asking questions in a civil manner in a better attempt to understand policy (eg: here), making good CSD calls and setting up an adoption course. In my view, you're well on track to being a productive wikipedian.

Running for adminship is a popular reason for having an edit review, but it's not something to be taken lightly. I'd say you probably don't want to be looking at running a RfA for at least a year from now. Hang out on WP:RFA and see what sort of questions get asked to get a flavour of what's required. If you're interested in running for adminship at all, you can check your admin score here which puts together a few stats. As you can see, the tool has marked down for quite a few things giving you a negative score, but I think pretty much all of the issues it reports are just due to lack of experience and will simply go away in time, so I wouldn't worry about it. In particular, your high score for 75 new articles is great.

If you're looking for other tasks to do, one possibility is to find an article you're really passionate about and get it to Good Article status. You'll need to have a good understanding off the topic and have a solid grounding in basic Wikipedia policies. Most importantly, you'll understand how to write good prose, which (imho) is always in demand. Given your existing work, it should be well within your grasp to do this.

In summary : no issues. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   08:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)