Wikipedia:Editor review/Micwa

MikeAllen
My name is Mike, and I have just started editing Wikipedia in early October of this year. I have learned quite a bit, and am still learning. I have made little over 700 edits. I would liked to be reviewed to let me know how I'm doing, and what I need to be doing to improve. Thanks. Mike Allen talk · contribs 20:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My primary contributions are with actor and film pages. I enjoy creating, updating, and improving actor's Filmography tables (and regular cleanup to their pages).  I have also improve Lead sections on articles that I like (and other parts of the articles), revert vandalism, clean up, and tag. I don't feel experienced enough to create articles yet.  I'm the type that will try and fix something, before slapping an article with tags.
 * 1) Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past (please note that this does not refer to ) 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?
 * Actually, yes, when I first started editing Wikiepdia (a month ago). The article was Wildblue (it's since been moved to ViaSat's page) -- I thought I could improve and expand the article without learning Wikipedia's policy.  I worked on it for a few days, and then a user came and reverted it all back (see here what it looked like after I was done.  To be blunt and honest, I was highly pissed.  Since how it was written, they thought I worked for the company. I was pretty rude to them, and even threaten to leave Wikipedia. Obviously that didn't happen, and I soon realized my fault and apologized and worked on consensus of what to do with that article. All of this is (sadly) documented and you see  it in my contribs (I'm ashamed to even link to it here).  After that, I have read up on a lot of Wikipedia policies and have done my best to follow them.  Though, there are times where I still don't understand something and make a mistake -- so far others have been nice to let me know on my talk page.  I have also had a few images deleted for copyright (again my fault for not reading the policy).  I have now understood that only Creative Commons images (of people) are required -- no matter what.
 * Actually, yes, when I first started editing Wikiepdia (a month ago). The article was Wildblue (it's since been moved to ViaSat's page) -- I thought I could improve and expand the article without learning Wikipedia's policy.  I worked on it for a few days, and then a user came and reverted it all back (see here what it looked like after I was done.  To be blunt and honest, I was highly pissed.  Since how it was written, they thought I worked for the company. I was pretty rude to them, and even threaten to leave Wikipedia. Obviously that didn't happen, and I soon realized my fault and apologized and worked on consensus of what to do with that article. All of this is (sadly) documented and you see  it in my contribs (I'm ashamed to even link to it here).  After that, I have read up on a lot of Wikipedia policies and have done my best to follow them.  Though, there are times where I still don't understand something and make a mistake -- so far others have been nice to let me know on my talk page.  I have also had a few images deleted for copyright (again my fault for not reading the policy).  I have now understood that only Creative Commons images (of people) are required -- no matter what.

 Reviews 


 * As you yourself have described, your niche is actor and film pages, and you're doing very well with them. Your contributions are good quality, and you're doing fine with both writing and formatting. The one minor nitpick I have is that you often don't leave an edit summary. In most of the cases, it wasn't needed, but there were several where it would have helped. Your communications on talk pages and user talk pages are good, civil, and informative. There's the one exception of Talk:WildBlue, but you've already learned better and apologized, so I won't bug you about it. All together, you're doing positively, and I'm sure you'll only get better. Just remember, never be afraid to ask for help; the template is always there. Also, you might consider checking out and joining some of the Wikiprojects for movies and actors, if you haven't already. Happy editing!     Sophus Bie  (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I answered this on their talk page. -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 19:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There are exceptions to the CC only policy - but rarely for living people. Rich Farmbrough, 14:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC).
 * I just glanced at a few edits, it is good to see the accurate figures on box office - I'm not sure about removing apparently redundant refs, do these sources ever disagree? the sources disagree.  There is no reason multiple sources can't be tied into one foot-note User:Rich_Farmbrough/temp59.  The other little query is the adding of two figures, one accurate to the $, one to the nearest (we assume, maybe rounded down or up) thousand.  The answer gives a false impression of accuracy - I realise that it is the sources doing this.  Looking at the sources I found The Numbers and  - the breakdown of the international market might be of interest - maybe more on the film's own page, and the rentals figure is also interesting, being 2/3 of the box office figure.  Add DVD/video sales (where from ?) and you start to get a picture of the franchise as a whole...  Another thing that may be worth watching out for is the use of the word "Foreign" om the tables, it should probably be "Rest of the world".