Wikipedia:Editor review/Mifter

Mifter
Some users suggested that I get an editor review to get suggestions to improve my editing so I decided what the heck. I have hopes to become a Sysop one day but I know that I would have to wait a while before becoming one being that I am a new editor but for now I'm content just to help out around Wikipedia, any tips would be appreciated. I am rather active at WP:RFA, WP:AIV, along with welcoming users, reverting vandalism, working with Wikiprojects, among other things. (Note: I do have rollbacker permissions.) Thanks,--Mifter (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

 Reviews  I would like to say that you are off to a good start in Wikipedia. However, I would like to see more action under WP:AFD. The majority of your edits are welcoming users. This can be nice, however, I would like to see more content editing. Keep up the good work! Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 16:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Curteous, competant, tries a bit of everything and is very active all around the Law Enforcement Wikiproject. As the reviewer said above, just keep on writing those articles and you will become a well rounded editor SGGH speak! 17:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So sorry it's not a review, but it was a really nice idea with that spring thing. Well done! WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN I push my hand up to the sky  23:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * Well, I am currently working on getting FBI Buffalo Field Office which I wrote up to GA class, but aside from that I think my contributions to fighting vandalism and to WikiProjects are my best achievements thus far.
 * 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?
 * Nope I have never been in any conflicts with other editors during my time here at Wikipedia
 * Nope I have never been in any conflicts with other editors during my time here at Wikipedia

HI

I am pleased to see you are joining up with us at WP:AFC. If you participate here you will get to meet and help many new anonymous people. One strange edit that happened that affected an article I reviewed was this pair of edits:
 * 13:52, 22 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Heath v. Alabama‎ (Undid revision 199984957 by Mifter (talk))
 * 13:51, 22 March 2008 (hist) (diff) m Heath v. Alabama‎ (Reverted 33 edits by 69.140.152.55 identified as vandalism to last revision by Brewcrewer. using TW)

what happened here? It the biggest rollback I have ever seen, followed up with a quick reversal. Did the TW button have an accident?

You have also made me aware of the Commons Helper. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have come from nowhere on 5 February and started editing as if you were already experienced, doing assessments, rather than editing articles. Were you a different user before builiding up experience? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your talk page :).--Mifter (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved Here for Transparency

Hi there, I saw you left a bunch of comments on my editor review so here are the answers to your questions :). First off, I had been editing as an IP for quiet a while and then I finally decided to register and account so that’s where I got all my experience from also, when I made my first article assessments, I had  this page up as well and I compared the articles to my personal opinion about their structure and the criteria outlined here. And about your second thing about my massive rollback :P


 * 13:52, 22 March 2008 (hist) (diff) Heath v. Alabama‎ (Undid revision 199984957 by Mifter (talk))
 * 13:51, 22 March 2008 (hist) (diff) m Heath v. Alabama‎ (Reverted 33 edits by 69.140.152.55 identified as vandalism to last revision by Brewcrewer. using TW)

What happened was I was patrolling recent changes and when I looked at the article, I click the twinkle button that would show the last revision, while to me the last revision looked like vandalism, so I rolled back the edits only to realize that the Anon in question was completely re-writing the article an improving it substantially in a series of smaller edits that viewed alone would appear vandalism see here the first revision is the original revision before the anon edited the second is the current revision. I hope that this answers your questions :) and if you have any more feel free to ask on my talk page, --Mifter (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)