Wikipedia:Editor review/Minimac

Minimac94
As I have made over 5000 edits and more than three months of experience in contributing it would be nice to see how I'm doing so far as a half-experienced Wikipedian. Minima c  94 ( talk ) 10:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This request was not transcluded until 11:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I don't usually have a particular interest in a topic, although I have made a few Number edits when I started back in October. A lot of my edits are rollbacking edits and tagging new articles, but in the mainspace I have started to Cite quotes in pages, which gives me good practice on writing references. I used to write some NFL reviews back in November, with help from the official NFL website but have stopped recently as this season is finishing.
 * 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?
 * I wasn't engaged in a major dispute, but I do remember someone has undone my edit and explained why on the talk page. I didn't respond back. Sometimes it's better not to respond, as it is a decent way to get over an argument next time there is a dispute, rather than making a war zone over it.
 * I wasn't engaged in a major dispute, but I do remember someone has undone my edit and explained why on the talk page. I didn't respond back. Sometimes it's better not to respond, as it is a decent way to get over an argument next time there is a dispute, rather than making a war zone over it.

 Reviews 


 * Hi Minimac, here is my review...


 * User conduct
 * Edit summaries: You generally use edit summaries, which is very helpful for people who are watching the page! Although your edit summary usage for major edits is over 90%, over the last 150 edits this is only 87% - perhaps you have forgotten to sometimes? There is an option in preferences which will prompt you if you do not use a summary.
 * Constructive comments on article talk pages: The comments you leave are constructive, with the aim of improving the article. I particularly like the comments about "Quotes that need citing" - this is a useful thing to do, as you have looked for sources and been unable to do so.
 * Attitude towards others: You seem to be friendly and helpful towards others, and willing to explain your actions. This shows that you are working as part of the community, and willing to listen to others as well.


 *  Edits
 * Automated Edits: Just over 68% of your edits are automated (mainly Huggle and Twinkle), and your use of these tools (actually, it's Twinkle now, isn't it) is generally accurate, but I would say that sometimes you need to be a bit more careful with your Speedy Deletion tagging, as sometimes this can be inaccurate. I'm not sure why you feel the need to have an account just for Twinkle and anti-vandalism work though!
 * Article vs non-article: About 47% article edits, about 43% user talk edits - but when automated edits are included, this goes down to about 10% article edits. There isn't a problem with these figures (and obviously they don't included the 'Clone' edits)


 * Summary
 * Generally, you seem to be doing a good job, with some useful anti-vandalism work. You work is generally Wikignoming rather than major article work, and I didn't see anything that stuck out as a problem - keep it up! (Incidently, I've removed my question about the user name change, as it's not relevant any more!) --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)