Wikipedia:Editor review/Mkdw2

Mkdw
I have recently been motivated to come back for a major contribution. Two years ago I completed what might have been called a peer review then. Quite some time has passed and I have continued to edit Wikipedia on my weekends and whenever I had some time. I am curious to see how other people view my work and welcome any constructive criticism, comments, or questions for me. Mkdw talk 23:50, 30 December 2009 (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?
 * Reviewing my edits I seem to undergo these bizarre phases. Lately I have been working on re-establishing the article Vancouver back to featured article status. Operation Schadenfreude has been the seed to the fruits of our labour on that article. And even more recently, looking more into WP:RfA and WP:AfD
 * 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?
 * Recently I nominated an article for WP:Afd that was a snowball fight, literally. I have not been in a situation of controversy for quite some time and found myself making a few outline statements that I withdrew. I often find myself very passionate about topics I become heavily involved with and must remind myself as I have in the past to remain calm and collected. 
 * Recently I nominated an article for WP:Afd that was a snowball fight, literally. I have not been in a situation of controversy for quite some time and found myself making a few outline statements that I withdrew. I often find myself very passionate about topics I become heavily involved with and must remind myself as I have in the past to remain calm and collected. 
 * 1) Why did you come to Wikipedia, and what do you get out of it? Doc Quintana (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Hi Mkdw, sorry for the delay in getting a review for you! On to my review...


 * User conduct
 * Edit summaries: You tend to use these on most of your edits - it makes it a lot easier for editors who have the page on their watchlist to see what's happening, without always having to look at the exact changes!
 * Constructive comments on talk pages: Your comments on article talk pages are constructive, with the clear purpose of improving the article in question.
 * Attitude towards others: I don't see any evidence of any problems - you seem to treat others with respect, and to be encouraging of your fellow editors.


 *  Edits
 * Automated Edits: Approximately 10% of your edits are automated (some with Twinkle, most using popups). I didn't see any obvious problems with them - you seem to be using them well for vandalism-reversion/warning.
 * Article vs non-article: About a third of your edits are to articles, with a further fifth being to user talk pages. The work you have done on articles looks good!


 * Summary
 * I note that in the RfAs on which you have contributed, you have been leaving a statement, rather than the simple "support"/"oppose" which you did a couple of years ago. This is a very good sign - it shows that you have considered the candidate carefully, and voiced your opinion beyond a simple "as per nom".
 * Overall, you seem to be doing good work. Your explanations at AfD are well reasoned, and I see no major problems in your editing. Keep up the good work! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 23:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)