Wikipedia:Editor review/NHRHS2010 2

NHRHS2010
I have been active on Wikipedia several years ago while I was a teenager. As I have been busier with academics as I entered my college years, I did not do much editing. From time to time, I will fight vandalism. However, I would like to see if there is anything I can do to contribute more to Wikipedia when I am busy with something else. NHRHS2010  RIP M.H. (1994-2014)  23:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * Although I have been less active to compare with 2007 and 2008, I have been occasionally doing vandalism reverts during more recent years.
 * 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.
 * Not recently. However, I looked through some of my old stuff (such as my old RfAs) and I wasn't particularly pleased with my own actions. I mean, I wasn't doing any vandalism or disruption but what I am not impressed is the immaturity of youth where I took certain things too seriously (i.e. using the term "hurt my feelings" rather than taking the comments as constructive criticism). I am a grown-up now and I have a more mature mind.
 * 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 would like to receive suggestions on how to contribute more to Wikipedia. I know that I have started articles and made some constructive edits years ago but I would be interested in coming back to becoming an active user other than doing just vandalism reverts.

 Reviews 

I had a look at your talk page and contributions. If fixing vandalism and gnomish edits are all you're really interested in, then carry on doing that. Personally, I'd prefer to see if we can write better programs to automatically catch vandalism, so if you're interested in software development, and think you have the skills to write a suitable bot, that might be something to think about. I wouldn't do it without a thorough understanding of the software development process, and a willingness to negotiate with other users who will test your bot rigorously.

There is a note on your talk page about a recent thread at WP:AN involving you, though it seems to have been deleted so I'll assume it was just a case of cross purposes. However, in general I think user talk pages are never be speedy deleted, as they may contain important notices whose history should be preserved. In a worst case scenario eg: a bad faith editor posting personal abuse and attacks, I would expect to see their edits revision deleted, a block notice placed by an admin, and perhaps another one advising them that talk page access has been disabled.

If you'd like to become an "active user", for which I assume you want to create more content, the first question to ask is - what do you want to write about? Unless you've got a burning interest to do in depth writing on a topic, you'll struggle to make serious content contributions. Many key articles are already written, but a lot are in poor shape, with tags that can date back as far as 2007. Find an article tagged unreferenced or refimprove with next to no sources, pop down to your local library and get a book on the topic, and use it to source material. Or, pop onto Amazon or eBay and pick up a good book for next to nothing (I'm currently bidding on a couple of Beatles sources because having done Abbey Road I'd quite like to get the rest of their albums up to good article status too). Editors who know how to use sfn ( though its use is by no means any indicator of article quality) ) and pop into articles without so much as a second thought get a lot more respect as a content creator. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   10:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)