Wikipedia:Editor review/Reconsider the static

Reconsider the static
Hi, I've been editing since mid 2009, which isn't exactly a long time, but I'm interested in getting some feedback. Reconsider !  07:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My primary contributions consists of recent changes + new pages patrol, as well as commenting on WP:RFF.
 * 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've been involved in one major dispute on the Vivek Kundra page. In hindsight, I probably could've dealt with the situation in a more diplomatic manner rather than throwing around accusations of sockpuppetry.
 * I've been involved in one major dispute on the Vivek Kundra page. In hindsight, I probably could've dealt with the situation in a more diplomatic manner rather than throwing around accusations of sockpuppetry.

 Reviews 


 * Hi Reconsider the static, here is my review...


 * User conduct
 * Edit summaries: Although you use these for all your minor edits, this is mainly because it's done automatically by Twinkle. Your use of edit summaries on your major edits is pretty low (just a bit over half) - I would recommend using them more - it allows editors who watch th page to see what is happening, without them having to always look at the actual edit itself. If you go to your preferences, and then look on the "editing" tab, there is an option Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, which would help with this - I use it myself, just to make sure that I don't forget!
 * Constructive comments on article talk pages: The comments I see are with the clear aim of trying to improve the article.
 * Attitude towards others: I see no problems here, but I must point out that the majority of your messages on user talk pages tend to be TW warnings! I didn't see any evidence of a lack of respect towards others, or any other negative comments.


 *  Edits
 * Automated Edits: About a quarter of all your edits are automated (mainly Twinkle, some Friendly and some HotCat). I didn't see any particular problems (and a few "thank you"s from editors whose pages you had removed vandalism from.
 * Article vs non-article: Almost 2/3 of your edits are to articles (even if you allow for the fact that some of that is reverted vandalism, you still have over 1/2 of all your edits to articles) - and about 1/4 to user talk pages (again, ignoring warnings etc, there's still a decent amount!). I can't see any problem with the article-non-article mixture of edits here.


 * Summary
 * You are working well on RC and NPP, combating the vandalism which is an unfortunately side effect of having an encyclopedia which anyone can edit. I didn't see any obvious problems with the work which you have done - on the whole I'd just say: keep up the good work!
 * With regard to the Vivek Kundra situation you mentioned - yes, it could have been handled better, but you realise that now! It's a couple of months ago - you just move on, having learned a valuable lesson! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)