Wikipedia:Editor review/Rutebega

Rutebega
I've been a user on Wikipedia for a little over a year now (truly active for somewhat less than that) and I'd like to see how I'm progressing as an editor. Rutebega ( talk ) 04:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I would consider my "primary" contributions to wikipedia to be the pages I improve through the GOCE, especially those that require more than just a little copyediting. The best example is Budgam district, but there are less obvious examples as well I think. These edits don't comprise the majority of those I make on Wikipedia: I've done quite a bit of work on RCP, and I try to branch out and try new things as an editor, but I find directly contributing to articles both more significant and more rewarding.
 * 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.
 * I've never been in an editing dispute I felt I couldn't handle. I tend not to get stressed out about Wikipedia, and even when I'm frustrated and think another user is in the wrong, I try to respond with as much civility as I can. I think this is the best response to disputes on Wikipedia.
 * 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 really just want to know if there's anything I can improve on as an editor. Bearian once suggested I consider running for sysop, and I'm certainly thinking about it, but I have no plans to do so at present. Ultimately, I'd like to be the best editor I can be, mop or not.

 Reviews 

Wow. I just spent some time reviewing your contributions, and I have to say, I'm impressed. For someone with just a little over 1000 edits and a year's worth of experience, you sure do seem to know your way around here and have proven to be quite a capable editor with plenty of good sense. I'm not surprised at all that an experienced Wikipedian like Bearian advised you to consider running for adminship; a few thousand edits more (say, 5000+ at a minimum, based on today's standards) and I'd be prodding you to go for it myself. ;)

Anyways...
 * Almost from the very beginning, you've been an active RC patroller. For someone who'd just started and has barely made more than 5-10 edits, that's pretty impressive. Obviously you're a fast learner, and your reverting accuracy shows competence in a field that is often slammed for being menial. Consider making a request for rollback; it's a very efficient tool in fighting vandalism and you've proven yourself to be trustworthy enough to handle it. Just be familiar with what should and should not be handled with that particular feature (it automates an edit summary), and you'll do fine.
 * I notice that lately you've branched off into other areas, notably content contributions and deletion-related activities. Not bad for your first ever AfD nomination; you covered all the bases and made a very convincing argument for deletion, which had unanimous agreement among participants. Also a very good MfD nomination, but if I may offer some advice, I'd say that you don't necessarily always have to acquire consensus for issues that have an obvious solution. Don't be afraid to be bold! Oh, and when dealing with disambig pages for terms that have multiple different meanings without one in particular being used far more often than all the others (just like Mitt), it's best to have the page itself serve as the disambiguation page, rather than redirecting it to one (i.e. instead of redirecting "Mitt" to "Mitt (disambiguation)", the page "Mitt" itself is the dab).
 * You have some pretty good skills as a copyeditor, and your contributions to Fictional crossover &mdash; while not the complete overhaul in which the article desperately needs &mdash; certainly have gone a long way towards making the page easier to navigate.
 * I'm sure you're not overly sensitive or anything, so this comment probably isn't even really all that necessary &mdash; but just as a note, I wouldn't advise taking this to heart. You did what you felt was right, even if your approach may have been a bit less discrete than you'd realized, and there's nothing wrong with trying to help out. I speak as someone who has never actually made an RfO, but I don't think I'm above making those kinds of mistakes myself. The important thing is that the damage has presumably been minimized, and you did your part there, all the while learning something in the process.

And that's about it. The only thing I could say is keep up the good work, maybe try some other new things if you're up for it. You're doing great so far, and I hope I'll continue to see you around the place.

Take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the generous review! I haven't really done RCP much this month, but I'll definitely look into rollback when I get around to it. For right now, I think I'd like to focus a little more on XfD and perhaps do a little dispute resolution, in addition to GOCE stuff. I need to quit AN and AN/I though, my principal vices on wikipedia. Recently I fear I've been a little ham-handed, but I think I may be ready for RfA a couple thousand edits from today. That's generally what's needed to pass anyway, given the state it's in.
 * Again, your comments are gratefully received, and I too hope to cross paths again. Cheers. — Rutebega ( talk ) 03:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)