Wikipedia:Editor review/Ryan 2

Ryan
It's been a about a year (or more) since my last review, and I've changed a great deal. I just want to know what other editors think of me. I'll gladly answer any questions you may ask. - Ryan (me) (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Looking at your contributions, most of your edits are from recent changes patrolling. This is very helpful, thanks for that. I suggest that since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, you work on an article or two... I don't mean create from scratch, but pick a topic you like (or any will do) and improve an article in that area in some way (add a reference, fix typos, manual of style fixes, adding of prose). In this way, you can become more familiar with the way articles are written, and perhaps involve collaboration with other editors.
 * As well as this, you may want to take part in internal Wikipedia processes, such as WP:AFD, WP:MFD, WP:RFA etc. This will help you become familiar with various policies and understanding of how processes here are made.
 * You as an editor: I can't tell much just from vandal reverts, but you seem to be a pretty friendly person, who gets on well with others (that is, you haven't had a real conflict yet). You've also been around a long time, despite the lowish edit count (low compared to the standard for RfAs, though I assume you don't want to run anytime soon). You're also very mature for your age, there's not that many as young as you on here doing as well.
 * Keep up the good work - if you ever want to run for adminship, you'd probably need to boost up your activity quite a bot (~200 edits a month won't cut it with the edit counters). Otherwise, with a bit of experience in the above areas, it'll make you a better more knowledgable editor.  Majorly  (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never participated in an editor review before, but I just wanted to mention one thing. When participating in deletion discussions (AfD, etc.), you should not be giving reasons like "per nom" or "per above". The reason you give should show that you have thought about whether notability is proven and searched for sources that would help establish notability. I always try to run the subjects through a few google searches (google, google news, google books, etc.) before voting, and I try to make a point of mentioning that I have done these searches. It's great that you're willing to help out in deletion discussions, but please remember that it is the quality of your reasoning that is the most important factor. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I can't really say I'm pleased about any of my contributions in particular... I'm pleased with my everyday contributions, such as vandalism reversion (which I must say is much easier now that I have help). 
 * 1) Have you been in any conflicts 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?
 * Although I always try to "steer clear" of such things, I've been dragged into a few conflicts. For example, when I have to deal with a vandal who insists on posting "WHAT THE HELL DID I DO???!!???!!???!!??? messages on my talk page, I usually (calmly) explain how the user's edits are vandalism, and not appreciated on Wikipedia. If the user insists on "yelling" at me again, (s)he goes onto the AIV list.
 * Although I always try to "steer clear" of such things, I've been dragged into a few conflicts. For example, when I have to deal with a vandal who insists on posting "WHAT THE HELL DID I DO???!!???!!???!!??? messages on my talk page, I usually (calmly) explain how the user's edits are vandalism, and not appreciated on Wikipedia. If the user insists on "yelling" at me again, (s)he goes onto the AIV list.