Wikipedia:Editor review/SOADLuver

User:SOADLuver
I've been on Wikipedia for a little while now,and I'm getting sort of curious on how I'm doing. I'm trying to improve from my earlier mistakes,such as edit wars and unecessary CAPITALIZATION.I just wanted someelse's opinion on how I can improve. SOADLuver 08:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

 Reviews  delldot's review: Hi SOADLuver, looks like you're doing great work here.
 * No evidence of conflict or incivility from your talk page, looks like you interact with other users in a friendly way.
 * The talk edits I looked at were friendly and helpful.
 * I notice your number of edits has fallen off in recent months, are you busy with school or something?
 * Nice work reverting vandalism. Remember that when you rvv, leave a test message on the vandal's talk page.  It may deter them, or at least expedite the process of getting them to stop through blocking.  It looks like you are usually good about this and other types of warnings, just missing a few.  The warnings that you added are appropriate (e.g. not skipping to t4 for the first instance of vandalism...) so good job there.
 * it looks like you don't make many huge contributions in terms of adding large amounts of material to articles. In my book, this is not necessarily a bad thing, and it's perfectly helpful if you help out in small ways (i.e. gnoming).  Other editors might take issue with it in something like an RFA, saying that you should have some experience bringing an article from a stub to a good or featured article, for example.
 * Not a very high mainspace contribution, but your edits in wikipedia namespace are high for your overall edit count (maybe because you vote in a lot of rfas?). Not many wiki talk edits though, which could mean youi're not interested in discussing policy much. Which I think is fine but could be seen as a lack of familiarity with policy in something like an RFA.  However, I'd of course not suggest changing your editing style just to run up the counts in a particular namespace (not that I think you'd do that anyway).
 * Your edit summary usage is very good. You might want to change it in your preferences so it prompts you if you go to save without one, to get those last few summaries and bring it to 100%.
 * I didn't see terribly much interaction with other users, but what I did see was friendly, and I think that's the most important thing. I couldn't find evidence of the edit wars you mentioned, can you link to them and briefly explain? Edit warring is indeed very troubling, but if you have stopped that behavior and can show a long period with a clean record, I don't think old mistakes can be held against you.
 * If you get more time it would be great to have more overall project participation from you, but of course that's not always possible. You're doing great!  delldot | talk 18:21, 5 January 2007 (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?
 * There are none that really stick out.I've tried to stay consentrated on improving a certain article, but I always seem to spread my edits out.I hope on wikifying an article soon.
 * 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?
 * ''I have been in a few minor edit wars here and there,btu nothing major. In the past I've handled them sort of immaturely which only seemed to make it worse. I believe I've improved sice I haven't been in any edit wars in a long while. No other users have caused me stress yet.
 * ''I have been in a few minor edit wars here and there,btu nothing major. In the past I've handled them sort of immaturely which only seemed to make it worse. I believe I've improved sice I haven't been in any edit wars in a long while. No other users have caused me stress yet.