Wikipedia:Editor review/SunStar Net

User:SunStar Net
Hi, I'm interested in having an editor review to see where my weak areas are, any anything I can improve on. Advice is appreciated. --SunStar Net 16:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

 Reviews 

You probably want to improve on the following: Thanks for asking me to editor review you, and I hope all this helps. If you want a more broken down detailing of your edit activity, I have one : User:Elaragirl/EditorRevStuff. If you have any further questions, hit me on my talk page. -- Shrieking Harpy   TalkundefinedCount 20:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, there, Sunstar. First of all, even doing an editor review is a good sign, since it allows the community to give you some firm feedback. With that in mind, let's look at some things you have done right:
 * 1) - You have a total of 649 edits. Of those, a whopping 106 were in the AIV section. That's pretty concience focus on stopping vandalism, which warms my heart. Lots of other vandal fighting stuffs too.
 * 2) - 15 welcomes! It's good to see someone who's only been here a few days welcoming new people in turn. It really DOES make a difference being nice.
 * 3) - A good selection in most areas (save one, see below) of activity -- templates, images, name space, wikipedia talk, activism against vandals, etc.
 * 1) - Only 87 article space edits. You should find some more articles to work on. I'd be more than happy to find stuff to work on you with. It's hard to say exactly what you should do differently when we don't have much to go on.
 * 2) - In your actual edits of articles, such as with Tim Hamilton (actor), you confuse (I think) POV with what isn't verifiable. Remember to discuss changes.
 * 3) - I would find a series of articles to improve. Try and see if you can find an article to get to GA or FA status.
 * 4) - Finally, while being anti-vandalistic is good, some of your activities on AIV replicate efforts. Consider reading up some pages from WP:CVG and getting some tools, like VandalProof.

 Comments 
 * Hello there, SunStar Net. A couple of comments, seen that Elaragirl did a very good review. Try to add an explanation at Image:Pca1.jpg about how you got the image. Also, I notice you participate a lot in the Wikipedia namespace, which is very good. But 100 edits in the article namespace, a third of your Wikipedia namespace ones, is questionable. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia before all, and editors (including administrators) are expected to participate in the article namespace. I see you are member of some WikiProjects, I suggest participating in Collaborations of the Week in those projects, and if it does not exist, maybe setting one up so that you get more experience while editing articles you like. Or you can select an article about a topic you like, and try to expand it, discussing in the talk page about resources and wording. Also, check the Manual of Style and Peer review for ideas about how to improve articles. I reviewed some of your deletion participation, and found them all fair enough, although some may have used a better explanation. Remember to always include a link to the policy or guideline you are using in these discussions. Articles for deletions should not only determine if an article should be deleted, but also teach the users who created the articles why their submissions were not accepted. Finally, it is good to see you awarding barnstars around. These small tokens of appreciation are always welcomed, and usually raise the spirit of those receiving them. Try to spend some more time writing articles, and meet users not only during discussions, but also while improving articles. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 21:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To repeat the above slightly, you should certainly try to look at writing articles a little more. Some people think that having helped with one featured article should be a pre-requisite for adminship - while you don't necessarily have to reach that height (it would have scuppered me, unless you count Sanssouci), it's good to demonstrate that you have the ability to research and write encyclopaedia articles. Even if that's not your main focus, all admins and non-admins-doing-admin-work should understand the writing process. The first question in this review (which matches the second standard question in RfAs) about the contributions you're most proud of is the one where you have the most opportunity to set yourself apart. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Elaragirl covered a lot of the stuff I was going to say. You have made great strides since your ER started to increase your mainspace edits, so that's a good thing. You are a valued vandal-fighter, and you frequently report pages to WP:RFPP. You've been here for about three weeks, yet you have made great progress and continue to improve every day. Continue contributing to AfD discussions and try to narrow down your mainspace contributions to a few particular articles, which you plan to write, expand, and improve. Continue to do what you have been doing on Wikipedia, and you'll become a great user in no time. Take a look at Wikipedia guidelines (WP:CSD, WP:CIVIL, etc.) and keep up the good work. =) P.S. I found pop-ups annoying at first, but I use them all the time now (they really help with my admin chores). If you want a great external vandal-fighting tool, I suggest VandalProof.  Nish kid 64  01:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 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?
 * Answer
 * 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?
 * Answer
 * Answer