Wikipedia:Editor review/SuperHamster

SuperHamster
Hello. I am requesting a review from other editors to see how I am doing and what I should do in the future. I've been editing for about a year now, most actively in the last few months. Comments and constructive criticism are welcome. I would also like to see, if I were to be applying for adminship, what your vote would be, and primarily, why, so I can work in areas I'm weak on. Thanks! ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 01:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * In a general view, most of my contributions and experience lie in the recent change patrol, new page patrol, and image departments. I am pleased with my edits in these areas and believe they are my strongest source of my experience. In terms of singled out edits, I am also pleased with an article I made and expanded to DYK status, Mandazi. Other than that article, I do not have anything "amazing" such as featured/good articles, featured images, etc. I also created the article Twin Skies as my sixth edit, but it needs a good partial rewrite to make it good.
 * 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?
 * Of course, it's quite hard to edit Wikipedia without finding yourself in a dispute at some point. None of them were anything major and generally they all came out with a positive outcome after discussion. If a user disagrees with my edit, I'll usually try to discuss the dispute with another user (e.g. here). I think any problem can be sorted out, or at least a consensus be formed, through discussion, unless of course a user is being unresponsive or just generally being inappropriate, in which it may have to be taken to WP:AN to be sorted out there. In any case, I always try to approach a dispute with keeping one's cool in mind, as I think is the strongest and easiest way to help solve conflicts, even if the other user isn't keeping their cool. Not keeping calm won't get you anywhere, no matter how many guidelines you list or points you make.
 * Of course, it's quite hard to edit Wikipedia without finding yourself in a dispute at some point. None of them were anything major and generally they all came out with a positive outcome after discussion. If a user disagrees with my edit, I'll usually try to discuss the dispute with another user (e.g. here). I think any problem can be sorted out, or at least a consensus be formed, through discussion, unless of course a user is being unresponsive or just generally being inappropriate, in which it may have to be taken to WP:AN to be sorted out there. In any case, I always try to approach a dispute with keeping one's cool in mind, as I think is the strongest and easiest way to help solve conflicts, even if the other user isn't keeping their cool. Not keeping calm won't get you anywhere, no matter how many guidelines you list or points you make.

 Reviews 


 * Hi SuperHamster, here's my review


 * User conduct
 * Edit summaries: Although all of your edits have summaries, the majority of them are automated ones. The ones which are not automated are brief, but succinct.
 * Constructive comments on talk pages: the comments that you leave on the talk pages of articles are constructive, with the aim of improving the encyclopedia.
 * Attitude towards others: I see an editor who seems to be considerate and helpful, wanting to help other editors to improve the encyclopedia.


 *  Edits
 * Automated Edits: Your %age of automated edits is about 60% - a quick look through your history didn't come across any obvious problems with how you are using the tools.
 * Article vs non-article: Although a lot of your edits (about 44%) are to articles, the majority of those appear to be vandalism/new page patrols - which obviously helps to maintain the accuracy of the encyclopedia. Some people look down on such work, but it is essential!


 * RfA
 * CSD: Looking at your last 25 SD tags (going by the notification on the creators' talk pages - I am not an admin, so I can't see the deleted articles), you appear to be tagging accurately, with a 92% deletion rate of the articles/files you have tagged for speedy deletion
 * PROD: I only saw one of these - which was deleted after the 7 days was up.
 * xfD: In the xfDs I looked at, you gave considered, policy-based !votes.
 * ANI/AN:I see a few contributions to ANEW, but none to ANI/AN
 * Contributions to RfAs: I see that you have !voted on 3 RfAs, all with good reasoning behing your !voting
 * Previous RfAs: N/A


 * Summary
 * Overall, I see an editor who is working to improve Wikipedia, and to help others to do so - keep up the good work!
 * With regard to an RfA, I'll be honest - if you were to put up one, my !vote would be Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral or Symbol wait.svg not now - I would suggest that you need more work on articles beyond just "maintenance" work, and less automated edits, as I know that this has been a source of many opposes recently. My "not now" would be based on the fact that I have not seen enough evidence of how you would deal with controversial decisions, and with criticism - however, this would not be enough for me to oppose you, while not being enough to support either.


 * I hope this review is helpful! Regards, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your in-depth review, Steve =) ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 00:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)