Wikipedia:Editor review/WATP

WATP
Asking for review to find ways of improving my contributions, perhaps prior to RfA some time in the future  WATP   22:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * WATP, you have made some very impressive edits, and your vandalism experience is extensive. However, you know all this, and you are asking for an honest pier review so that is what you'll get. There is not much to nit-pick on in your contributions or talk page, so some of this might seem like a stretch. My first suggestion is rather trivial: I suggest that you begin answering questions and comments on your talk page on your talk page rather than the senders page. On a review it was rather difficult to follow your conversations because none of your responses (that I saw) were on that page. Perhaps in the future, if you don't think people will see your replies on your page you could copy a response on both (yours and the senders) talk pages. Also, I would suggest using the "edit summary" every time you make an edit, right now your at 67%/27%(minor). Adding the summary makes it much easier to see what you've been up to without actually looking at the articles that you've edited. Again, I know these don't sound like much, but they will make it that much easier to check you out during a potential RfA. Speaking of, I would suggest if your thinking about RfA anytime soon that you begin to increase your Wikipedia space edits. That seems to be something that a lot of voters look at, and many will remain neutral, or even oppose if you haven't reached that "magic number". - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 04:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I also have a minor and somewhat nit-picking comment. However, if you are considering an admin nomination at some point in the future, it might be something worth considering. First of all let me say that I think your contributions are very fair and unbiased, and this is in no way a reflection on your edits for which I have great respect. However, I think your username and signature could lead to problems for you in the future if were to use your tools on issues related to scottish football, something you edit on extensively (and very constructively). Obviously I'm aware of what the acronym means, and the colouring of your signature re-inforces that. I'm also aware that, in itself, there is nothing wrong with the phrase. Yet at the same time, it has also been co-opted by some for rather uncivil purposes . My point is simply that as an admin your get accused of bias on a regular basis. If your use your allegience to define yourself, and then make administrative decisions in an area where there is an obvious potential for bias, then you are going to have a tough time. I speak from experience, since I get the same thing simply from having green coloured text in my sig - I can only imagine what the paranoid masses would infer from yours, thereby making your job so much more difficult. Anyway, its just something I thought I would pass on. Rockpock  e  t  23:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See what I mean? By the way, I was going to send you an email about some sockpupptery allegations, but noticed you don't have email enabled. This is something you should do if you are thinking about a RfA nom. Rockpock  e  t  00:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your enthusiasm but you need to avoid the type of actions that you took with regard to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. You changed the reference layout from a format that had been accepted by the regular editors. When I reverted you then you tried to insist on it here. This is not the way to go. When you were reverted then the accepted procedure is to take the matter to the talk page to see if you can gain consensus. It is almost never right to try for a second time to make an edit, on an article that you don't normally edit, without going to the talk page. HTH. TerriersFan 16:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 


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


 * View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A large proportion of my contributions have been anti-vandalism related, and I feel levels of vandalism on articles related to Scottish football, and to a lesser extent football in general, are lower for it. I'm also pleased with expansion of articles such as Rangers F.C. and articles I have started (which can be seen on the created articles section of my userpage), some biographies and a few stubs.
 * 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 never been engaged in any major conflicts of any sort with other editors, and I do what I can to use talk pages to reach a consensus on matters which are being debated. I find civility to be especially important when doing this.
 * I have never been engaged in any major conflicts of any sort with other editors, and I do what I can to use talk pages to reach a consensus on matters which are being debated. I find civility to be especially important when doing this.