Wikipedia:Editor review/Wdflake

User:Wdflake
I have been editing Wikipedia for several months, and feel that at the beginning of the year, it is a good time to receive feedback from the community regarding my qualities as an editor.

I have not truly committed myself to any particular activity. Instead, I try to work on what interests me at a given time, to prevent WikiBurnout. Some projects that I have undertaken in the past include fixing links to misspelled redirects and creating vector versions of graphs and images, where appropriate.

I attempt to work with others in a civil manner, and edit with a neutral viewpoint. However, I have made many mistakes, which I expect would be cited in an adminship request. For instance, in my work with fixing redirects, I attempted to fix all misspelled redirects, inadvertently changing signed comments.

I appreciate your review, and will do my best to act upon all recommendations. Thank you. &mdash; W. Flake (  talk  |  contribs  ) 04:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 
 * First piece of advice to all editors here: don't sweat the RfA. Becoming an admin is not the be-all and end-all of the wikipedia experience. That said, let's look at your contributions: I note that you have 1500+ articles over just a few months, thanks for your contributions; however I note that these are to 1112 different articles, which basically leads me to believe you're a wikignome; there's nothing wrong with that, but if your were at an RfA, the editors would pay more attention to the fact that you haven't contributed to any article intensively. My advice is to find an article and try and get it up to GA or FA status. And once you've done that... find another one to do the same. Think about joining a Wikiproject to find articles according to your interests and a place to propose changes to said articles. Vandal fighting/RCP are also activities that are looked favorably upon for an RfA candidate, though it seems you are active in that area. Get some more WP space edits as well. Finally, on your 'mistakes': don't worry, we all make mistakes. I've been with Wikipedia for a year and a half, and I can still get a little hot-headed at AfDs -lets not forget all the crappy editing I did when I hadn't looked through WP guidelines (shudder). The important thing is that you learn from them, and move on. Overall, you're a great contributor, and I encourage you to get out there and continue your work. Dåvid ƒuchs  (talk &bull; contribs) 01:05, 16 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?
 * None of my contributions stand out above the rest, as I tend to deal more with maintenance than promotion of articles. I was pleased with a series of vector images I created for the article on Johnston diagrams.  Typically, though, my edits are minor.
 * 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?
 * There have been times when other users have caused me stress, but I prefer to deal with it in a direct, professional way. For instance, there was a lack of consensus regarding what information to include in the template Template:Microsoft.  To prevent the actions of other editors from resulting in a revert war, I set up a method of discussion that would allow for a public statement of grievances.  While the discussion has not completed, we are close to having reached a consensus.
 * There have been times when other users have caused me stress, but I prefer to deal with it in a direct, professional way. For instance, there was a lack of consensus regarding what information to include in the template Template:Microsoft.  To prevent the actions of other editors from resulting in a revert war, I set up a method of discussion that would allow for a public statement of grievances.  While the discussion has not completed, we are close to having reached a consensus.