Wikipedia:Editor review/Wikipedian2

Wikipedian2
I wish to analyse my strengths and weaknesses to ensure that I focus on the most necessary segments of my contributions, so that I can expand my positive impact on Wikipedia for others. Wikipedian2 (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My primary contributions have been to the revision of anti-vandalism. There have been no particular edits - but rather the holistic view - that I am particularly proud of. I am proud of my overall edits as I feel that I am making a difference to reaching increasing precision and accuracy with Wikipedia content, with reliance on the 5 pillars.
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * There have been users where inevitably I have caused them stress, which have led to minor disputes, this is due usually to my anti-vandalism efforts, which are occasionally challenged. In these occasions - I explain my side of the situation, and my rational, and I also layout the key procedures and directions that they can take if they continue to disagree. This will always be my response; calm and professional.
 * There have been users where inevitably I have caused them stress, which have led to minor disputes, this is due usually to my anti-vandalism efforts, which are occasionally challenged. In these occasions - I explain my side of the situation, and my rational, and I also layout the key procedures and directions that they can take if they continue to disagree. This will always be my response; calm and professional.

 Reviews 
 * I will qualify this review upfront by stating that it is a very basic impression and I have not done in-depth analysis of your edits.
 * As you have probably surmised I was already watching your page because of the interaction we had earlier today regarding a CSD tagging. Your response to that shows a user who is willing to accept and learn from honest criticism of their actions, something often lacking around here.
 * Looking at your contribs one thing immediately jumped out at me: edit summaries. The ones I see are almost all automated, you don't seem to use them much when editing manually. While not required, it is considered courteous to leave one whenever you make an edit so that other users can know at a glance what it is you are doing. You can set your preferences to prompt you to make edit summaries if you forget.
 * Working at AFC is a great way to see new page patrolling from another perspective where you are looking to help rather than delete articles and I would encourage you to continue working there. They are often backlogged and could use the help.
 * This is just a personal issue with me, but if you are leaving a user a warning or notice as you did at User talk:Aredian lord1 its also a good idea to leave them a welcome notice of some sort. Again that's just me talking, not a rule or anything, but if a user isn't vandalizing it's a good idea to try and make sure they understand that despite the problem with one specific edit they are still welcome to contribute here.

Again, this is not a thorough check but at a glance I am not seeing any obvious red flags and it appears you are generally doing a good job finding and reverting vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As you will know from your talk page, the four GAN reviews that you have undertaken have all been superficial and flawed and I have asked that you seek the assistance of a mentor before undertaking any more reviews. Although intentionally lightweight, the reviewing of GA nominations should be done thoroughly and accurately, which you have not achieved so far. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)