Wikipedia:Editor review/Worm That Turned

Worm That Turned
Well, it's a quiet day, but I'm not feeling inspired to write any new articles, so I've ended up here. I've been spending a lot of time helping out at the current Rfa reform and it's got me thinking about adminship. I'd always thought I'd try and get a featured article before I considered adminship, but the WP:FAC process scares me more than the WP:RFA process. Before I start looking down that path, I thought I'd get an independent review of my edits. I'd welcome any comments or suggestions. I am well aware of my deficiencies in certain admin areas, so don't feel you'll be insulting me by mentioning them. Oh, and unless the review strongly suggests I should be running, I'm not expecting to put myself forward for adminship for another month or so. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * It's very difficult to narrow my primary contributions down, I've made a few good articles, am particularly proud of Stargazy pie, Bacon ice cream and Doom Bar. I'm also proud of my work helping new editors. But the fact of the matter is, I'm generally proud of whatever I'm doing, which is why I do it.
 * 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.
 * I haven't really been in many conflicts. I've currently got an impersonator, who appears to have a problem with me, but it's not causing me any stress. I've stuck my nose in to a couple of conflicts, and helped to de-escalate them, but I haven't actually got into any edit wars or actual "conflict" - nor do I expect to, because I don't let things escalate.
 * I haven't really been in many conflicts. I've currently got an impersonator, who appears to have a problem with me, but it's not causing me any stress. I've stuck my nose in to a couple of conflicts, and helped to de-escalate them, but I haven't actually got into any edit wars or actual "conflict" - nor do I expect to, because I don't let things escalate.

 Reviews  You are a very sincere user and of very good temperament. Your constant civility when communicating with others, the competence you display in your actions and consistent patience where others would scream their heads off is what makes an ideal Wikipedian. The 7 GAs and 13 DYKs you have contributed to, keeping in mind these are all very recent contributions, are phenomenal which goes to show your dedication to making Wikipedia that one bit better in its quality and coverage! Your edit summary usage is perfect and I have no doubt in my mind what so ever that you are anything short of a great mentor to your adoptees and a great Wikipedian. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:27pm • 12:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Review by Ancient Apparition:
 * Hi James. Thank you very much for your kind words, I really do appreciate them. I was wondering if you had spotted any areas to work on whilst perusing my edits. I'd appreciate the criticism.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your queries on my talk page. Let me know if I can be of further help — James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:33pm • 09:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would do the FA. Who cares if it doesn't "succeed". You will get a lot of learning about aspects of articles, learn experts to interact with, etc. I mean don't just throw something crappy over the fence. No. Make it perfect in your eyes. But then even if you don't get the star (and maybe you do!), you still WILL learn a bunch. The other thing is the type of articles you work on, are probably easier to research to FA (quirky, discrete fishpies) than omnibus topics like the Manhattan Project or Fluorine. I think even if you decide in the future that FA is a bunch of pricks...or that it's more valuable to take stubs to GA than GA to FA, just doing it once, will be great training.TCO (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You know what, that's really good advice that I should have taken a long time ago. Thank you. And being out of the wikicup has also meant there's less pressure, so I might actually enjoy it.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 06:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I have come across your work  many  times and I  have always been impressed with  your  objective reasoning in  policy  matters, participation at candidates' RfAs,  and your collaboration  on heavyweight projects. Your kind of rational, well  thought, and well  researched  comments and contributions are exactly what  we expect  to  see from  future admins. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Review by Kudpung: