Wikipedia:Editor review/Garrettw87

Garrettw87

Garrettw87 (talk · contribs · count) Just want some feedback on how I'm doing, as I want to be the best I can be. Not necessarily wanting to go for admin any time soon, although advice toward that end would be welcomed just as any other comments would be.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 09:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I have a lot of edits in the "User talk" namespace, and probably more edits to userboxes and my own userpages than I should have, but of my main (Article) namespace edits, I've done a good bit on my hometown and RAID (including related pages).
   Concerning my edits on users' talk pages, I do a lot with Twinkle and I'm trying to start using Friendly more as well (see here). Incidentally, I've never tried some of the automated wiki-editing software out there like Huggle or AutoWikiBrowser.

3. 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?

   -One time, I kinda put myself in the middle of an edit war to try and stop it, although I think it may have just stopped on its own – I don't know. All I know is that my ANI was never responded to, which I thought was weird.
   -Secondly, I was involved in a dispute with an anonymous user (who may have actually had a user account, but I don't know for sure) who insisted that since she did not use the term "Roman Catholic" to describe herself, and neither did anyone she knew, that the word "Roman" needed to be removed from the word "Catholic" across Wikipedia. I asked for my adopter's opinion on my responses, and he told me that maybe it was time for me to step back from the dispute to clear my head – so I did.
   -Thirdly, there was an issue with the page for a radio station in my area where a nonsense word was inserted on more than one occasion, which I had to revert each time. It wasn't a dispute, per se, but it was an incident, I guess.
   Those are the closest things to disputes that I have had so far.

Reviews

• Hi garrettw87, sorry for the delay in getting a review for you - we're slowly catching up with the backlog! On to my review...

• User conduct

• Edit summaries: You always use edit summaries, which is good - it allows editors who are watching the page to see exactly what you have done without having to look in detail at it!
• Constructive comments on talk pages: Your comments seem to be with the purpose of improving articles. You suggest improvements, comment on others suggestions - overall, it looks good!
• Attitude towards others: You are polite to others (even surprising them sometimes with a barnstar - I knew that I recognised your name!), and you seem to welcome constructive criticism. You seem to work well with other editors, and to show respect for them.

• Edits

• Automated Edits: About 17% of your edits are automated (using Twinkle and Friendly), and these seem accurate. I didn't notice any obvious problems with the automated edits.
• Article vs non-article: 20% of your edits have been to articles, with almost 37% of your edits to user talk pages and 16% to Wikipedia space (a lot on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory).

• RfA

• CSD: None
• PROD: None
• xfD: No contributions
• ANI/AN: No contributions (apart from 1 report to Edit Warring)
• Contributions to RfAs: None (but a contribution to one RfB)

• Summary

• Your editing seems to be good, constructive and with the aim of making Wikipedia better. You have a good attitude towards other editors. Keep up the good work!
• Adminship: If you were to go for an RfA, you would probably not be successful at the moment for a couple of reasons:

1. Edit count: you only have 968 edits (including 23 deleted edits) - most participants at RfA would be looking at a minimum of 2-3000.
2. Work in admin type areas: most RfA participants would like to see that you have successfully nominated pages for deletion using the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, to have Proposed articles for deletion and that you have participated in Articles for deletion discussions. At the moment, we would not be able to see if you have an understanding of the deletion policy. I would also recommend taking part in RfAs - this would allow people to recognise your name if you go for an RfA yourself, and it would allow them to see that you can explain your reasoning. This is also a reason for taking part in xFds - they show that you can apply Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines by the references you make to them in your !vote.

• Don't worry about adminship yet - it's no big deal! Carry on the good work, what you are doing is good. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)