Wikipedia:Editor review/Erik the Red 2 2

Erik the Red 2

Erik the Red 2 (talk · contribs) This is my second review, after a first one 500 edits ago that only drew one response (thank you, L'aquatique!). The point of this is just to gauge the community's opinion of how I'm doing as a Wikipedian. Thanks to all reviewers, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Well, I have seen you many times participating in RfAs. Including This one. Your communication skills are fairly good. Although edit levels are not judging factors in an RfA, I would like to increase your edit level. Hope that helps. H2H (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I also found out that you created the account in 01/2007 but actually "started" earlier this year. H2H (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright: first thing I notice looking at your edit count is that you should use edit summaries more often (as in 100% of the time). You've done a really good job with that the last two months - so just make sure to keep it up. Remember to mark your edits as minor ([1][2] (I'd supply more - but from the looks of it you've never use the minor checkbox)); the minor is great because it lets users watching the recent changes to more easily see which edits they need to watch, and which they don't. Speaking of watching recent changes: it looks like you have a lot of reverts - nicely done, recent changes watchers are always needed on Wikipedia, however it would be extremely nice if you could maybe work on one or two articles specifically). You seem to have a relatively good knowledge of policy (I saw you invoked WP:EGG in one edit - nicely done :), although there are some faults (nothing too major though); I would just, as often as possible, be 100% sure that the policy agrees with you. You seem to edit a pretty wide variety of articles - that's great, although obviously there's nothing wrong with finding a specific type of article you like to edit - so if you feel yourself gravitating to a specific area, don't be afraid. Good work in WP:AFD and it's always great to see an editor help/work at WP:ANI early on - that's a great sign. Alright- I'll probably give a more detailed review a bit later, but overall from what I've seen you look like a pretty solid editor - you're doing a lot of great stuff and you have a lot of potential, so I think you'll continue to be a great editor. Nicely done and keep up the good work. Obviously if you have any questions, feel free to ask.--daniel folsom 23:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

Questions

Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
Well, not any with which I am super-pleased. I guess I'm overall satisfied with most of my contributions. Most of my work has been in vandal fighting, aided now with the rollback permission, but now I'm beginning to branch out into the WP namespace, participating in AfD, RfA, etc. I reviewed and promoted Baconian theory to GA status recently, too. I've also been welcoming users with Friendly lately.

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?
Not really. I've been under fire at RfA for defending Kurt Weber's right to oppose there, but aside from that and a few other conflicts, like the debate on Talk:Barack Obama, my WikiMood has bee pretty chilled lately.