Wikipedia:Editor review/Fetchcomms

Fetchcomms

Fetchcomms (talk · contribs · count) I've been active for a short while, and I'm looking for a serious review—I want to get to know Wikipedia more comprehensively, I suppose. I'm part of WikiProject Missouri and work in Articles for creation as well. I'm not looking to be an admin—I have no need to the tools or the added workload, nor do I have enough experience. I don't know whether this will change later, although I can guarantee any RfA at all would be far into the future. fetchcomms☛ 01:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
I'm not focusing on anything particular right now—I do NPP (not as often now), RCP (mostly on Huggle) and some content work. I have 11 DYKs and 1 GA, Clinton Presidential Center, which I think is what I've worked hardest on in the short time I've been active.
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?
I've been in a few minor conflicts, none of which I have much recollection of (because, well, they weren't very big). I don't really bother with arguing about pointless things, unless something is blatantly wrong. Several users have caused me my fair share of stress; sometimes I become rather frustrated that it's so hard for some to simply read a policy or something similar, although I don't recall ever having gotten overly mad about it. If I can solve something by discussing it on a talk page, I prefer to do so.

Reviews

Hi. I find no problems with your aricles excepts the paragraphs are too long, especially the lead sections. Maybe you could consider splitting them into smaller paragraphs. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate some? For shorter articles, I don't want to create sections that are only one or two sentences, but I would for a longer article. fetchcomms☛ 05:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you'll see this, given it's been awhile since you commented, but I'll just give my thoughts here. (This is my first review, so no promises that it'll be perfect, or indeed even good.)

As far as I can tell, your content contributions have been good, if a little secondary to vandal-fighting, based on proportion of edits to article and user talk namespaces, as well as edits using Twinkle and Huggle. That's no problem, both are important. I've got no problems with any of the articles you created, and similarly, your work at Articles for Creation looks good. Just looking at your talk page, you seem to be active at DYK. I don't really know what goes on there, so I'm not qualified to comment on that, but at a glance it looks perfectly fine. Edit summaries are also perfect, good there. As for interaction within Wikipedia goes, you seem to be a pretty level-headed editor, and I can't find any major problems. Like you said, nothing that big. All in all, you look like a very good editor, and compliments on your work here. C628 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Good first review!) Thank you very much for the feedback, I'm trying to get more involved in content work this year, and I'm glad that it's pretty fun, actually, heh. fetchcomms☛ 21:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]