Wikipedia:Editor review/StringTheory11
StringTheory11 (talk · contribs · count) I've been actively editing here for about a year and a half now, and I would like to know what people think I have done well, and what people think I could improve on. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Questions
- What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
- I mostly contribute to science-related articles, both creating new articles and improving existing articles. I also will occasionally show up in baseball articles. I have taken periodic table from C to FA, and have taken a few other articles to GA, as well as creating many articles on stars that meet WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG.
- 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 can't think of any content disputes that I have been in, but I have had to take a user to ANI before for personal attacks, which was a little nerve-wracking due to the infamous reputation of ANI. In a content dispute, I would probably first try to resolve the issue on the talk page and user talk pages, and if that didn't work I would try WP:DRN.
- What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
- I honestly don't know if I will run for adminship or not. I can't say that I'm not thinking about it, as the admin tools would be useful to block vandals, delete hoaxes, protect pages from vandalism, etcetera. However, I mostly just want to know what people think I could do better.
Reviews
- Seem to be going just fine, just keep pumping out the content. This here would be really dated to look at - the tools I found most useful as a content editor are semi-protecting and also moving pages which require a deletion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Impressive. I like to see an editor who has most of their edits in the article space, and who creates high quality content. The work on the periodic table is first class. I note also your work on Nitrogen, which needs a fair bit of work to get it up to the B class it already holds, to say nothing of GA. I agree with Caliber: semi-protecting and moving are the most useful of the admin tools. I'd support you in a run for admin, but some editors might want to see more that 4,600 edits. Nonetheless, you are on the right track. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)