Wikipedia:Editor Review/Espresso Addict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] User:Espresso_Addict

Espresso_Addict (talk • contribs) I've just passed the thousand edit line, and feel it would be beneficial to ask for review from more experienced editors. In the positives, I've created around 40 new pages on topics from antivirals to local geography (though many are sadly stubby) and substantively edited many others, and I've joined a few projects, though I've not contributed there as much as I'd like. I've also recently plucked up the courage to start contributing to AfD debates in my areas of expertise. However, I don't feel I've really got a good grip on how the community operates, and I've not interacted much with other users outside the AfD 'votes'. I'd welcome suggestions of other areas where I might be able to contribute, as well as where I should be looking to improve. Many thanks! Espresso Addict 09:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • With something like 70% of your edits to articles, you're off to a good start if you wish to run for adminship in the future. In terms of improving yourself, I'd suggest you take a look at other Wikipedia-space activities, like WikiProjects and WP:RFA (both of which are easy to contribute to regularly, and may teach you a lot about the community). Since your edits appear to be mostly improvements of one kind or another (rather than vandal fighting), you might consider something like recent change patrol - which includes reverting vandalism, then warning users on their talk pages with these tags. RandyWang (chat/patch) 10:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for the suggestions, RandyWang. I'm already a member of a few projects but I could definitely do with increasing my input there. I have been checking RfA but I've yet to encounter a user there whose record I understood sufficiently to feel comfortable voting. Espresso Addict 01:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Although I agree with RandyWang about a few points, I would suggest you to pick an article you know about and which is currently in stub format or in general bad shape (that is, not following the different manual of styles), and discuss in the talk page different ways of improving it, due 3 motives: firstly, you are experienced at editing articles, so you should be able to guide those who do not really know about it; secondly, you need interaction with other users, and the easiest way is to talk through an article talk page of a visited article; and finally, it is much better to start discussing (that is, looking for consensus to achieve something) in talk pages than in AFD or vandal hunting, as these last two can become pretty stressing. -- ReyBrujo 17:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for responding, ReyBrujo. You're right, of course, that generating consensus is easier when the article isn't under imminent threat of deletion! I did have a go at the kind of consensus editing you suggest a few months back but got put off because no-one responded. Definitely time to give it another go! On consideration, I think that trying to whip up some enthusiasm in one or more WikiProjects via the project talk pages may also be a way to go. Espresso Addict 01:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Statistics for: Espresso_Addict
(Permissions: N/A)
- Total: 1024 -
Main: 729
Talk: 77
User: 78
User talk: 21
Wikipedia: 102
Image: 17
-------------------
Total edits: 1024
w/ edit summary: 957 (93.45%*)
w/ manual edit summary: 865 (84.47%*)
Minor edits: 279 (27.24%*)
First known edit: May 14, 2006
-------------------
* - percentages are rounded down to the nearest hundredth.
-------------------

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Lopinavir and bovine papillomavirus are a couple of technical pages I started that seem useful, although both are far from complete; I also enjoyed creating Thor's Cave, because the research taught me things I didn't know. I'm also pleased with my contributions to AfD debates on scientific topics, where I've sometimes been able to dig out useful facts towards retaining or deleting the page under debate.
  2. 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?
    I've not really encountered much in the way of conflict. In a way it's something I'm worried I'm doing wrong, as I feel I've had limited interactions, positive or negative, with other users.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/i/Wikipedia%7EEditor_Review_Espresso_Addict_9588.html"