Wikipedia:Editor review/AdamWeeden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:AdamWeeden

AdamWeeden (talk • contribs) I would like to be reviewed to verify that I am contributing properly to WikiPedia and making a positive impact overall. AdamWeeden 11:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

• Hello! A few comments you may find useful. I must say, before I continue, that you are making a very positive impact!

  • First of all, it is good to see you are using edit summaries so often. Usually, people with few contributions have to be told to use them, so this is a welcomed change.
  • In a similar way, new users don't begin creating articles, but instead work with small contributions until gaining confidence (as I did, in example). However, your contributions to USS Weeden (DE-797) are a great example of an editor willing to improve Wikipedia, and rightly you are proud of it.
  • Remember to sign posts you do in talk pages, especially if you are warning someone (here and here too). Also, when using a warn template, remember to substitute it (instead of {{blatantvandal}} use {{subst:blatantvandal}}).
  • I also suggest people not to use "rv" as summary. It is not harder to write "reverted", and may help new or anonymous contributors to know what happened with their change. This does not really seem a vandalism, just a test, but that is a point of view. For these cases, you could use the {{test}} templates.

  Overall, you are a very good contributor. You still have a lot to learn and room for improvement. Just remember to sign when using talk pages, especially when warning, as you need to take responsability for the comments you do in them. Also, spend some time in article talk pages, giving ideas and opinions about how to improve it, etc. Communication between community members is useful, and starting that early will prevent isolation (in example, working alone in articles). Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 20:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• I checked out your article on the USS Weeden. Let me begin by saying I am impressed with your work. You mentioned that you spent time researching it, and I am curious as to why you did not cite your references in the creation of the article. While the article is good without it, should other editors be unable to verify facts in the article in the future, they may delete your work thinking it false. You might want to check out the good article criteria to get an idea of what you should be aiming for when creating an article.Pepsi2786 06:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • A lot of the information came directly from the USS Weeden entry in the [Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships] and is noted as such in the references section.AdamWeeden 12:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• View this user's edit count using a PHP version of Interiot's tool.

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

   I am particularly pleased with my article on the USS Weeden. When doing research on my geneology I discovered this warship with my last name and felt it warranted its own article, as some other ships in her class had received articles. After research and reference I was able to create a concise, informative article from scratch.

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?

   Only in the repair of vandalism. In dealing with it I tried to maintain the Wikipedia standards of reverting, warning the user after the next vandalism, and then informing the administrators of the vandalism if it continued.

AdamWeeden 11:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)