Wikipedia:Editor review/Riana dzasta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Riana_dzasta

riana_dzasta (talk • contribs • count) I guess I should change this message, since I'm living on borrowed time on the main page ;) As of September 2006 I've been editing for a little over 4 months. I haven't set this editor review up as a precursor to an RfA. All I want is some feedback on my actions around here; whether I am civil to other users, whether I exhibit good judgement during reversions and new page patrolling, whether you think I should edit more in the project space... etc. I have around 4000 edits, and will not consider participating in an RfA before I hit at least 10000. No, scratch that! Pretend I didn't say it. Don't even think about an RfA. Just tell me how I'm doing! — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 04:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • You're doing very well, I must say - 2500 edits in three months is a pretty good contribution rate. I'd suggest getting yourself more into the behind-the-scenes work of Wikipedia, such as voting on (and nominating) articles for deletion. Many regulars at RfAs place great stock on the number of edits candidates have made to the Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk spaces, since it often indicates a certain level of useful knowledge, so it's often a good idea to build up your involvement there. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 15:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • And by the way, there's no such thing as "too many" minor edits - we even have a barnstar just for that. Although, come to think of it, I reckon you're probably shooting for a laughpoint instead. :) RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 13:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Pleasantly sarcastic and witty. But edit more substantially in the mainspace. There are too many wikignome admins and police officers as it is -- Samir धर्म 08:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm certainly not more experienced than you - I've been around about two weeks less and my last edit count was nearly one thousand less than yours. However, I believe in returning favors. :) So now on to the actual review. Your edits are very evenly distributed - you look that you'll be a great RfA candidate whenever you feel you're ready. (I make myself read a few failed RfAs every week to remind myself of the requirements.) I'd certainly like to see you hanging around WP:AfD just to get a handle on policy, and because it's always nice to see someone as levelheaded as you are around there. True, some AfDs can get a little...tense, and conflict may result. I know that will probably make you more inclined to stay away from AfDs, but it's very possible to remain civil and detached from any arguments you're making. Just quote policy and you'll stand a good chance of avoiding becoming the victim of a personal vendetta. Anyway, keep up the great work! :) Srose (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You're certainly not doing anything wrong. In the few months that you've been registered, you have made valuable contributions to the project and have shown yourself to hold an amiable demeanour. I feel you already possess several qualities for administrative duties, in particular, committment and, well, sanity ;-). If you endeavour to make more substantive efforts in the main namespace and engage more deeply in community processes, in a couple of months you might make a good candidate for adminship. I wouldn't worry too much about concerning yourself with AfD as those above suggest – it is but one of many processes, and one that can be particularly noxious; much better, I think, to dabble in policy discussions, the quality reviews (WP:FAC, WP:PR etc), and even the admin noticeboards. Keep up the good work,--cj | talk 09:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope I'm still in time for a review. :-) I've checked your contributions and it seems to me that you are doing very well. You participate in varied areas, from article maintenance, some vandalism removal, RfA's and ER's, etc. You appear to have a fine example of Wikipedian spirit. And, you are friendly and communicative, which are most commendable attributes. Keep up the good work. Best regards. --Húsönd 18:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, it took me forever to find this. You know, I really can't find anything "negative" to say, and everything "positive" has already been said. :) Actually, I've noticed a few of your reversions and they are very good—and a few of them I secretly wonder if you've laughed while you were reverting them! ;) But your edits are quite evenly balanced (not in numbers of course, I know, but let's just say they're better than mine) and I don't think I can critique you any more since anything else I would say are things I need to work on first. ;) Have a cookie! —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You've been a great mentor. I wish there were more of you around here. People Powered 03:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I found this after your awesome comment at my editor review, so apologies for the delay initially. OK, minus the bias of all the similarities we share, you are doing exceptionally well. A brilliant sense of humour, and also a brilliant attitude towards your contributions to Wikipedia; "[You] like...people who understand that a problem on Wikipedia is not the be-all and end-all of their existences". Your editing rate is very good, and have shown yourself to be more-than-capable in your brief (yet productive) time on Wikipedia. A nice percentage of Main-space (50% of total) and User talk-space (25% of total) edits (much like myself, really :D) shows you have a) the will and ability to edit the encyclopaedia; and b) the ability to interact with other editors. In my (totally-biased) opinion, these are the two most important "-spaces" for a potential admin to contribute to, and because of this, as well as your understanding and friendly nature, I see a very capable future admin. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 02:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Total edits:    4021
Main:           2277
Talk:           177
User:           319
User talk:      936
Wikipedia:      236
Wikipedia talk: 15
Image:          7
Image talk:     12
Mediawiki:      0
Mediawiki talk: 0
Template:       23
Template talk:  3
Help:           0
Help talk:      0
Category:       10
Category talk:  4
Portal:         2
Portal talk:    0
  • Edit summary usage for Riana dzasta: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace, according to Mathbot. --Kyoko 03:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I tend to stick to general mundane cleanup tasks. I usually hit one of the more overpopulated disambiguation pages, repair the links to it, and cleanup along the way. Since WikiGnome-like behaviour is often viewed in a condescending manner, I will state here, without wanting to sound like I'm blowing my own trumpet, that I think I've made a considerable difference to some pages. This is one of my favourite examples – a page which suffered not from lack of information, but just extremely poor formatting.
    The only article I have started so far is Katherine Knight, which I'm reasonably happy with – it's stubby, but it's encyclopedic.
  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?
    Nothing excessive... one racist remark on my userpage, a few 'niggers' and penises on my user talkpages from a user whom I reverted on the Adi Shankara featured article. I think I managed to keep my cool, and let Alphachimp handle it by blocking him, rather than going after him myself.
    I tend to shy away from conflicts—probably not the smartest idea for someone who wants to be a sysop sometime in the future?! But generally, I've found that a lot of caring, intelligent, knowledgeable and understanding people work here, and I enjoy any communication I have with other users. If I were to get involved in a conflict, I like to think that I would be able to keep a cool head. My motto on Wikipedia is to not take things too seriously, so if one tactic won't work, I would abandon that and try something else. This is a community that needs to work together!
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/i/Wikipedia%7EEditor_review_Riana_dzasta_04dd.html"