Wikipedia:Editor review/Akradecki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Akradecki

Akradecki (talk ยท contribs) I've been editing for about 3 months now, and thought that this might be a good time for a peer "checkup". My focus in WP is twofold: writing articles (I've got about 70 or so now, see [1]) and improving others, and RC and NP patrolling. I put a lot of time into writing and sourcing, so I feel like I've got a bit of a stake in this project, and want to see it as professional and academically reputable as possible. Thus, I try to do my part at finding and culling out the garbage. In doing so, there's bound to be a few scrapes with folks who don't understand the way things work around here and argue vociferously, and of course I'm bound to make a few mistakes along the way (hopefully which will become "lessons learned"). All this is reflected in my talk page and its archives. I'm always open to continual improvement and suggestions in that regard Akradecki 16:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • First of all, nice usage of edit summaries. Your edit statistics are pretty even, although you focus quite a lot more in articles (as most do!). I notice you participate in AFDs quite a lot, with votes that make sense (at least the ones I had reviewed). You are doing a great job at Wikipedia. Maybe the only thing I could say is that, when userfying an article, you can use {{nn-userfy}} in the user's talk page, and when tagging an article for speedy deletion, especially if he is a new user, like here, you can use {{nn-warn}} to inform the user his article is to be deleted. If you keep checking the article to see when it is deleted, then you could also use {{nn-notice}} once that happens to give even more information to the newbie. This is especially useful when doing NP patrolling, because you are bound to find pages created by newbies who still don't understand Wikipedia policies. Other than that, I can only advice you to continue this way. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 15:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I wasn't aware of those tags...I can go to bed happy tonight, I learned something new today! Akradecki 15:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    That's a hard one, because I've written a fair amount of articles. Because of the nature of an encyclopedia, articles really need to be fairly "academic", which means a bit dry. Some of what I'd consider to be my better work are: Cooper-Harper rating scale, NASA AD-1, Erik Durschmied, Sweep theory (this was quite a challenge to explain in simple verbage a mathematical concept) and probably my favorite: Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Airplane. Besides my own articles, I've been pleased to have had the opportunity to help a few newbies improve their articles along the way, a few of which I've helped save through improvements from AfDs. An example: User talk:Marika Herskovic. Akradecki 17:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC); addition Akradecki 17:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  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 been in a number of "disagreements", but they hardly cause me "stress". Some of the examples of the discussions have been: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Leoncavallo F1 Racing Team (much of the conflict in this one is on its talk page), Talk:Persecution of Christians#how does it qualify for persecution where I tried to keep the argument focused on the fundamentals of complying w/ WP policies and guidelines, and a recent conflict with a persistent deleted material recreator, some discussion of which can be seen here: User talk:Saatana, and on my talk page. Akradecki 17:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Thanks for inviting me to give feedback. Allow me to ask a question: what do you find most enjoyable about editing Wikipedia? --Fang Aili talk 12:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    Wow...what a great question...it made me pause and think. I'm somewhat of a compulsive writer, and I get a tremendous amount of pleasure creating. I'm also a bit of a compulsive historian, so combining the two gives me a pasttime that is quite enjoyable. Add to that the opportunity to contribute to a community project like this, and the result is a terrific creative outlet. I guess it's the same motivation - and the same resulting satisfaction - that I got writing my book and producing my blog. Second to the primary interest of writing - and quite unexpectedly, I might add - the sense of community participation has been a lot of fun, well some of it. Because I take a bit of pride in the quality of what I create (of course, I fully realize it can always be improved upon), I guess I feel a small bit of ownership in the project, and I feel a sense of community obligation to do some of the more mundane tasks to help keep the encyclopedia as professional and academincally reputable as possible. It's easy to get caught up in the community activities and thus lose sight of why we're actually here, to produce as product that will be of most use to our "customers", the folks who use the encyclopedia for research, so I try to keep that "ultimate purpose" in mind as much as possible. Akradecki 20:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)