Wikipedia:Editor review/Kfc1864

Kfc1864 (talk · contribs) I want to see how people think of my edits. Kfc1864 07:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

Edit summaries - a little less "whooping" ('er, 'aaaah' and stuff), if you don't mind - it's not necessary, and means there's a chance another editor doesn't take you seriously when a serious point needs to be made. Also, rather than quote who you reverted, quote exactly why you reverted (van=vandalism, spam, nn=non-notable, unsourced, and so on) - other editors can see who you reverted in the page history.
Mainspace versus talk - you will ultimately be assessed as an editor on the number of creative or positive action edits you make, and these are assumed in articles (mainspace). Edits (or posts) to talk pages are obviously necessary, those are OK, but don't fall into the trap of using Wikipedia as a social network or message board!
Countervandalism - impressive already, no surprise you got the Barnstar, keep it up.
You are doing fine, have a look at what you are doing by checking your contributions regularly. Good luck. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't judge articles by number of footnotes, especially in an article which actually has a hundred footnotes from 16 sources. Try not to do this either. I would focus on contributing to articles, and actually writing them. It's rewarding, and you learn a lot.--Wafulz 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This edit is terrible. Is it your English or what? Don't do that. You have a fairly good divide between mainspace and talk page edits - that's good, which means that you're doing something more than just talking. I think that you edit your user page too much. You do a lot of cleanup & organizing stuffs that most other people are unwilling to do. But if you're running for adminship (I bet you're considering it), that just won't do. Go to a library, get a book, sit down, read, and write w/ proper citations. WP:CITE should serve as a good guide, and the template WP:CIT is awesome. Use them. Take a look at Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) that I've been working. You need something like that. Also, you need to participate in more of the Wikipedia bureaucratic stuffs including WP:Afd, WP:Rfa, WP:GA, WP:FA, etc. And finally, join WP:KO. You already do a lot of Korea-related stuffs already so why not join another one, get more credit, and have a nice user box on your user page? Thanks. (Wikimachine 13:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

Comments

Questions

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

My contribs to Military History, especially World Wars. I feel I'm a good vandal fighter.
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?

About the Sea of Japan. It is better now but we were in a short edit war.