Wikipedia:Editor review/Kim Dent-Brown
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Kim Dent-Brown
Kim Dent-Brown (Talk)/(Contribs)
Another editor has suggested that I might undergo request for adminship some time in the future. I'd like to get some feeback on my editing style (a) so I can gauge whether I want to enter that bearpit and (b) because it will hopefully improve my editing whatever I decide. I did have an editor review last year which attracted one comment and I'd appreciate any more.
Reviews
- I think new pages-patrolling is as important as starting a featured article, and this, unfortunately, is overlooked when it comes to RFA. This user has an excellent user page (even if he copied it) and a good editing history. However, as I mentioned before (and this might be just me) that having more FA and GA will certainly be helpful. I would support his RFA nonetheless.Λua∫Wise (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- A great editor, with whom I have no concerns. I'm sometimes suprised (regretful?) not to see you more in the meta space - when you do comment at WP:AN or WP:ANI it always seems to add value and focus discussion. However I can't moan - your edits are spot on. Pedro : Chat 14:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks Pedro. You're right, I'm not often at WP:AN and similar: I'm sort of feeling my way into spaces a bit at a time. I started just doing WP:CSD, then moved into WP:AFD and more recently WP:RFA. I'm sure I'll do more in meta as I get familiar with the territory... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- I'm pleased that Wicca has achieved good article status: while I didn't start the page, I have made major edits there, spawning daughter articles to remove content and bring the size down to make it a more manageable read. It's a relatively high profile and controversial issue (attracting both vandalism and over-enthusiastic edits) and I'm glad the article is now fairly stable and of a reasonable quality.
I'm also pleased with articles such as Haley Industries, Doon GAA and Zaka Ullah Bhangoo, all of which I've come across with speedy delete tags on, and helped to rescue from deletion. While none of them are going to set the world on fire, I'm pleased that articles on these relatively minor topics can co-exist alongside the blockbusters at featured articles.
- I'm pleased that Wicca has achieved good article status: while I didn't start the page, I have made major edits there, spawning daughter articles to remove content and bring the size down to make it a more manageable read. It's a relatively high profile and controversial issue (attracting both vandalism and over-enthusiastic edits) and I'm glad the article is now fairly stable and of a reasonable quality.
- 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?
- This has not happened for some time. I am a frequent new page patroller and tag quite a lot of articles for deletion (I estimate over 800 since I started editing last year). Inevitably, tagging for speedy deletion can sometimes be provoking for the originating editor and in the past (see here for example) this has very occasionally led to some conflict. I now do several things differently. I use the PROD and AfD tags much more often; I use tags such as {{notability}} and put the page on watch, rather than putting a CSD tag on; and I have a customised welcome template [1] which I add to new editors' pages in addition to the automatically generated CSD warning tag.
