Wikipedia:Editor review/PullToOpen

PullToOpen (talk · contribs) I am about to hit the magical 1k edits (not so magical here as in other wikis), and am looking for a direction to turn. I plan on running for adminship sometime in the future (DISTANT future), and right now I am looking for feedback on where I should go next to ensure my chances of success. Thank you, PullToOpen^Talk 04:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

• Review from Dar-Ape (talk · contribs):

Hey, I know you! You're an admin on Simple (where I am only a very small contributor). Anyway, most of what I see looks quite good, and I would probably support your distant future RfA if you continue the way you are going. However, others have different RfA standars, so I will discuss some things you may want to focus on if you are to convince other !voters as well and have a successful RfA.

First: XFDs. I personally do not consider these paramount to adminship if that is not the intended use of the tools, but some users feel experience with these is important regardless. You may want to begin participating more here, and also remember that it is generally good to have a large number of Wikipedia space edits, which can be largely fulfilled by XFDs.

Also, you may want plenty of talk edits when it comes time for your RfA. As is true with Wikipedia space edits, having a large number of these is not because everyone has editcountitis, but because the reality is that statistics are a good way to get a quick handle on someone's contributions. In the cases of these two namespaces, they are used to get a general idea of how much you communicate with other users, and how good a knowledge of Wikipedia policy you have.

Additonally, remember to always be civil. I here refer to this. You used "wtf" in the edit summary (generally to be avoided), but more importantly, you may have made that user think you were telling him/her to "burn in hell." Please be careful not to make comments like this that could be interpreted as offensive, no matter what is said to you.

And a nitpick: it is not a large matter, but you may want to watch you edit summaries, avoiding abbreviations like rvv [1]. While no problem at all for experienced users, many new and inexperienced users look at the edit histories of pages and may have difficulty figuring out what happened during that edit. It takes but a little time to write "revert vandalism."

These comments are just my take, and feel free to ask me about anything. My door is always open. You seem to be on the righ track and I wish you the best, Dar-Ape 22:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum:

Just for the record, I see you had removed this comment before I submitted my review. (And it was only live for about one minute... funny I stumbled on it.) I stand by what I wrote, but I just wanted to say that I'm glad you thought better of that comment. Cheers, Dar-Ape 22:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

Questions

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

   I am somewhat proud of my List of House episodes and List of diseases featured on House, with the former well on its way to becoming a FL.

3. 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?

   Never (maybe because I WP:DGAF :p). Therefore, the second part of the question does not apply.