Ainlina (talk · contribs) Interested to know if I have made any mistakes, as I do not seem to have much attention. However, please do not be afraid to complain. Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 08:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Review by Wronkiew

Looks like you've done some good work. Checking edits for vandalism is becoming increasingly important as Wikipedia grows in popularity. You have made a number of improvements to articles that most editors wouldn't touch, which is also valuable. I noticed that you made a good point about euphemisms at Talk:Voyeurism. Keep it up! There are some areas in which you could improve. One is to be more careful about reverting vandalism. You seem to have generated a larger-than-usual number of complaints about reverts and vandalism reports. Quality of reverts is much more important than speed, so you should spend some time to review the edit carefully. If it's anything other than obvious vandalism, make sure you are aware of the context. Not every page blank is vandalism, and established editors generally can be trusted not to go on a random vandalism spree. The other area is article contributions. It looks like you have written a lot more content for your user page than you have to any article, and what you have written isn't bad. Read through the help pages to see how to write neutral and verifiable articles. Maybe seek out an experienced writer at Wiki-adoption who can teach you the ropes. Hope this helps. Wronkiew (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dlohcierekim

Would agree with Wronkiew above. In addition, I would like to see more article building and article creation. If one goes on for Wikignoming, one should try to do more of that than vandal reversion. Though most of the easy articles have already been written, there are still notable subjects that have not been written about in the 'pedia. As important as vandalism reversion is, the goal of encompassing all the world's knowledge is far from being met. Things as simple as stub sorting, citing sources, spell checking, and wikification go a long way to improving the quality of Wikipedia. While new page patrolling, one can look for articles to improve as well as those meeting WP:CSD. One can bookmark a page and then for back over it when the creator as finished. Finding and filling a niche that has insufficient coverage can be very rewarding. Collaboration in projects like DYK, FA and GA can help you learn to improve your skills to better improve the ecyclopedia. Hope this helps. Dlohcierekim 22:29, 2 February 2009 (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?

   [1]

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?

   No