Wikipedia:Editor review/DNA

DNA (talk · contribs) I just want to be advised if my contributions are helpful and clear...In the sense does it serve the purpose? I was actually away for months due to Exams Deoxyribonucleic Acid ([+]) 09:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Hey DNA. Aside from the clever name, there isn't really much to review you on. You seem to have had a good start fighting vandalism and QD tagging. Like I said, for a better, more comprehensive review, you'll need quite a few more contributions under your belt. We could always use some extra help with article work... ;-) Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 14:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things concern me about you. This makes me wonder what you are here for (you're not an admin, so why add the {{adminstats}} template for yourself?); this makes me doubt your ability to be neutral with regards to India-Pakistan articles (WP editors should be able to rise above personal beliefs or feelings on any subject. We're here to grow an encyclopaedia after all, not make a point); and I'm also concerned that you are not that interested in editing mainspace or in community discussions. I wonder about this because only 21% of your edits are to mainspace, but over 50% are to user pages and only 31/476 edits are to community discussions (ie: the Wikipedia namespace). fr33kman ^talk 03:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Questions

Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I just spend some time on Internet editing the wiki. It has come out to join a competition to expand and enhance the DB.
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... I have a very clear talk page unlike others....except some tweaks.