Jump to content

Wikipedia:Editor review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ceranthor (talk | contribs) at 17:12, 14 June 2008 (→Current Requests: added name to list). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WP:ER redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Expert retention.
Shortcut
    Request an editor review
    Before requesting a review, please understand the following:
    Shortcut
    • Editor review is a process that allows users to have their behavior and contributions to Wikipedia evaluated by peers, who will provide constructive feedback on areas for improvement. Anybody may request a review, regardless of their tenure at Wikipedia.
    • While an editor may remove comments about them that appear to be off-topic or simply personal attacks, it is important to remember that the editor review process may produce comments that the editor may not like or personally agree with, and the editor being reviewed should make every attempt to use this collaborative process to communicate with others. Editors should not refactor comments they dislike. These should either be simply removed or discussed.
    • Administrators requesting a review of their administrative actions should see administrator review.
    • This page frequently gets backlogged, so requests may wait up to several weeks for a response. If you have fewer than 300 edits (or your last request was within the last 3 months), your request may be removed without notice.
    • Please consider reviewing another editor when you request a review.
    If you would like to be reviewed, please follow the steps below:
    1. Create a subpage using the box below, replacing USERNAME with your username. Please make sure there is no space after your username, as this makes it hard for reviewers to reach your request.
    2. Do not save the page yet! Follow the instructions in the box above the request page. Please remember to fill in the requested fields.
    • Optional, but highly recommended: You may put the {{Editor review}} template or the {{Editor review sticker}} template on your user page to advertise the review page.
    • Optional: It is possible to add a userbox onto your User page (after the review is finished) by placing {{User Editor review}} at your user box section on your User page. Instructions on how to use templates may be found here.
    • Optional: As only admins can see your deleted contributions, these admins have volunteered to perform editor reviews focussing on deleted contributions (this will probably be of most interest to newpage patrollers)
    • Optional, but highly recommended: There is a large backlog at Editor Review, so take some time to review some of your fellow Wikipedians.
    The editor review process was shut down in June 2014. Making a request is no longer possible.
    Instructions for reviewers
    Reviewers and reviewees should adhere to Wikipedia's behavioral policies at all times.
    When reviewing, consider these points
    • User conduct – informative edit summaries, constructive comments on talk page, attitude toward others, etc.
    • Number and types of edits – is the editor making positive contributions to the encyclopedia?
    • Users with an asterisk next to their name in the subheader have not been reviewed yet. Users may still need more reviews even if they do not have an asterisk. Also, the older backlogged requests have priority for reviews, because users who have had their requests sitting there for a while often feel like they've been ignored, and every user deserves at least a few positive words on their progress or some constructive criticism if they request it.
    Please remember to remove the asterisk when you leave a review for an editor.
    When you have finished reviewing, consider notifying the user with the {{ER done}} template. Please substitute this template.
    Archives

    Sections with at least one review will be archived at 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013 archive thirty days after they have been created. If you are searching for an archive from before 2010, it will be in the 2006–2009 archive.


    Click here for unreviewed requests

    Current Requests

    Meldshal42

    Meldshal42 (talk · contribs)Becoming an admin would be a phenomenal experience for me to help others. Also, I have over 1,000 edits. I enjoy assisting others and teaching newer users attributes of Wikipedia. Meldshal42 11:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • Here we go. Your first edit was 9 March 2007, it's been about 2 months, and you have constant contribution levels. I note that you have only made 9 minor edits in the article namespace, you may want to do some wikignome stuff - typo fixing and so on. For major edits, your edit summary usage is about 1/3, and that's going to get you a few opposers. You've never been blocked, that's good. Your namespace balance is skewed: You've made more edits to userspace than to policy and policy discussion, and user talk, and talk, combined. Try reverting some vandalism, WP:TW can help you with that, or contribute to WP:AFD - those are the two big things I like to see in admin candidates, AFD and anti-vandalism. It's rare that someone will below 1-2000 edits or less than 3 month will pass RfA, but you could pass after some more time. Do anti-vandalism, make reports to AIV, comment on AFD, get noticed. Enjoy!

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      Yes, I have started a couple pages and have over 1,000 edits. Also, I have been awarded a few barnstars. Also, I have made many friends in only a short time here on Wikipedia. I enjoy helping newer users out so that they can be future Jimbo Wales.
    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, I don't believe that any other users have caused me stress. Once, Shadow1 and I got into a short dispute, but it was over in two or three days.

    I will deal with it by warning the users, telling them that they're being unkind to me. If the disrepect continues; then I will probably report them to an administrator or sysop. If that adminisrator doesn't respond; I will post it on several administrators talk pages. Since I ahven't gotten any disrespect because everyone I know is wonderful; and kind, I haven't experienced it before.

    Additional Questions from Dfrg.msc:

    Borrowed from Glen (talk · contribs), I'm sure he wont mind. These should test you editing skills, and show if you have any weaknesses which you can work on. So, just write your answer next to the Question. Good luck.

    Speedy Delete or not:

    1. CSD1
    2. CSD2
    3. CSD3
    4. CSD4
    5. CSD5

    Vandalism or or not:

    1. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]
    4. [4]
    5. [5]
    6. [6]

    Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gazimoff

    Gazimoff (talk · contribs) I've been editing for about four months now. I would like some feedback on my performance so far, as well as guidance on areas to work in that may interest me. Many thanks for any input you can offer. Gazimoff WriteRead 14:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      When I first started out on Wikipedia, I became involved with article review and cleanup for Wikiproject Videogames. Although I worked on a handful of articles there, I'm particularly proud of managing to develop 24: The Game from a start-class article to being an A rated Good article. This was due in no small part to the help and efforts of others in the project in reviewing articles and providing constructive feedback. Since then, I've gone on to perform reviews on Good Articles, participate in AfD debates where I feel I can offer a third opinion or add to the discussion, or participate in new areas I'm unfamilar with. I recently started the RfA Review process, which has started to gather interest and momentum and I'm pleased with the way things are progressing. I've got a number of unfinished pieces that I still want to complete, mainly about sandbox or stub articles that I'd like to expand and/or move into the mainspace, but which I don't feel are ready to be unleashed yet.
    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?
      I've been in a handful of conflicts in my time here so far -I've only been editing for four months. The first main one was on Talk:Criticism of World of Warcraft. I'd spent some time trying to clean up the article, add relevant sourcing and get the content reviewed by other editors. Unfortunately, my work was seen in a less than favourable light by an editor who was determined to conceal his identity. While I tried my best to assume good faith, the whole episode has left a foul taste in my mouth and my work on the Warcraft Taskforce has pretty much dwindled as a result. The other one happened quite recently, and was on WayForward Technologies. The article had been marked for notability concerns, so I did some checking, then prodded it. The prod got removed, but the article didn't improve, so I AfD'ed it. The AfD closed as no concensus, but since then I've had an IP editor challenge me repeatedly about it on my talk page. Since then, he's brought more sources to light that can be used to improve the article, so I've started to do that. It's concerned me though that there does seem to be a reliance on antagonistic and intimidatory language from people who feel that my work is a negative impact to the project.

    Reviews

    • I do see the admin material in you. Admin review is a very positive step in gaining feedback and discussion over reforming the RfA process, a place where not many newcomers are willing to stick their head out to. Your content review and writing is impressive too. Let me know if you need a nomination when you feel ready; I think I am prepared to write an appraisal for you. - Mailer Diablo 17:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really a "full review", but I just wanted to point out that I am very impressed with your contributions so far as well, especially your undertaking of WP:RREV, which is no easy task! I'm glad you're here, and I echo Mailer Diablo's sentiments above. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you both for your comments. The RfA review was set up because I felt I could offer a new approach to process analysis on Wikipedia in a way that hadn't been tried before. After getting encouragement and support for the work, I started to piece a proposal together. I'm really impressed by how it has caught the community and I'm really looking forward to crunching through the responses once we close this phase. As for my own future on WP, I've commented in the past that I'm not looking to take the mop - this is due in part to a constant feeling that I have an huge amount still to learn about the project. Although I can quickly pick up on the rules and guidelines used here, it is the spirit with which they are applied that takes time to understand. That is something that I feel can only be gained through interaction and collaboration with other editors. I'd also like to complete my process review first, as I feel being a deep participant in the process may colour my perceptions somewhat. This isn't intended as a "no never", more of a "not now", and that once I have gained further confidence, understanding and trust from my peers I'll give the proposal some deep thought. Till then, I'll do my best to develop myself here, although direction and guidance would be valuable in this area - you can never have too much advice. Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 11:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall I see a vast number of positive contributions by you. I will also echo Mailer here, as I think you'd be a fine candidate and an excellent addition to the list of admins. Take as long as you need, RfA isn't going anywhere any time soon (unless of course your current project changes things). Good luck and expect my support so long as you don't burn down the pedia directly after my timestamp. — MaggotSyn 14:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't had a lot of experience with you as an editor, but on discussions you have been extremely cooperative, civil, rational, and with a strong grasp of policy and guidelines. If anything ever comes up, you know how to find me, and I'll probably run into you at WP:VG anyway. Randomran (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am supposed to be on a wikibreak right now, since I am currently wikibonked, except it should be revisionbonked. Anyway, on to you, Gazimoff. I am certainly impressed by your efforts to harness community feeling on the RfA process which has been attempted quite a few times, but none, that I know of, have been as successful as this (even though its not finished yet). On the editing front, you probably need to up your edit count both in the Wikipedia space and Mainspace, but after your initiation of such a great collective-but-individual based review of the RfA process coupled with your great attitude towards other people, I should think you would not garner many in opposition. Rudget (logs) 18:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like everyone above me, I would like to tell you that you would make a great administrator (as I told you before on IRC :)). Unlike everyone above me, I'll try to add some criticism to my review:
      • Speedy deletion area. This is a weak spot for you. I looked through your last 500 contribs and your last 500 deleted contribs and saw very little experience in speedy deletion tagging. I would suggest putting a little bit of time into WP:NPP.
      • Huggle. I also see that you use huggle, and I warn you to be very careful. It's easy to make big (and small) mistakes with it.
      • Mainspace to Projectspace ratio. You're doing pretty well, but I'd like to say that you should spend a little more time editing in the mainspace than you are. Maybe try for GAs, FAs, etc.
    Other than those things, I can't really see anything else to give advice on. Just keep up the good work with RRev and I hope to see you at RFA sooner than later! :) Malinaccier (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Giggy

    • Get The Orange Box featured and I'll nominate you at RfA. (To Sandy, if you're watching... he still needs to put the work in, I'm just offering to help. ;-))
    • I'm taking a break from trying to push that article to FA - I've been there twice with it unsuccessfully, so I'm trying to complete other projects first so that I can give it undivided attention :) Gazimoff WriteRead 08:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • [7] - nothing confuses newbies more than throwing "WP:EL" at them. Pipe the link with a meaningful title (eg "external links guideline"). (Same with the RS link.) Also when you say "feel free to ask", they may be confused if you don't specify how... I'd always just add a link to my talk page.
    • I tend to say something along the lines of "check our guidelines on external links at WP:EL" in order to introduce the idea of shortcuts to someone, rather than piping a descriptive override. Good point about adding a talkpage link - must remember that (or change my sig)Gazimoff WriteRead 08:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • [8] could be considered edit warring. Let the discussion take place and as a result of it, re-add the content if you have consensus. Doesn't matter who the burden of proof lies with - you should be the bigger man in this.
    • That's a fair point - the final editwas to highlight in the edit summary that I'd raised the topic at WP:VG as much as anything else, along with leaving a note on the talkpage etc. As it is, I've made a commitment to merging it into WoW, so feel obliged to deliver on it. That's not disputing your point though, it is still very valid Gazimoff WriteRead 08:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • [9] - make sure you add two brackets in the edit summary link ;-) (I know it was a typo, just messing with ya!)
    • [10] ANI is also good for this sort of thing.
    • I'm hesitant about bringing things up at ANI - it's a very busy noticeboard with a lot of information that would be more suited to SSP, AIV, BLP/N and so on. I'm happy to take guidance on this though. Gazimoff WriteRead 08:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • [11] it helps if you add links to where you leave a warning, etc.
    • [12] no harm in pointing out that you can't merge two Wikipedia accounts (as opposed to SUL'ing... and again, remember the thing about shortcut links).
    Ah, that one. God point, well made. Gazimoff WriteRead 09:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Krator

    Hey there Gazimoff,

    I think you've done a great job on Wikipedia so far, and I wish all new editors would come with the same attitude and skills as you did when you first joined. Our encyclopaedia would be a much better place then. With that said, and you know you're doing a good job yourself too, I'll mostly focus on the things I think could use further improvement. I won't use any diffs or so, as I think you know what I mean most of the time.

    When I 'adopted' you a few months ago, you wrote several times that the area you wished to know more about was Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I think I can safely say that you are well versed in policy now, judging by some of your contributions to AFD which show a good understanding of it. Sometimes it was very entertaining to watch your reading of Wikipedia policy. I follow WP:VG/D, and sometimes you cited the same thing you apparently read recently a couple of times in a row, and then a different essay, etc (for example, WP:SCRABBLE three times in a row). There's two things I think you could work on here. First, particularly before June, a lot of your contributions to AFD contained a lot of jargon and references to capitalised Wikipedia things. It is generally a good habit to use the least amount possible WP: shortcuts in your AFD contributions, particularly the contentious ones. Secondly, I'd like to see some more WP:IAR in there. As in, doing what is best instead of doing what fits policy. Not that I think you've been wrong consistently in any way, but doing something contra-policy will give you a better understanding of them. Don't seek this out, too, you'll find something along your path soon enough probably.

    Then there's a clear suggestion, following up on the question directly above this review. I think that some dispute resolution experience would do you good, via WP:3O or WP:RFC or something. The antagonism you speak of happens quite often, and the dispute on the WoW page was quite timid in comparison to other things that happen around here. Because of the areas you're editing in (namely RFA and WP:VG, as far as I know), you're bound to be in the middle of a huge fight you didn't want to be in some time.

    Hope this helps!

    User:Krator (t c) 08:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It definitely does help. I think that early on when I started participating in AfDs, I would cite policies and guidelines as a way of lending strength to an argument, or that I'd voice an agreement with the developing consensus, almost in a pile-on fashion. Since about May/June time, I've been evolving away from that, trying to use logical analysis to construct an argument either for or against, backing it up with policies where needed. Unfortunately as you've picked up, this logical approach doesn't lend itself too well to where common sense should apply, hence the lack of IAR usage. I'm aware of this limitation in my approac, as it crops up in other circles, and I'll try to pay more attention to this deficiency during my interactions on WP.
    As for the 2nd option, I think that 3O or RfC might be a good venue for me to build my dispute resolution skills, as well as forming consensus more. I'll look into this more once I've finished the RfA review.
    Many thanks for your feedback!Gazimoff WriteRead 12:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

    Gazimoff is a fine editor who has made my list of wise wikipedians. I'll focus my comments on AfDs in which we both participated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brawl Characters' Final Smashes (while I disagree with the sentiment that the article should be deleted, I like that Gazimoff is being conisderate and thinking of how to not "bite the newbies"), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Eggman's flying fortresses (thoughtful comment in an AfD that clearly had no consensus to delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Earthworm Jim items (reasonable compromise rationale), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nintendo Power Covers (even though material exists elsewhere, it does not mean we should not also cover it), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Reaver (again, reasonable rationale for compromise that ended up being consistent with the close), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog (we were both in agreement here, but the important thing is that you also looked for sources), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titans (Crash of the Titans) (obviously disagree per reasons stated throughout discussion, but my main suggestion is that while I went back and forth with a number of editors over the various improvements, I don't believe you acknowledged one war or the other whether the improvements changed your mind and I believe returning to discussions is important), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultima Online timeline (again, just because content is covered elsewhere does not mean we can't also cover it), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video games notable for negative reception (2nd nomination) (good final comment for the regular discussion), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WayForward Technologies (while I disagree with the argument, I do like that you worked on the article), and finally reasonable comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xena: Warrior Princess: The Talisman of Fate, which were consistent with the close. I hope that helps! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Juliancolton

    Juliancolton (talk · contribs) It's been a few months since my last, so I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong and what I'm doing right. Thanks! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • You appear to be doing an excellent job in both article work and the project space! I did a relatively through search through your contributions and nothing bad stuck out. It seems that your have adressed many of the problems brought up in your last RFA so I would say that adminshp is a realistic possibility for you soon. I would be happy to nominate you myself if you wish (although be warned, my record at RFA is not so hot).
    P.S. I found your secret page in less than 20 seconds :P (I must admit I cheated though; prefix index). - Icewedge (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review and kind words! My last RfA was relatively recent, so I was planning on waiting 1/2–three months before another one. Also, yea, nobody find those things aside from cheating. ;) Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    K, I didnt realize that the last one was so recent, my bad. Also, sorry that aside from my nomination offer my review was pretty much contentless. Anyways, keep up the good work! - Icewedge (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Review from Malinaccier

    I'm going to go through several important areas in this review:

    • Article content. You've done really well here of course. Keep it up.
    • XFD. You've done very well here (it looks like you try to comment on a few deletion discussions a day). My only suggestion here would be to comment on other types of XFD (I saw just AFD and MFD in your recent edits). Perhaps TFD?
    • Speedy deletion. Once again, really good. Just remember quality over quantity.
    • Vandalism patrol. In this area, you are slightly lacking. From your recent edits, I can see that you've been trying to get more experience here, which is good. I would like to caution you on using Huggle. If you aren't paying attention while using it, many mistakes can be made. Other editors also dislike the fact that it swells your edit count quickly. Use at your own risk.
    • Misc. You should consider spending a little more time at the Help Desk (you have 19 edits there which is good, but it's always good practice to help others from time to time).

    Basically, you're doing very well. Just keep working in the projectspace and on the concerns in your RFAs and you'll continue to do well. (Sorry that this gave very little advice--you're too good of an editor to criticize IMO :P) Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the review and kind words! I only started vandalism patrol a few months ago, but when I have time, I try to do at least 20 minutes a day with Huggle. About the Help Desk, I have it watchlisted, but everytime I try to respond to a query, I get edit conflicted! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      Hard to say. Initially I was primarily an article builder, although in the past few months I have started contributing more to organization, vandal fighting, new page patrolling, and other general project-space areas. However, I still write and improve articles when I can, and I have written several GAs, two featured lists and one featured article, the latter of which appeared on the Main Page on June 10. Although I am a participant of numerous WikiProjects, I dedicate the majority of my content-building time to the WikiProject Tropical cyclones and the WikiProject U.S. Roads. Since joining in November 2006 (I didn't start editing until October 2007), I have piled up over 13,000 edits, although I must admit Huggle and Twinkle probably account for over 1,000 of those.
    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?
      Conflicts are difficult ot nearly impossible to avoid in Wikipedia. Although I try to stay as calm, polite and civil as I can, I have gotten into minor conflicts (especially when I was new to Wikipedia); most recently I have found myself edit warring over the title of the Hurricane Gracie article, although only after attempting discussion failed. I take full blame for that. Almost always, when an editor is causing me stress, I remain calm and civil and either abandon the situation or take further action, depending on the circumstances.

    Erik the Red 2

    Erik the Red 2 (talk · contribs) I have just reached a thousand edits, so thought it would be good time to be reviewed on those contributions, and to gain advice on how I can improve on future edits. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    Hello Erik-
    I've never reviewed before so I hope you'll bear with me as I give it my best.
    During a superficial look through your edits, they appear to be primarily concentrated on vandal fighting- which is totally cool and I applaud your ability to slog through vandal edit after vandal edit without getting disheartened. This was something I and many other's cannot do, and I think you should stick with it. If, and I'm not saying this has happened, you start getting people reminding you of WP:AGF, it may be time to take a break- I've found after too much time doing only vandal fighting it gets harder and harder to assume that any given person is acting in good faith.
    Now, if you're wanting to become an admin, you will probably want to round out your editing a little- do some article writing, maybe some work with a wikiproject, etc. We need as many admins that are good vandal fighters as possible, but the voting Wikipedian public likes to see that you've at least given other stuff a try. I would also recommend reading through our policies so you are sure of yourself in areas that you might not be so familiar with having only done vandal-fighting work.
    If you need suggestions finding articles to fix up, take a look at your userboxen! You clearly have tons of interests, and many of them have WikiProjects that provide to-do lists and articles that need attention. For example, WikiProject Environment.
    The only thing I have left to say to you!: don't you think these two statements, "This user wants to TAX THE RICH to provide health care, education and welfare for everyone" and "This user is a Capitalist" conveniently located right next to each other on your user page... kind of conflict?
    Ah, now I'm just harassing you. Make sure to drop a line if you ever RFA, 'kay?
    L'Aquatique[review] 06:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Comments [reply]

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      Not particularly, I guess I am satisfied with most of my edits, but I don't feel particularly pleased with any of them. Most of my edits are in the area of vandal-fighting and warning, and preventing incorrect information from slipping unnoticed into history and mythology-related articles.
    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?
      I haven't really been in any conflicts recently or have been caused stress; I had what some might call a "conflict" on The Holocaust, but I prefer to think of that as a debate, as it was mostly just making points back and forth on the talk page.

    Kennedy

    Kennedy (talk · contribs) I would like someone to review my edits. I have recently slipped from mainspace editing, but would like someone to review my contributions so far. ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • I hate to sound this negative, but I'm really not impressed by your edit history. You've got a very low volume, and though you've got a nice, big edits-per-page number (which shows devotion to a handful of articles), I can't get past the fact that you've made more than twice as many edits to your userpage as you have to any another page in any namespace except, somewhat ironically, your talk page. It just doesn't seem to be much to show for a year-plus being on Wikipedia.
    This sounds really harsh, and I apologize for that. You've probably just got other things on your plate besides Wikipedia, and that's fine. But you just don't strike me as a particularly distinguished editor. Sorry. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 10:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I am particularly pleased about my edits to Ravenscraig. I live near it, and the company I work for is involved (very minor, not actually my job so no COI ;)) with the regeneration. When I started with the article it was only a redirect to Motherwell. Now its been reviewed, and given a Start-Class, but I am still quite proud of the change. I also like to get involved with the Featured Pictures Candidates, which is where the next question comes into play...
    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?
      Yes, as I said above, the conflict came about from the WP:FPC's I have !voted in. A user, User:jjron, twice commented on the way I voted. One for Paradise Fish where he complained on my use of the word Edit rather than Image. And also, Joey in Pouch where he complained about my reasons for opposing an image. Which were perfectly valid. I felt that at this point, he was beginning to pick on my edits, as other people held the same view, but he only complained about me... I think at the beginning I handled the dispute quite well, but as I look at it now, I got a bit carried away with it, and probably should not have spent so much time on it.

    Red Phoenix

    Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) I've been around Wikipedia for a little while, and I thought it was time for me to get a check-up on how I'm doing. I've done about 2900 edits now. Most of my contributions are work with articles related to Sega and video games, but I sometimes do work with other stuff, too. I also work with a couple wikiprojects, including WikiProject Sega, where I am treated as the de facto leader of the project. I've thought a little about becoming an admin, but I want to be a good editor before I even think about becoming an admin. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I've got two of them that I'm particularly pleased about. The first has been my work with Crush 40, which is why I came to Wikipedia in the first place. I've saved it from deletion (see here, note that I was User:Redphoenix526 up until April, when I usurped the name). Since then, I've seriously improved the article and even made it a GA. I hope to make it FA if I can ever find the necessary materials to do it. The second thing I'm proud of is my work at WikiProject Sega, building it from the shambles it was into a more legitimate, more useful place for work.
    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?
      I haven't been in any actual "edit conflicts", but I've had some discussions with some users before. Every time, I kept a cool head, made my points, and did not attack anybody. That's the way to do it.
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


    CultureDrone

    CultureDrone (talk · contribs) Since tomorrow (11th June) will be my first anniversary editing (ta da!), I thought it was time I got an opinion on what I'd been doing to date. Most of my edits have been small - categorising, fixing redlinks etc., but I have been wikifying articles where I can, with some redirecting, CSDs, prods and AfD's throw in, and have started a few new articles. Since I may consider applying for admin coaching in 6 months or so, I need to be sure that I've got the day-to-day stuff correct before I move into the more contentious areas required for potential admins - more AfDs, comments on RfAs, vandal fighting etc. Or in other words, I want to be sure I can walk before I even think about running... ! CultureDrone (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    Review by LAAFan I see many good things about you. You provide an edit summary, a majority of your edits are to the mainspace, and you rarely talk to other users. My suggestions for you would be to find one article that you can maybe get a DYK, or GA, out of, since I saw your most edited page was only edited 14 times. I would also try to find an admin area you're very good. By quickly looking through your contributions, I see you're familiar with the deletion process, so I would suggest that. Also, try to cut down on the maintenance tags, especially if you can fix it on the spot. Finally, I hate to do this, but since I reviewed you, would you mind reviewing me? It would be greatly appreciated. Cheers.--LAAFansign review 00:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      When I've looked at other editors' answer to this question - both here and on the RfA pages, the majority seem to say they're most happy about articles x, y and z which they created. Since I haven't created many pages yet, and the ones I have are fairly small, I can't claim pride about some Wikipedia equivalent of 'War and Peace'. However, I'm happy with the ones I've created - and none have been deleted yet - I guess most of my pleasure so far has come from my, what has been termed, 'Wikignome' activity in terms of numerous general small improvements (hopefully !) to Wikipedia as a whole. However, this Wikignome has ambitions - turn into a swan/butterfly/stained glass window/mushroom... whatever gnomes turn into.... bigger gnomes I suspect !
    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?
      The closest I came to a conflict was the AfD for Back garden - I proposed it for deletion, believing it to non-notable in itself, and the author became somewhat over enthusiastic in their responses, accusing me of making "wild and false accusations" - which I hadn't (it's still on his talk page if you're interested). However, once I saw that the consensus was to keep the article, my opinion was 'fair enough, that's what the community wants' and moved onto another article - no big deal - it's not a declaration of war after all :-) In this case, since consensus was against me, I accepted the decision, and that's the policy I'll always adopt, as it's one of the main principles of WP.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Jacob696

    Jacob696 (talk · contribs) I havn't been on Wikipedia very long, but I was wondering how I am doing so far.I do most of my work at the Help Desk and I'm part of the Welcoming Commitee.I think I do an overall pretty good job around here, but I want to be reviewed and get some feedback from someone other than myself.Mr. GreenHit Me UpUserboxes 17:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Mr. GreenHit Me UpUserboxes 17:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • Jacob's got a good head on his shoulders and is always willing to help new users, and never hesitatant to ask for help when he needs it. My suggestion would be to stop changing your username so often ;>. And move this ER page to the new username if you want a proper full review from another editor =). As this is a short review, I'm leaving the asterisk. xenocidic (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I'm mostly pleased with my contributions to the Help Desk and the Welcoming Commitee.Mr. GreenHit Me UpUserboxes 17:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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?
      There was a argument between me and another editor at Legal disputes over Harry Potter, but I don't think it ever really got solved.Apparently we vered a little off subject and it got confusing.Mr. GreenHit Me UpUserboxes 17:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Law Lord

    Law Lord (talk · contribs) I have been on Wikipedia for more than 4 years though not so active all the time, I guess. I am just wondering a bit about whether my contributions are at all appreciated or not. Often I get the feeling that people really prefer to delete whatever I write. Law Lord (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder whether I will ever get a single review. --Law Lord (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • Review by LAAFanYou're the first editor I've reviewed, but I feel every user's editor review should at least have one review. Anyway, I just did a quick skim. First, I would remove the section on your userpage about "how people on Wikipedia suck". I would also suggest participating in some administrator activities. I saw that you work on article, but you do not have a GA or FA. I would suggest maybe getting a DYK. Cheers.--LAAFan 21:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I think my "important" contributions have probably been creating articles about important topics that were totally missing from Wikipedia. Most recently The Blekinge Street Gang but also stuff that I have corrected from being totally false like this edit in connections with this one.

    Exercise more care in creating articles. Michael Causer, for instance does not meet wp notability guidelines for a bio. Move the article to the murder of or something and research notability etc before creating such an article. 118.172.29.38 (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    1. 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?
      Yes, I have been in plenty of conflicts. I feel that many administrators that I have had interactions with have been extremely rude and condescending in both their communications and actions. More recently I have tried dealing with this by emailing the more normal administrators privately asking for help and advice and ignoring those editors and administrators whom I see as guilty of harrassment against me. I ask for the right to add to this answer if need be.

    Geekamalloy

    Geekamalloy (talk · contribs) I got here from the community portal and I wanted to know what fellow users thought about me and my contributions. Geeky Malloy 02:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • review by Dlohcierekim Clinton Kelly (minister)-- not bad editing for a beginner. In the cite, you should put more compete info--- [URL History of the Pacific Northwest: Oregon and Washington. Portland, Oregon. North Pacific History Company, 1889. on Ancestry.com. Online. Date accessed.] Unfortunately, there does not appear to be an assertion of notability. Please review WP:N and WP:BIO. It would be good to set your preferences so the software will require you to complete the edit summary. Communication is important. When reverting vandalism, it is important to warn vandals. There are templated warnings that make this easier at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Hope this helps, cheers. Dlohcierekim 03:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In Khartoum you made the same error — using the present tense instead of the past. Also you introduced a spelling error. If you need to, why not do your editing in a word-processor that has a spell-check, then just paste in? Here is what you wrote:
    On 10 May 2008 the Darfur rebel group of the Justice and Equality Movement moved into the city where they engaged in heavy fighting with Sudanese government forces. Their goal was the topeling of Omar Hassan al-Bashir's government, though their success as of 12 May and damage to the city is not known. You need a comma before where; should be toppling, not topeling'; should be was not known not is not known. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a good catch in Frontier Corps, but in the note you wrote grammer, not the correct grammar. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I am pleased with my Clinton Kelly (minister) article and my anti-vandalism efforts.
    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. If I had a problem I would just work it out with the user. Even in real-life I rarely get mad at my peers. I just talk it out with them.

    EclipseSSD

    EclipseSSD (talk · contribs) I have been unsuccessful in my first RfA nomination, and I am hoping to run for a second nomination soon. EclipseSSD (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    Review from Dlohcierekim

    Hello, EclipseSSD. I've done an editor review. I put emphasis on negatives rather than positives because the negatives are areas for improvement. It's better they be brought here and now instead of at an RFA later. (I hope I'm not coming across too gruffly. It has more to do with my personality than your merits/demerits.) Hopefully, you'll find this helpful.

    Areas needing attention--
    Overall appraisal and advice-

    Overall, you are a good user. I see a lot of good edits with good edit summaries. Featured article work looks good. Wikiproject work is a plus.(I would recommend that you ask some of the editors you have had interaction with to comment here.) I would like to see more experience overall and a more thorough understanding of the admin related policies. I would like to see more article building edits, more RCPatrolling/AIV reporting, more CSD and AFD experience. It would be good to branch out from the areas in which you have been editing. Wikify more articles, find some article to create and/or expand, run through random articles with an idea of learning more about how the articles are built and adding categories as needed and making any other improvements you can. I would like to see more participation in policy board discussions. Taking part in WP:RFA is a good way to learn from the experiences of others. I would recommend reviewing the Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. I would not recommend seeking adminship in less than another 3 months and another 3,000 edits and then getting another Editor review. I would recommend seeking an [Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching|admin coach]] before seeking RFA.

    Hope this helps, Cheers. Dlohcierekim 13:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I have managed to make The Texas Chain Saw Massacre to good article status, and I am pleased about it because I've managed to do it in only one day! I am also most pleased about my contributions to films and video games because those are the areas of speciality for me.
    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?
      I have been in a few conflicts, however all of them have been dealt with quickly and in a calm and orderly fashion, so I have no grudge against anybody here on Wikipedia.
    4. When is it appropriate to block another user?
      I believe that it is appropriate to block a user, when he/she has been given sufficient warnings and still does not comply with what is being said.
    5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
      A ban is a formal revocation of privelages on all or some part of Wikipedia. The offending users in question can be banned by the community, ArbCom, Jimmy Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation. Blocking means of enforcing a ban by technically preventing a user from editing Wikipedia (definition at WP:BLOCK). A user can also be blocked from editing for any amount of time. If a user is a vandal only account, that user is and should always be blocked indefinitely.
    6. What was the most important criticism you received on the prior RFA? How have you since improved your editing?
      The most important criticism I have received includes not making enough edits in the project space, as well as being more involved around Wikpedia. I believe I have improved, by more than doubling my edits in the project space, contributing significantly to a numer of GAs, and been involved in such things as WP:AIV, and stop vandalism from taking place.
    7. What are the steps to dispute resolution?
      The steps to dispute resolution include, focusing on the content, have a calm cool manner, discussing the issues with the other party, and possibly working things out. Additionally, it includes calling a truce, and turning to others for help, if for any reason, the issues cannot be settled in a calm and rational way. Finally, measures of last resort include WP:AN, and the Arbitration Committee.

    Limetolime

    Limetolime (talk · contribs) I am looking to become an administrator, and I want to know the people's consensus first. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 23:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • You have been using edit summaries to the best of your ability in recent months, if you wish to become an administrator near 100% edit summary usage is expected. RfA reviewers like to look for a wide range of abilities in administrators, so try and get yourself involved in deletion discussions (very important), the village pump, mediation (if you think you could do it), a wider range of wikiprojects (some people say six is a good number) and possibly consider admin coaching. RfA reviewers expect administrators to be able to solve disputes and remain level-headed at all times, so basically keep up the good work and branch out into some more areas if you haven't already. Happy editing!  Atyndall93 | talk  03:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I am most pleased with the article Superman (film series). I am the top contribuotr to the article and brung it to FA status. I am also plase with the articles Chocolate, Titanic (1997 film), Jurassic Park (franchise), and The Muppets' Wizard of Oz, all of which I was a top/main contribtor and helped bring to GA status. Here is a complete, up-to-date list:
    Articles with major edits by Limetolime

    -

    1. 66th Academy Awards nominees and winners
    2. A Charlie Brown Valentine
    3. Anne of Green Gables: A New Beginning
    4. Anne of Green Gables film series
    5. Another Cinderella Story
    6. Arthur's Teacher Trouble
    7. Au Pair film series
    8. Award ceremony
    9. Beyond Jurassic Park
    10. BJP
    11. Chocolate
    12. City of Ember
    13. Definitely, Maybe
    14. Electric blanket
    15. Frances Temple
    16. Forrest Gump (disambiguation)
    17. Forrest Gump (novel)
    18. Ghosts of the Abyss
    19. Ghosts of the Abyss (soundtrack)
    20. God of Love
    21. Gold Diggers: The Secret of Bear Mountain
    22. Good Burger
    23. GPX
    24. Grab Hands and Run
    25. Hannah Montana (film)
    26. Hannah Montana & Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert (film)
    27. Heart of the Ocean
    28. Herbie: Fully Loaded
    29. Hey Arnold!: The Movie
    30. How She Move
    31. Jurassic Park III
    32. Jurassic Park III (disambiguation)
    33. Jurassic Park III (film score)
    34. Jurassic Park franchise
    35. Kit Kittredge: An American Girl
    36. Lady Sings the News
    37. List of characters in Jurassic Park
    38. List of DVD film franchise collections
    39. Living Books series
    40. Lovewrecked
    41. Media 8 Entertainment
    42. My Date with the President's Daughter
    43. NT2
    44. Once Upon A Christmas (film)
    45. One Missed Call (2008 film)
    46. Portable CD player
    47. Ribbon (award)
    48. Selena Gomez
    49. Sense and Sensibility (film)
    50. Shrinkwrapped (disambiguation)
    51. Snowglobe (film)
    52. Special edition
    53. Superman (film series)
    54. Taste of Salt: A Story of Modern Haiti
    55. Three Colors (soundtracks)
    56. Three Colors: Red (Soundtrack)
    57. Three Colors: Blue (Soundtrack)
    58. Three Colors: White (Soundtrack)
    59. The Diamond of Darkhold
    60. The Dukes of Hazzard (film)
    61. The Dutchess
    62. The Lost World (novel)
    63. The Muppets' Wizard of Oz
    64. The Ramsay Scallop
    65. The Secret Garden (1993 film)
    66. The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2
    67. Titanic (1997 film)
    68. Tonight, by Sea
    69. Twice Upon A Christmas
    70. Vanessa Lee Chester
    71. Wayside (TV series)
  • 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?
    I have had my fair share of arguments since I first started Wikipedia, and I have dealt with them all through discussion. I intend to do the same in the future, whether it be for deleting an article or blocking a user. I have listed my conflicts here:

    • The dark lord trombonator

    The dark lord trombonator (talk · contribs) Well, I've been around the wiki for... oh, must be about a year and a half now, and I've been meaning to get one of these done for a while. The first time was back last year, but as a result of real-life stresses I ended up briefly "leaving" Wikipedia... in the sense that I didn't edit, but checked my watchlist every day. Ahem. Wikipediholic in the house. But seriously, I would like to think I am growing as an editor, and wonder what else I can do to help out around here. My ultimate goal is to wield the mop, but I see this a long way off. In the short term just having rollback or something would be helpful on account of all the vandalism I undo, which is most of my Wiki-ing. In recent times I have helped out welcoming new users and patrolling new pages, with a bit of tagging for speedy and involvement in AfD thrown in for good measure. So, please, leave honest feedback about me - I really appreciate your efforts. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 11:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    Personally, although since I am new to Wikipedia this may not be an informed opinion, you are a very good editor. You are certainly dedicated to making the internet "not suck" and are always ready to proofread and point out errors in my edits on wikipedia. You are the very model of a modern wikipedian. (If you know that musical I will be impressed). Keep up the good work! :) Beligaronia (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I was really pleased with everything I did back in July/August 2007 when Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was released. It was then, I think, that I got really involved with the reversion of vandalism and spoilers, and while I did not substantially write any articles here, I have involved myself with WP:WPHP and took it upon myself (with others) to care for the Spells in Harry Potter article. The upkeep of this article has been my main contribution to the HP Wikiproject, and I commented in all of the three AfDs it went through, ultimately resulting in the keeping of the article, and the decision to rewrite most of it. After the tidal wave of new information and vandalism ceased here, I moved on to Survivor (TV series) articles, and am a founding member of the Survivor Task Force. I have been involved with much rewriting of older articles here so they match up with the newer ones, and a lot of vandalism reversion. As stated above, this is most of my work on Wikipedia, simply because it turns up on my watchlist far too frequently. People checking my contributions may find a considerable lack of my own research (by which I do not mean OR, rather me looking in books and writing articles); I attribute this to my overly busy life with my final year of high school and all of the additional stresses that come with this. Sigh.
    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?
      I can think of none recently. I haven't been attacked by bad faith users (surprising, given the comments other editors have got from some I've warned), I haven't had any content disputes. The only troubles I really recall were those of the Spells in Harry Potter deletion squadron and their arsenal of everlasting AfDs. Still, our arguments must have prevailed because it's still there today. As a rule, I try to follow policies and guidelines that have been set up on Wikipedia. In a perfect world, no future conflicts over editing would occur, but if they did I would be sure to check guidelines etc, and maintain a calm head, of course. Personal attackers will be warned and reported for blocking if need be, content disputes will be discussed at the respective talk page, and I will approach other editors for third opinions if need be. That's all the possibilities I can think of at the moment, but if you have any more questions for me, leave them here and I will get back to you after the beep...

    Milk's Favorite Cookie (talk · contribs) I've been around since late December and was wondering how I was doing so far editing. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • First, although I miss seeing you on vandal-patrol, I am really impressed with all of the writing you have done in the last few months. I have never had the temperament (read: patience) to be able to write on a large scale, and I really admire those who enjoy doing it. Some of your articles and lists have not been promoted to FA or FL. Even so, you still have done a lot of work on them, and you should be proud of them. Also, although some of your featured stuff was basically copyedited, referenced, and nominated by you, a lot of people don't have the time or the will to make the final push to GA and/or FA or FL. Whether you physically wrote most of a page is not, IMO, the main issue. The big thing is, you were willing to take the time and give the effort to get the article (or list) promoted. IMO, that is A Good Thing™.
    I also still see some vandal-reverting, and that is also good, but you should remember to add warnings on the vandals' talk pages; with most of your recent reversions I see you neglected to warn them.
    Say something if I am wrong here, but I see very few recent contributions to the Wikipedia namespace other than in the FA, FL or GA areas. If you are planning on going for RFA in the near future (which I assume you are), people will want to see evidence that you know how to use (and enforce) policies and guidelines. Doing more work in "admin-y" would, unfortunately, take away from your article writing, but if you want to pass an RFA, you will most likely be asked to show that you understand policy, especially since many of the opposes you got in your last RFA were due to misinterpretations of policy. Getting involved with areas such as the Administrator Noticeboard, ANI, and (to a lesser extent) AFD is a good way to show that you know how policy works. You also may want to try some CSD tagging on Special:Newpages, although that can be a dangerous area to go if you are not sure of what qualifies for CSD, especially CSD A7. (If you do decide to do some newpage patrolling, and you find that a lot of your speedy deletion noms are being declined, a good person to ask would be User:Moonriddengirl. I asked her for help when I first started, and she has given me excellent advice of how to apply CSD tags correctly.)
    In summary, you will never become a good admin because you do not write about milk and cookies Seriously, you should consider trying to get Oreo to FA. That would be AWESOME!!!! I think you are doing a very good job, and I want to encourage you to keep churning out those GA's, FA's, and FL's! J.delanoygabsadds 00:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Other

    • View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
    • You've done some good mainspace work, especially with the featured lists and I wouldn't oppose an RfA over that anymore - I do wish you'd actually research an article from scratch, though - you mostly seem to copyedit and add references to work researched by others, though of course there's nothing wrong with that. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Questions


    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      Some of my best contributions have been to featured lists. I created List of New England Patriots head coaches, List of San Diego Chargers head coaches and List of Atlanta Falcons head coaches. I've also helped make J.R. Richard a featured article. Some of my other contributions can be found here. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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?
      A minor one. (This was quite a while ago, from my last editor review) This user, seemed to be never showing good faith, and never being civil. She violated the 3 revert rule several times, and was obviously blocked for that. And, to make matters worse: removing 3RR warnings, and not showing good faith in edit summaries. Other than that, I have not been in any other edit conflicts. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Leonard^Bloom

    Leonard^Bloom (talk · contribs) UPDATE: I love the reviews I have received, and the kind words were wonderful. I'm going to keep this up, just to hear more things I can do to help (that's a horrible lie; I just want to hear "We love you Leonard!" as many times as possible).

    Reviews

    • Mainspace is good (but should add edit summaries more often ;-) ); I don't hang around XfD enough to comment on that. I agree with Mailer diablo that it's good to expand your horizons. I'd like to see how you do in a dispute, and maybe how you solve one :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know you're a WikiGnome, but I suggest that you try to focus on article-building a bit more. You're Huggle reverts are phenomenal, but (especially if you want to be an admin) a lot of editors would prefer to see more content-adding and a little less vandal-reversion. Also, try to edit more in the Project: space, that always helps. Cheers, and good luck! --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 18:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I tried to delete what was obviously a fake fact and a joke from a page, Leonard^Bloom told me twice that I was vandalising. Please take the time to read what I was deleting! The page was The Mighty B!. I was trying to do some good by deleting the section titled DVR Controversy. However, Leonard^Bloom told me that I was vandalising! Please visit this page, and you will see that I was just trying to do the right thing! This will not redirect you anywhere, I promise! Just please, go and see for yourself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.99.67 (talk • contribs)


    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    UPDATED ANSWERS: I enjoyed finishing up the work the I did on Frederic Porter Vinton, and I'm really proud of myself for that. I've also greatly expanded Big Stick Ideology and I'm looking forward to moving past that project (my librarians are starting to wonder who that kid who comes in and asks for books on Diplomacy and the history of is). I've also improved references and added quite a few external links to articles, which is something I enjoy doing.
    1. 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?
    UPDATED ANSWERS: No conflicts, mainly because I don't join into as many conversations as I should. Oh well.

    Voyaging

    Voyaging (talk · contribs) Just finished the adoption program with Tiptoety and think an editor review would be in order at this time. Voyaging(talk) 21:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • It's time to have a hand in a broader area of Wikipedia. Perhaps articles for deletion for a start. More content writing will be great, too. Autowikibrowser is a great assistant, but you will need to prove that you can go beyond in more complex situations. Happy editing! - Mailer Diablo 15:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I contributed fairly significantly to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. I also reworked the lead section to Final Fantasy VII. Mostly, though I have done copyediting on many articles, a lot of the recent ones with the help of AutoWikiBrowser. I hope, however, to switch my editing aspect to do more in-depth editing on articles.
    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?
      Not too much. I wouldn't consider any of them "conflicts," more of just disagreements, and still not that many of those. I have only had vandalism on my user page once or twice, so nothing too much. I deal with attacks such as these with a warning on the talk page of the user, and, if needed, a little trip to WP:AIV.

    Seddon

    Seddon (talk · contribs) I have been an editor on Wikipedia for the last 19 months, joining in November 2006 with sporadic but good faith editing for the next 10 months, but have been consistently active since September 2007. At first my contributions were mostly centered around Wikiproject:Tropical Cyclones, updating current storms and learning how to edit wikipedia. I then started helping out the US Road wikiproject in the article space continuing to expand my knowledge. In January 2008 I successfully got 1988 Atlantic hurricane season to featured article status. Since then i have taken part in anti-vandalism patrols, have become an active mediator with the Mediation cabal got my first DYK article. Currently on Wikipedia, I am working on:

    • Getting Hurricane Henriette (2007), something of a working side project, to GA status.
    • Mediating a case for the Mediation Committee and also to continue mediating for MedCab.
    • Creating my next hopeful DYK

    I would like to know where i could be looking to improve over the next 3 or so months. ŠeDDøΛ talk 20:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • Review from Mitch32 - Seddon, you are one of my best friends on Wiki, and I've decided to take the time to review you today. You're making great contributions all around and are certainly useful in mediating. Other than the hopeful future adminship, I would love to see you be on the Mediation Commitee at some point. There's really not much more to say but good luck man! You're great, and we know it well. Cya later.Mitch32contribs 21:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Review from Juliancolton (talk · contribs) — Hey Seddon. I know you well, so I'll give a quick review. First, as Mitch said, your work for MedCab is great, and it'd be good to see you on MedCom someday. The Henriette article you worked hard on is looking great! It's good to see that you have around 100% edit summary useage, and you should try to keep that up. The vandal fighting work you do is good, as well. The only thing I can think of is you should try to make more mainspace edits and less userspace edits, but it's fine as it is. I think adminship is right arount the corner, mate! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the review JC and Mitch. I just thought id pick up on the comment you raised with the amount of userspace edits i have. The one thing i tend to do is do a lot of sandbox work before posting into mainspace. This is especially true when it comes to template work/creation. Something that can be seen from interiot's tool when you look at where those edits are, 200 coming from 2 sandboxes. Seddσn talk 21:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, but when you move a sandbox article to mainspace, all the edits change to mainspace as well. ;)In any event, that's fine. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Review from MBisanz (talk · contribs) I've reviewed your work and am very impressed with what you have done. You do yourself too little credit to not mention your featured pictures. Also, you work in content, which is a primary purpose around here, so another good point. My suggestion for thigns you could do in the next 3 months would be to get more involved with meta aspects of Wikipedia. You already do Medcab/com work, and I'd suggest getting involved more in XfDs and noticeboards. Your voice of reason will server you well in those situations. Other than that, keep on the straight and narrow and avoid crossing AGK (lulz!). MBisanz talk 20:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      Although I do not see myself as a strong article editor I think getting 1988 Atlantic hurricane season to featured article status was something I was pleased with, as would any editor getting something to featured status. It was not only done as a contribution to but also it was done in response to a good editor who had left and so i felt that I had done her work justice by getting an article she had worked on to FA. For work that has nearly been entirely my own, Hurricane Henriette (2007) has been something i quite proud of even and something im going to keep working on so i can get it to GA and eventually FA. I have taken the article from this to this. For me, I am not brilliant at writing articles but for me these 2 have be what has made me certainly feel proud of. I have also contributed in other areas but my main contributions have occurred in the area of WP:DR. My most recent closed case was originally an area where one user was singled out for mentoring and no real ground had been gained with solving the problem. When the cased was closed, an article improvement drive had been set up with one article reaching GA status and work is ongoing with the other articles involved.
    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?
      Being a mediator means I have been involved greatly in various disputes from the dispute resolution side of things but I suppose the best example of an instance where I was put under greatest stress was when I was accused of being sock puppeteer back in April. It can be very difficult to remain calm and to keep a clear head in these sort of situations but I found that by keeping in communication with the filer of the sock puppet case and getting advice from other people was the best thing to do. This is often the best to do in any difficult situation whether it be a dispute or a decision you have to make and in my opinion one of the most important things to do on wiki. Talking and discussing with people I think is something that I would do in similar disputes and just making sure you keeping a cool head and if an any point I felt that it was becoming difficult, its best to just walk away and cool down.

    Britishrailclass91

    Britishrailclass91 (talk · contribs)


    Reviews

    • Your edits look rather casual. Consider doing research while writing articles (see WP:CITE for more info). And try to get along and co-operate with fellow editors. It will make your editing experience a lot better. - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      Yes, my improvements to railway articles
    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?
      Can't remember

    Comments

    • Comment This user has obviously has forgotten that they performed unjustified personal attack on me three times (which is harassment). They then did give a fully apology and stopped. I suppose you could say "all is forgotten......" Btline (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User seriously needs to go and read the policies, FAQs and howtos about how wikipedia works. He is seriously lacking in even a basic grounding so far, and are only succeeding in disrupting articles and annoying editors. He seems to think wikipedia is a news site to be updated constanty with most minor/trivial of details about anything and everything rail related. He also seems to be a perpetual leaver of the site without actually leaving MickMacNee (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A quick and easy way for this user to become a better contributor would be to write edit summaries for all their edits. If I recall they've expressed an interest in becoming an administrator. Such a low usage of edit summaries would seriously harm their ability to pass an RfA. Adambro (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Editor review/Ziggy Sawdust

    Avruch*

    Avruch (talk · contribs) It looks like editor reviews are a little hit or miss, some get none, some get OK reviews, some get good ones. I haven't had one and I'm curious to see what folks think I can improve on. I'll try to get in a couple of reviews this week as reciprocity, seems fair. Avruch T Review 22:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    The discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Avruch is a lot more interesting than anything I can say here. I supported that request, and it's likely to be a close call.

    Basically, I don't see the problem with wikidrama as long as (1) you are helping to resolve the situation, not inflame it, and (2) you keep wikidrama in perspective and devote most of your efforts to article writing or ordinary site maintenance. I think I pass muster on both counts, and so do you. Yechiel (Shalom) 17:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I'm pretty happy with my contribs to Norman Finkelstein, J Michael Bailey and A Moral Reckoning (the three GA articles I've worked on). Also Daniel Goldhagen, Daniel Pipes, The Man Who Would Be Queen, Hitler's Willing Executioners, Abraham Foxman, Roger Stone and a few others. I also started the poll at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/RfB bar (originally it was on WT:RFA) that led to changing the passing percentage for bureaucrats. Aside from these, I've cleaned up a number of articles, added references in many cases, and generally I hope made thoughtful comments in some difficult discussions at the various administrator noticeboards.
    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?
      I've been in some minor content conflicts in the past, and I've commented or been peripherally involved in a number of conflicts at AN/I and one or two that were at arbitration. I think I've dealt with it fairly well - I have a tendency to be sarcastic, which I think I've kept reined in most of the time. My approach has generally been to not say anything that many people are saying, or anything that would increase the temperature without adding a significantly different or new point of view. In my opinion almost all conflicts on Wikipedia get blown out of proportion to their actual importance, and its important to keep that in mind. Wikipedia is a neat project, and Wikimedia is a very interesting foundation that has and can do a lot of good in the world - but, in the end, it is not my job and it is not life or death for me or anyone else. Some examples of controversial situations I've been involved in... Disputes at Norman Finkelstein, Giovanni di Stefano, Warren National University, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex, Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, The Man Who Would Be Queen and related J Michael Bailey to name a few off the top of my head. All of these disputes are pretty quiet at the moment, luckily, but they are all in perennially controversial subject areas so its not unlikely they will flare up again.
    4. Why in the world aren't you an admin?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      One crucial lack - no RfA ;-) AvruchT * ER 23:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    5. I agree with brewcrew. Shit, Avruch, I thought you were already an admin (and as you know, admins don't need to do silly things like editor review, they're invincible :-). Have you ever run an RfA? What's stopping you? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I haven't been rushing about it. Lar and John are working on co-noms I think, so it probably won't be too long before I step into the fire ;-) AvruchT * ER 15:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lankiveil

    Lankiveil (talk · contribs) Based on the fact that I was recently granted rollback access without even having to ask for it, I thought I should poll the community to determine how my contributions are viewed, and what areas I can improve in so that I can be an even better contributor to the project. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • I think it's great that you have your sights on GA and FA for the articles you're working on. For Brisbane, you'll probably get trouble for having text squished between images (I hate making shallow comments about minor MOS points and the pictures, but you know you'll hear about it because it's the first thing people notice). Speaking of minor, content-irrelevant MOS points, I noticed inconsistency with punctuation before and after ref tags.
    • Yes, unfortunately I think that the article needs major revising before its going to make the mark. The current strategy is to get it to GA before going to FA, but even that's going to be difficult. My thoughts are that there are simply too many images in parts of the article, and some of the sections are a bit aimless. Its easily the worst of the Australian capital articles, which hurts my pride a bit as a parochial Queenslander, and fixing it will be a big job, but nobody ever said writing quality content was easy!
    • It's great that you're working on articles on important topics.
    • I hesitate to bring this up because I'm kind of jumping to conclusions here, but about this and this, done within two minutes of each other: are you taking time to review candidates fully before opining on their RfA? I think you owe it to the candidate and to the whole project to have a thorough look before participating. It's my personal belief that you should look beyond the RfA itself to voice your opinion, and should base your !vote only on things the candidate has control over (so I'm against !votes in protest of other votes: think how easy that would be to game). I do see more time before !oppose votes, this is good. As I said, I can't say you didn't thoroughly review these, maybe you looked at both candidates and then !voted on both, or maybe you knew them well. But I'm also seeing rapid-fire !votes in deletion discussion (e.g. starting with this one, comments two and three minutes apart). Either you're a very fast reader, or you're not reading the article and checking sources. OTOH, your reasons are sound and it looks from them like you did check sources. I can tell you're familiar with policy from these.
    • With regards to the RFA votes, I usually read over the nomination, do a quick check of the user's contribs, and then think about it for awhile. Because there is no real time pressure at RFA, I don't see that there's usually any hurry to put a vote down (you'll notice I rarely get into the first twenty votes, unless I personally know or have had interactions with the candidates). My criteria for adminship are also a lot looser compared to some other users; if there is a clean block log and no history of any untoward behaviour I will usually support. The actual part where I actually make the votes comes right at the end of the process, but I put more than a couple of minutes thought into each one of those votes, even though I usually batch them all together.
    • Your point about that particular oppose vote is taken. I have come to believe that that particular user is no longer contributing anything of value to RFA (which is a shame, as he's made some insightful arguments in the past). I would not change my vote from Oppose to Support or vice versa just to spite him, but at the same time I think it's necessary to point out how unconstructive I think his contributions are.
    • I don't think it's necessary to point that out. Surely you're aware of the massive amount of pointing that out that's already taken place, right? Whom are you hoping to inform? Ignore him--no doubt the closing 'crat will. Therefore his non-contribution is harmless--unless we create drama by paying attention to him. Just my take. delldot talk 03:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for the XfD !voting, again, if it's contentious I'll probably spend awhile thinking about it before jumping in with an opinion. In that particular string of votes, many of them were very similar articles (on proposed Metro lines in Sydney) which probably should have been grouped under one nomination, so after looking at the overall picture I was confident in making those votes. I agree that rapidfire "per nom" votes have no value, but if I can make a sound argument and do it quickly, I see no reason not to do so.
    • But do you really think you're doing the article justice by only looking at it for 2 or 3 minutes? Are you reading the whole article and checking at least some of the references? Maybe I'm just slow, but for me that's not even enough time to verify that the subject really exists, let alone figure out whether it's being true to its sources and so on. OTOH I guess I could make decisions on the real obvious keeps or deletes in that amount of time. And I didn't look at any of these, maybe they were all really easy calls. It's good that you're making a sound argument, clearly, but doesn't that argument have to be based on sound research? Otherwise, to me, this would just be a sound-seeming argument. delldot talk 03:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see you're using talk pages to contribute constructively to discussion, looks like you're reasonable and willing to compromise.
    • From your interactions with other users you seem easygoing and easy to get along with. You listen to others in discussion and are willing to change your stance and compromise. You seem careful not to offend and you're friendly. You admit fault when you think you should, and you're quick to forgive. All of these are outstanding traits, I wish everyone on the project was as good as you with interaction!
    • About this and the discussion which ensued on your talk page, you understand what the issue is with using rollback to rv non-vandalism, right? It's the edit summary (e.g. if I roll something back but provide an original edit summary [as you can do with huggle], no problem; it's not with the tool itself). OTOH, I can easily see myself rving that with huggle, it was a very borderline case, so no big deal. It looks like you're good at leaving personalized messages for people, doing that preemptively to explain why I've reverted someone's edit has served me very, very well in my time on the project; I recommend it.
    • Yes, I understand now. Not that it's any defence, but at the time I was new to Huggling and still coming to grips with what all of the buttons did. That said, I should have advised the user better on why I'd done it. I would like to say in my defense that there has been no further complaints about my Huggling or vandal-fighting since then, and I've been taking extra care in reverting since that incident.
    • Good work! Probably a lot better than I'd do if I used huggle regularly. Anyway, as I said I think you're doing great, and I certainly didn't mean to come across as overly harsh in any of my comments. You are the perfect example of why I like participating in ER--you're working hard, doing a great job and are awesome at getting along with people, and I never would have gotten the chance to look at your work in detail if I hadn't undertaken the review. I'm glad to keep this discussion going if you like. delldot talk 03:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Overall I think you're doing great, both with editing and user interaction. Be sure you take time to get a thorough understanding before participating in discussion. delldot talk 02:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I've created what I feel are good articles on a few obscure topics, such as Section 44 of the Australian Constitution and Australian-Zimbabwean relations. My current project is creating articles for all of the locations within the Moreton Bay Regional Council's jurisdiction, with Mount Mee, Queensland recently being selected for a DYK. There is an (incomplete) list of articles I have created on my user page.
    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?
      There have been no major conflicts. There has recently been a minor dispute with User:Peter phelps, but the situation has recently calmed down, the user is making decent edits, and I'm optimistic that we'll be able to work together on Australian politics articles in the future.

    Meojive

    Meojive (talk · contribs) I think feedback is always helpful, so the more the better. Meojive (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews I see you have added references to crystal-cure.com. Can you explain what makes that a reliable source? I'd also recommend using edit summaries, they help other editors who see your edits in their watchlists, for example. I see you communicate using talk pages, this is good! Personally I think editing to change your status is a waste of the project's resources--people can just look in your contribs to see how long since you've edited. I noticed an image tagging problem mentioned on your talk page, do you have an understanding of image policy now, or would that be a useful area to review? Looks like we haven't seen much of you since June, hope you come back soon! Keep up the good work. delldot talk 00:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

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


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

    I think I am a big reason why the Ashton Ryan article is still around. I was the first one to figure out that Ashton Ryan had won a GayVN Awards for the American Way 3: Love and to point out the he writes, shoots, and directs. This has saved the article from two AfDs nominations.

    2. 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?

    I still consider myself to be pretty new to all this, so I figure mistakes on my part are bound to happen from time to time. It is not really a big deal to me, just another chance to learn something new.

    Fribbler

    Fribbler (talk · contribs) I'm a relative newbie here and I'd like to make sure I'm not stepping on any toes, and that I'm being beneficial to the community. Fribbler (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • Review from Mizu onna sango15 - Hello. Reviewing your contributions, you're a pretty good editor. Also, it looks like you've acquired a relatively fair amount of experience in the time you've been here (which, I'll note, is a little longer than that of myself). I see you're already involved in some newpage patrolling- this is excellent, keep up the good work. Your edit count is also not bad for your wiki-age. I especially appreciate your DYK work, specifically Polish minority in Ireland. Really, I can't think of much to reccomend at this point, just that you may want to continue work a bit more in Wikipedia's maintenance-related tasks such as CAT:BACKLOG, WP:CVU, XFDs, and AIV, and these are especially helpful if you're interested in adminship in the future. Overall, you're a rather good editor; remember to be bold and keep up what you're doing! :-)

    Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 09:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      My new, DYK qualifying articles, Polish minority in Ireland and Transition Towns. I also contribute daily to the reference desk.
    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?
      I haven't had a serious conflict with another editor yet. Though I have seen such conflicts. I think I could defuse such situations, as I am quite diplomatic.

    J.delanoy

    J.delanoy (talk · contribs) I have done a heck of a lot of vandal-fighting, and I have done some minor article writing, particularly on John Rutledge. I am kind of down after noting that the page about Rutledge will almost definitely not pass its GAN, so I guess I just wondered what you all thought about my contributions to this encyclopedia. J.delanoygabsadds 15:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews
    • Overall, I see you have excellent contributions to the project, expecially your recent spike in editing levels shortly after your decline in editing levels, which is amazingly high IMO (your edit counter will NOT load!). You've contributed significantly to almost every major namespace in Wikipedia, and you also have a good edit summary usage (but mathbot is restricting my access). I've noticed your wide participation in tasks such as CSD, AIV, ANI and others, and your good use of vandalism-reverting tools such as Huggle, Twinkle, and others (which my browser do not support). I think I've also seen you around quite a lot, and you also have contributed to many areas both to articles and to many of the other areas around Wikipedia. All I can say is, keep up the good work. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 20:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No time to do an indepth review right now, but I want to second the user above me and say that in my opinion, your contributions are excellent and extremely valuable. Not all of Wikipedia is about generating FAs, and the sheer volume of vandalism that you've dealt with is simply awe-inspiring. Apart from the unpleasantness revolving around Category:American criminals that you mentioned below, I can't see any major problems or flaws in your editing. As above, keep up the great work! Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Not may flaws in this user compared to myself, and the vadalism reverting you've done is a good thing. I enjoyed the read of Rutledge, and I think, that with a bit more TLC, it could become a good article. Keep up writing articles like that, and do not get too caught up in the vandalism reverting to ignore your talent of writing. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 17:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're an excellent editor and vandal fighter with a wide array of edits. You have a sizable Flickr gallery and good contributions to John Rutledge. Very impressive edit count. If you become an admin, you'll need to make many close calls. One of the hard parts about reverting vandalism is determine good/bad faith (I sometimes have trouble myself). In general, aside from "whack-a-mole" reverts like "f*** wikipedia u suck," it's generally a good idea to assume good faith; try talking to the user and asking them to provide an edit summary if they remove content without explanation. In closing AfD discussions, it is important to remember that consensus can change. For example, even if a bunch of "delete" !votes are loaded against an article, if there is a single "keep" !vote at the end after the article has been improved (e.g. with the addition of reliable sources), it's worth a relist. With more controversial cases ... well ... I trust you to use your good judgment; it all depends on the situation. Good luck! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments

    Or, if you don't feel like waiting for it to count my edits, you can just look at the talk page J.delanoygabsadds 17:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I won't fully review, but I think that the next step for you on Wikipedia is to start expanding articles. The interests you have on your userpage would be a good place to start expansion. :) One other suggestion is to participate in 2-3 XFD's per day to get even more experience there. Malinaccier (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps Did You Knows? for a start? ;) I appreciate your efforts in answering question two, and you might need to note that being a very active vandalfighter, one has be prepared in facing a lot of conflicts, and remember what the positive reflections you have in mind for your experience so far. - Mailer Diablo 17:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Questions
    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I really don't know how to answer this question without sounding like I am lauding myself, so I guess I'll just plow right in and hopefully it won't seem too self-appreciating...
      Undoubtedly my best contributions to Wikipedia are in the area of vandal-fighting. It is what I have done almost since I started actively editing, and it remains (and likely will remain) my area of expertise. I have also done some article writing which I am proud of. Despite the fact that it will not pass its GAN, as I stated above, I am still pleased with my additions to John Rutledge. I also wrote a fairly short article about Thomas Boone, who was the Royal Governor of South Carolina when Rutledge came on the scene.

      EDIT I completely forgot about User:J.delanoy/flickr. I have uploaded quite a few images to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, and I think that some of them have substantially improved the respective articles. /EDIT

      In addition to actual contributions to the encyclopedia itself, many people have posted on my talk page asking me for help in various areas. I am happy that I was able to answer their questions in most cases. Also, although she didn't initiate the conversation, I am particularly pleased that I was able to fix a personal template for User:Moonriddengirl, as it involved fairly complex use of template markup.
    2. 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?
      Many times vandals come to my talk page and ask why I reverted their edits. While incidents of this have been significantly slowed after I made User:J.delanoy/reversion, I still get quite a few. I do not consider these to be major conflicts, as most die down after one or two comments be me.
      Unfortunately, I was involved in a rather large arguement with User:John celona about Category:American criminals. I am not in the least proud of my actions. Two things that encounter taught me are
      1) Do not let first impressions cloud my judgement and
      2) ALWAYS assume good faith.
      The experience has helped me to (as far as I can remember) not get myself into another conflict.
      I was involved in another conflict when a user accused me of sockpuppetry. The comments on my talk page, his talk page, and ANI were very interesting, to say the least. That conflict did cause me some stress, but I used "show preview" a lot more than normal, and more than once, I simply left my computer on and went to do something else before I saved the page.

    Willisis2

    Willisis2 (talk · contribs) I would like to be reviewed because I love Wikipedia and want to help change it by being an administrator to make it better. Ŵïllî§ï$2 (Talk!/Cont.) 18:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Reviews

    chrislk02 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Ok, First I will review general contribution patterns, edit counts and time here. looking at your edit count/history, it appears you have a fairly low edit summary usage. This is almost always frowned upon. I would highly reccomend you get your edit summary usage up to 100% from now on. You also have fairly low Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk space edits. Edits in these areas generally show that an editor has a strong grasp of policy and how things are done on this project (such as usage of WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:AIV, WP:AFD) I highley reccomend doing some work in the WP:XFD area if you are looking to eventually become an admin. I dont see that you have ever made an WP:AIV report either. You have been here for 3 months, which is not bad, If you are looking to become an admin, i reccomend waiting 3 or 4 more months, while you work on the areas mentioned in this review. It is good to see that you have worked on some articles, and your work on Reverend Zen appears pretty good. I reccomend keeping up the good article space work as well. Hope this helps. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and after i looked a little more into your talk page and saw a conflict you were having with Gwernol, this is an area you may need to work on. Civility is extremely important to the smooth functioning of this project. Most editors here are not out to harass you, but instead help you. Heeding their advice instead of becoming uncivil will help you significantly in the long run. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I am proud of my creation of the articles Reverend Zen, Jack Evans (musician), The Stone Coyotes, and The Stone Coyotes discography because they are successful and my first real contributions to wikipedia. Also, I added the monomers and polymers section to Biochemistry, which is pretty nice.
    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?
      At first, I had some stress over a couple articles and some images, but after the user who caused it always helped me out. They gave me help and I followed what they wanted me to do, and now I don't even need their help much.

    Pelotas

    Pelotas (talk · contribs) I am a 23-year old engineering student from Belgium who is just curious to ssee the results of this review after two years of editing. Pelotastalk 01:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • Your edits to football and sports is impressive. I'm not sure if you posted this ER with intention of running for adminship in future, if yes then you might want to consider starting participation more in the internal process, and additional comments on edit summaries when editing sub-sections is highly recommended; Otherwise just do what you currently enjoy, own time own target. :) - Mailer Diablo 16:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I enjoy contributing to various articles concerning sports. Particulary football and cycling.
    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?
      Yes I have, it ended like this (the third one from the top entitled "Cupcake").

    ilikepie2221

    ilikepie2221 (talk · contribs) I'm an editor here at wikipedia. Even though I spend more time reading the articles then editing it usually, but I do edit more then 10 edits a week. I recently just got off a Wikibreak, so I'd like to be reviewed. DA PIE EATER (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • First review, yay! Well, I've seen just a couple of your edits, and they look good. However, if you are looking towards adminship, than I don't think you are even close to ready. 500 edits is okay for a three month user, but i know someone with 5000 in just 5. So, keep up the good work! :) --Meldshal42 (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello. I came here having seen the link in your signature: the yellow in the signature doesn't show up very well for me and is slightly distracting on talk pages. I'd guess the same goes for other users, so you might want to consider changing it for readability. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 16:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Olaf...wikitext appears as 3 lines of signature on my comp. See ya around. smooth0707 (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]
    3 lines??? Oh wow, how big did you set your font as? For me, its only 1 line. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 14:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He meant 3 lines while in the editing box. I also find your signature in block letters very unappealing. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, even though I was hoping for editing type advice and not signatory advice, I changed it. It's only two lines now, and looks way better. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 21:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      My creation and small expansion of GMF AeroAsia is probably my best edit yet. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so I was really impressed about what work I did with the article. I also created the article Big O (Ferris Wheel) and Adlair Aviation. I feel better about my work in Adlair Aviation, because its a tiny airline in the Canadian Artic, but for Big O, I think I could've done more.
    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?
      Yes. In the article Athens, under the section Pollution and environment, I had an arguement with El Greco about the waste management problem included. He said that its not significant information since it was over a year ago, but its clearly significant as many online news websites stated this news. I approached him on his talk page, and he was happy to add the information again.

    Justpassin

    Justpassin (talk · contribs) Hi. I am here so people can tell me specifically how I can improve. I am 18 years old. I'm not here to train to be an admin, I just want to be a better editor. I usually new page patrol, recent changes patrol, or click on "random article" to see what I can improve. Justpassin (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • Review by Ed Fitzgerald - I think you need to be more circumspect in your tagging of articles. For instance, you seem to be fond of putting "trivia" tags on things. This might be justified for sections which are labelled "trivia" -- although it would be better to evaluate the facts there to see if they actually are trivial, or are simply miscellaneous facts mis-labelled as "trivia" -- but there's no particular reason that, for instance, lists of Unitarian Universalist organizations should be considered "trivia" and labelled as such. This is not only incorrect, it's potentially insulting. Also, quotes are not necessarily trivial.

      It's also worth remembering that trivia sections are not disallowed.

      In general, before you add a tag to an article, I would suggest you think two or three times about (1) whether it's justified, (2) whether it's necessary, (3) what the effect of putting the tag there will be. Many times, tags simply deface an article and don't serve any particularly useful purpose. Also, an article which is already tagged as needing better references, for instance, doesn't need to have every section and sub-section also tagged as needing better references. If a tag is not going to accomplish anything, there's little reason to make it harder for the reader to use the article by tagging it.

      I would suggest that you spend a little more time actually editing articles, the basic nittty-gritty work of building an encyclopedia, and less time in tagging, talking to other users, and doing other things that are ancillary to the main task at hand.

      I also note that you have recently installed Twinkle, so I'd like to strongly discourage you from using it for tagging. One thing Wikipedia doesn't need is more tags.Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I like the work I do when reverting or rolling back obvious vandalism the most, or putting up speedy deletion tags. Speedy deletion tagging has caused me stress in the past (see below), but it doesn't so much now.
    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?
      I don't really deal with conflict very well. In a previous wikilife, I would often put up speedy deletion tags, and then people would blame me if it was deleted. Also, sometimes, I would not 'catch' the fact that the article stated notability or that it was in the process of being completed. I walked away for a few months, and I still walk away to some extent today. I know I need to work on walking back.

    Tyw7

    Tyw7 (talk · contribs) - Hi. I am User Tyw7. I have been previously editing as Troop350 (talk · contribs). I have made over 268 minor edits and major on Wikipedia as both Tyw7 and Troop350. Tyw7, formerly Troop350 (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • Review from kotra (talk): I found this editor review via an unsigned invitation to WikiProject Software on my talk page. Curious as to who left it, I had to go into my talk page's history, where I found it had been left by an anonymous IP. Going to the IP's talk page, I was redirected to User talk:Tyw7. Not exactly the quickest route. To solve this in the future, I suggest two things: Sign all comments on talk pages, including invitations to WikiProjects, and always remember to be logged in. Checking your other edits: Image:LiveUpdate.JPG would have been much better as a PNG (Fair Use software screenshots do not need to be poor resolution, just web resolution). Also, these two edits by you (not logged in) are concerning. Archiving very old discussions is one thing, but deleting recent discussions (except in your own user space) is usually ill-advised (see Wikipedia:TALK#Editing_comments). Also, histories like here lead me to recommend that you use the "Show preview" button more often, it reduces clutter in histories. This suggestion is not as important as the others, but it would be nice. Finally, it is highly recommended that editors give an edit summary for every edit they make. Often the purpose of your edits isn't clear because there is no edit summary explaining it. A basic description of your edit would go a long way. In conclusion, in browsing your edits on all three accounts, Tyw7, Troop350, and 81.86.68.253, I see some good edits, some neutral edits, and a few not-so-helpful edits. Most Wikipedia editors have a somewhat similar ratio of good:bad edits, but your bad ones are easily avoided with a couple minor changes. So if you follow the suggestions I've given here, I think you could become an exemplary Wikipedian. -kotra (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Review from Computerjoe. An invite to a Wikiproject is slightly annoying and could be seen as 'Wikispam', so be careful. Also, be careful not to canvas in RfAs. I'd suggest keeping UT page impersonal messaging to a minimum. Computerjoe's talk 16:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments


    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I have made many edits so I consider all my work good contribution to Wikipedia.
    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?
      So far I did not encounter any edit conflicts with another user. If I ever encounter one, I would consider both sides and solve the conflict calmly. I would consider the information that user wishes to add to Wikipedia.
    4. Looking at this single edit [15]: I compliment you on setting up the "Parentage" section of WikiProject Science, but why did you populate it with only computer science-related entries (or rather, why did you merely transclude {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/parentage}}?)

    Bob the Wikipedian

    Bob the Wikipedian (talk · contribs) I am simply curious as to other editors' opinions on my editing habits/style. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • One small note, next time, replace all "Username"s with your username next time you do or want a review.
    Nice answer to the questions there. It is good to see you are part of a WikiProject as collaborations between editors is encouraged and very useful if you need to discuss things with people with similar interests.
    A quickish one. Do not spend so much time on your userspace i would advise (577 is a lot!). Other areas which should be gone into more are like XFDs which you have hardly participated or do more template which is seen by some as an essential, or at least pretty useful, skill.
    Good balance of edits. Although on this, you should have most of the revisions you do however major or minor and wherever it is, with an edit summary telling other users what you are doing (on Wikipedia that is). Hope this quickie was helpful. Simply south (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I think it's pretty cool that I made it through the entire list of mammal articles without images at WP:TOL. For each entry, I performed a Live image search and added a US-federal-government-sourced image where I could find one. On top of that, every single entry with an image was removed from the list. It took 150 revisions to the list, and a large number of uploads (see my image gallery) to accomplish this, and more than 25.8 kilobytes of the list (277 entries) were removed. My next big project (which I'm working on, but taking a break today, is the plants without images list. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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?
      Yes. Quite recently, actually, I was in a dispute with someone over the fact that two articles (one a redirect to a different article) had the same title and no form of disambiguation or links to the other article at all. I decided after a couple days that it really wasn't worth the fuss, since both titles were such trivial articles, so I just quietly backed out. My attempts to disambiguate the articles were reverted, but there are more important articles to tackle.
      I have had other disputes, but each remained civilized and was happily resolved, and someone (often myself) learned from them.
      In the future? Gee...that's hard to make judgments, since my conflict-resolution style hasn't changed at all since I started editing. I usually do some of my own research to back up my statements in a conflict, and also try to get an opinion from a senior editor. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lunakeet

    Lunakeet (talk · contribs) See my user page. Lunakeet (talk · contribs)

    Reviews

    I was roaming around the recent changes page when I found the new page peanus. I knew it had to be vandalism, but you got to it first, deleted the text, and added a {{db-g3}} tag. You shouldn't delete the text, even though it is innapropiate, until an admin. deletes the page, so the admin knows what the text was. Besides that, your contributions look very nice and fair to wikipedia. Happy editing! --Ŵïllî§ï$2 (Talk!/Cont.) 13:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      My answer? OK. The page E♯ has lasted a long time for one of my pages. I also promoted DS9 to good article status.
    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, and yes. Vandals are particulary stressful, so whenever I encounter too many I take a short wikibreak to feed my parakeet a carrot or something, or maybe just listen to the local classic rock station. That's how I'll continue to handle it.
    5. You submitted this a while ago, are you still interested in getting reviewed? delldot talk 14:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    7. I preferentially review people who have themselves given reviews. Have you done one or more? If so, can you link to it? That way I can use it as a guideline for how much detail I should go into in yours. (Drop me a note on my talk page if I miss this in my watchlist). delldot talk 14:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is an archived editor review. Please do not modify it. If you wish to request a new editor review, please follow the instructions here.

    Tkgd2007

    Tkgd2007 (talk · contribs) Visit my userpage for more information about myself. I just failed an RfA because of a low edit count. TIM KLOSKE|TALK 03:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • Hey there Tim, don't worry about your RFA. I just recently failed one as well; in my opinion a failed RFA is one of the most education experiences you can have on-wiki. I assume you took out this ER to look for ways to improve your chances at a future RFA so I will give you some advice on that front: aside from edit count which I think you are well enough informed of after your RFA the "voters" at RFA like to see strong contributions to "admin related areas" so they can gauge what kind of administrator you will be. These aforementioned "admin related areas" being Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and Wikipedia:Speedy deletion (these are not only ones there are many others but strong participation in one or two of these ares will usually be sufficient). There is a recent bias at RFA towards editors with good mainspace contributions (people just got tired of "anti-vandal only" candidates) so I would recommend getting a good article under your belt. You might also want to look into Wikipedia:admin coaching. For more see Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship.
      In general comments about your editing, for repetitive tasks such as changing all of one image to another you might want to look into WP:AWB.
      Keep up the good work with those images! - Icewedge (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      Images. Almost all of my contributions are images though. I created the current editor review logo actually come to think about it... hahahaha.
    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?
      Once in a while a conflict will arise, and I stay bold but kind and either discuss it with the person, or open a general discussion to resolve the problem.

    Maxim

    Maxim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) See my userpage for a comprehensive listing of my contributions. Maxim(talk) 01:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Reviews I have a couple of quick followup questions that I would like to ask because I am having a really hard time doing a review on you so far, and I think I understand why. Typically on reviews the questions and opening comments have helped me to know what to look at. Editor Reviews take up quite a bit of time so they are much easier to do if you know what to focus on and an editor such as yourself has much to look at. I have added the questions below so that perhaps you can help me out with this problem. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 01:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Review by Sykko
    Ok, well here it goes. Overall, I have to say that you seem to be a hard working editor and admin. I think if I ran across you again in other dealings that I would be very likely to trust your judgement. You have been involved in some rather interesting things on wikipedia, and often I found myself getting distracted by the actual content of the things you contributed to. All admin activities I saw from you looked well rounded and seemed very responsible and cut and dry. Keep up the good work %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 04:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot for the review. Do you have anything upon which I can improve? Maybe take a look at my unsuccessful RfB in February/March? Maxim(talk) 18:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had been looking for that (the RfB) when going through stuff you were involved in and couldnt find it for whatever reason. There was something that I was resisting saying before because I thought it was just a matter of personality difference, since I personally tend to communicate better with people who can open up and talk. Since seeing your RfB though I realize perhaps this is something worth suggesting. That is, I was instantly alarmed by the almost too cut and dry answers on your request for review. Actually it was to the point that I had to ask that you answer the questions that are automatically included. I would say my one good suggestion (that potentially could really help you out if you go up for RfB again) is try to get a little more involved in conversations. Lighten up a bit and don't be afraid to be long winded from time to time. While Wikipedia is not a message board that doesn't mean that we have to be overly straight and to the point on every thing. Your fellow editors may trust some of the decisions you have made as an admin better if they get a chance to really understand why you made them. As a result things like the mikkalai indecent wouldn't have come up, or if it did they wouldn't have as much ground to stand on like the opening claim that you made no effort to discuss. Be willing to discuss things and I think you will have a better result next time, and perhaps will get a better response from your fellow editors.
    Hope that helps %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 20:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Review from Yamakiri

    First off, I'd like to say that you're a really great editor. You have great abilities with content building (your 15 GA/FAs). You can get a little harsh at times, but that's not all that bad (Remember 12 year old David?). You certainly keep username spam at bay. You seem to have not so great communication skills, maybe try to be more open (No-one's going to yell at you ;-)). The talk messages seem generic, which might not be all that good. I am very pleased with your edit distribution, and 21k edits. Overall you seem to be a great editor Yamakiri TC § 07-31-2008 • 20:45:41

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      Well, my userpage showcases my recognized content, so that's what probably are my best contributions.
    2. 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?
      Since around April (I'm going back only three months, I'm not about to list every conflict I've had in 16 months), I've been in not too many conflicts. I was absent for the majority of April as I was simply exhausted, wikibonked, and worn out. I've really kept a rather low profile since then, and haven't been in much conflict. I initiated an arb case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2, had a humorous little incident here, first thread, otherwise my archives have been dominated by the Signpost, and the only "conflicts" is matters of restoring and/or explaining my deletions.
    3. What made you decide that you would like a review? Is there anything specific that you want comments on, or conserns that you would like a fellow editor to consider and give an opinion about? %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me)
      I like to have a user or two with whom I haven't interacted with to give me an honest review of what I'm doing well, what I can improve upon, and similar things like that every once in a while.
    4. Do you still feel "Wikibonked"? %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me)
      Not since my three-week break, not really. Right now, I'm certianly not WikiBonked, I just finished writing a DYK candidate, Mike Karakas.
    5. If you could fix only one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be? %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me)
      That's a tough question; there's many things I'd want to fix. I think the most important one is having the 1000 most important articles being of featured class.
    6. I noticed some of your very first edits you seemed to command much understanding of policies and Wikipedia in general. Some of your very first edits are to warn users not just with generic vandalism templates but "spam-warn" and "Nonsensepages", which leads me to think you most likely started with a different project before joining the English Wikipedia or you edited anonymously for a while. If the former is true, have you felt the same exhaustion with other Wikimedia projects you have worked on? %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me)
      I've edited anonymously, even made an account in 2006 to make some edits, lost interested, then rejoined again, so I had a tad more experience than the average newcomer.

    Tinkleheimer

    Tinkleheimer (talk · contribs) Hey there, my name is Trevor and I wish to be reviewed mainly because I feel I haven't really gotten any acknowledgements or critiques on my work. I am hoping this will help me learn more about myself. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • I'll not remove the asterisk because this is a fairly short review. Just wanted to say your judgment is usually fairly sound; haven't really run into you much other than in RFA though, so can't say much. Cheers, · AndonicO Engage. 19:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not in the habit of upsetting guys who stand 6'7" and sport five tattoos...but in all seriousness, I've no reason to bring upsetting news. I have admired the depth and scope of your Wikipedia contributions, particularly your new content creations (I wish we had more people who were dedicated to starting new articles), and I was impressed with the maturity you displayed following your recent RfA (don't worry, time is your ally). The only advice I might offer is to participate some more in the AfD process, either weighing in on the articles for consideration or nominating articles for that slate (WP:BACKLOG) is a good place to hunt for articles in need of erasure. In short, keep up the good work. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do a wonderful amount of Namespace and policy stuff, which is, as said before, wonderful. I would love to see more article edits from you, and although you say that you do not do big contributions everyday, there is other stuff you could try. Maybe you could add external links, or fix dead ones? (See the latter half of this conversation for more info on that whole deal-y]) Or maybe you could peruse references and fix them? Sort them? Possibly add them? To be more conclusive, you don't need to have huge additions to do a lot of article editing. (Though, if you want a huge, fun, super awesome, cool project to work on, try helping with Big Stick Diplomacy! Please?) Leonard(Bloom) 21:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I admit, I do not edit artices everyday, and that could be my dowfall. But everytime I feel like I expand, create, or otherwise improve an article, I am proud and pleased with it. Most recent articles include Springfield (The Simpsons) where I formatted all of the episode references and Project Runway Australia, a new article which I am hoping is going to be my first Did You Know.
    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?
      In the past, I did have a few problems, but it couldn't have been major because I don't remember details. I think the main one in my past was a conflict I and several other editors had with User:Green Kirby, whom is now unblocked. Recently however, I was in a minor conflict with 2 editors about whether controversial userboxes should remain on User:Laralove's user page while a discussion about them is going on or if they should be removed. I felt they should be included on there as because from what I could tell at the time, there was still no consensus on either part.

    Another minor confict I was not totally part of but did write about was about a statement that a user stated at ArbCom about another administrator. The statement was along the lines that he should be demoted for supporting White Supremacy. I made a lengthy post or two about it. I felt that I handled myself well there and hopefully got my point across. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    I feel that tinkleheimer is a great contributer to wikipedia always calm and non biased in debates and im not sure if this counts but always nice and polite:) Wannabe Wiki (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is an archived editor review. Please do not modify it. If you wish to request a new editor review, please follow the instructions here.

    JeanLatore

    JeanLatore (talk · contribs) I think I have many productive edits on Wikipedia, yet some issues nonetheless. I want to run for admin one day, but mostly work on aritlces. Please give me some feedback. JeanLatore (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    I'm somewhat familiar with the editor in question, having worked with him in the past on a few things. You're well on his way to becoming a good Wikipedian, but that doesn't mean you don't a lot to learn as well (i.e, you posted a thread critical of tagging practices on sub-par articles, which leads one to believe that you doesn't realize that the work of the copyeditors, and many other things that happen here, is dependent on such tagging practices, and you also make posts critical of metapedians who work mainly in the projectspace, which leads one to believe that you don't understand why we can't just let people edit articles without any kind of system for managing the sub-par ones or the ones that aren't in line). As a content contributor, you seem to have a habit of contributing things of marginal notability, but I imagine that will improve as you develop a better understanding of notability and a better comprehension of the relevant guidelines.

    My suggestions to you if you want to head towards adminship would be to spend more time in the project mainspace at AfD, RfA and the like. This would help you to better understand policy and how Wikipedia works, and would give you the experience that most people who regular RfAs require. Celarnor Talk to me 07:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't really know that much about the editor. However, if he's planning on running for admin someday, removing the userbox {{User DGAF}} would probably be a good idea. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to question Jean's judgment in creating some of the articles he did. Some appear to be porn articles intended to promote some kind of organization. Enigma message 07:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I have worked on many articles involving pornography. I think wikipedia needs more coverage of pornography if anything, since its a growing part of all our lives.
    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?
      My first amjor article, Handlebars (song) got protected due to an edit dispute.

    davidwr

    davidwr (talk · contribs) I would like my reviews of Prestonwood Baptist Church, its talk page, and related edits on May 16, 2008 and the days following reviewed for fairness. I am concerned that I'm not being fair to the 3 anonymous editors who all posted the same material. I removed it twice and am in a discussion with one of those editors as I write this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    I reviewed some of the talk page you linked to, but not all (it's too long and boring). I commend you for both your firm understanding of policy and your fair treatment of other editors, including anonymous users. I chuckled when you wrote, "One two three four I detect an edit war." It's good to keep a sense of humor about editing and to maintain composure, and you helped everyone involved reach a stable conclusion. I'm not sure what I would have done differently, other than the fact that I avoid disputes of this nature in the first place because I'm not experienced in dispute resolution or editing in controversial areas.

    My offer to nominate you for adminship remains in effect. You handled yourself well. Of course, don't feel under any pressure to accept, and this wasn't done in order to earn anybody's trust, but I'm just saying that my review of the dispute gives an A grade to everyone involved on all sides, including you. If only all disputes could be resolved this smoothly. Yechiel (Shalom) 17:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      N/A, this is a limited purpose review. However, I am particularly pleased about my attempts to maintain civility during my tenure. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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?
      I either continue to press the issue - politely - or let it go depending on how important it is for the project and what impact it is having on my off-Wiki life. If warranted, I get input from others, which is what I am doing here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This Review Is Closed

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Xp54321

    Xp54321 (talk · contribs) I have been on Wikipedia for 2.5 months now but most of my recent activity has been in the last month or so. Thus I want to if I'm doing well or not. Xp54321 (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I have yet to make any major contributions(by this I mean something like doubling the size of an article). But once I finish up with my Twinkle, Friendly, and AWB work I'll probably try out DYK and see what it's like.
    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?
      I have been in one edit conflict before over Gmail and how often the storage counter was to be updated. I dealt with it by participating in a discussion started on the talkpage. An anonymous IP ended up updating the storage counter when it reached 6700 MB as we had reached consensus for 100 MB update threshold.:). I would probably do the same thing in the future and get other editors involved when necessary.
    4. As I dislike edits like this made with AWB, I wonder why you just re-shuffle the order of categories and stub templates? The purpose of having a stub message in a prominent place is to make editors improve the article rather than just push it to a less prominent place in the categories list. The relocation "feature" may have been implemented in AWB according to Wikipedia:Stub, but this is under discussion. I had placed a message on your talk, but you removed it immediately (Reverted good faith edits by Matthead. (TW)). Sorry, but you do not earn my respect this way. -- Matthead  Discuß   14:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Why did you revert, using admin rollback here? Al Tally talk 23:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Mistake explained.Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 01:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Realist2

    • I have found Xp54321 to be a quick learner, more than willing to make up for past mistakes. He/she takes advise well for the most part and works to improve. An example of this can be seen in edit summaries. Originally 50% of the users edits had no summary, after pointing this out the user quickly improved. The month of May will close with nearly 85% edit summaries included, well done. I would like to see you interact more with other editers and i believe you need to do more article building for this to occur. You need to discuss ideas with others and learn to build consensus and compromises, something vandalism reversion alone does not bring. You are more than just a net gain for the project, you are a valuable editer. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to slow down when it comes to the use of automated tools. I think you might have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes vandalism. Either that, or you're incredibly impulsive. You need to realize that edit counts do not matter on Wikipedia, but, rather it is the quality of the edit that is germane to improvement. I suggest that you take a break from anti-vandalism and focus your attention on some moderate to heavy article building. Cheers. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Useight
    I will comment more a bit later, I have to go do a few things, but I wanted to get something down. Please don't take anything the wrong way, these are just some tips to improve your editing. Okay, first, be sure to always use edit summaries. It's very important so other editor's can more easily determine what you were doing and/or what your reasoning was. Second, I agree with Wisdom89 above, you need to slow down with your automated tools. You reverted a bunch of things that should've been fixed using the "undo". Only click revert or use an automated tool for blatant vandalism, such as insertion of "woeinsdgogiw" into the middle of an article, or "I am cool", or "Bob sucks." Things like that. If there's any question about whether it's vandalism, don't use rollback. I'll take a deeper look a little later. Useight (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's see, what else? I was randomly going through some of your most recent reverts and I found that you're doing a much better job now. Looking good. One pretty trivial thing, though, was that I, personally, don't like edit summaries like this and this which don't really say what you did. Perhaps be a little more descriptive. But that's not a big deal at all and nobody would ever ding you for that. Also, I'd recommend being a bit more communicative, you don't do much talking with other people (outside of issuing warnings via templates). If you want to become an admin in the future (and you're userpage says you do), you'll have to both communicate more and do more work in the mainspace. Endless vandalism reversion isn't going to cut it at an RFA. Useight (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by PhilKnight Firstly, you are very enthusiastic, which is good. Any criticism should be considered to be nothing more than suggestions on how to improve. Looking at your contributions to requests for page protection, my suggestion is that you should only list pages that have been overwhelmed with vandalism from several different IP addresses. The approach is to avoid semi-protecting pages unless absolutely necessary, to encourage new comers. PhilKnight (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by Excirial

    As Xp54321 Adopter, i think its appropriate for me to come in and join the talk on this subject. As PhilKnight already said, XP54321 is a very enthusiastic editor who has a sense of humor when you have a conversation with him. Also i have to agree with the other users that he is a fast learner who only needs a polite word once to improve any small or big error in his editing. Overall i can just see one huge block of good faith edits with the small human mistake every now and then. In short: I am pretty pleased with my adoptee :).

    However, i also notice that there is to big a focus on two things: Editcount and Adminship. As said before, it is not the amount of edits that count, it is the quality of those edits. I sometimes notice a pretty large amount of edits for a pretty low amount of improvement (Par ratio that is). An example is [16]. This is a diff of 7 edits, showing only marginal difference. Try to prevent saving for every word, but make a large contribution at once if possible. I have seen this happening several times, and i am pretty sure that during a new RFA people will point at this as being an attempt to increase edit count fast. Again, its not the amount of edits, its the quality of the edits that count.

    Second, don't see adminship as a goal you wish to reach, or at least not in a set time period. Think about it like this: If i put a banner on my user page which states that i would be running for admin in 3 months, that would be frowned upon. Why? It will look like i want to get adminship then no matter what; It does not give a reliable impression when someone says he will be ready when he reaches a set point. This was actually more or less worded on the RFA when this was posted:

    It's less than three days since I last issued you a warning for your behavior, and I see no reason to trust you; on the contrary, I see someone frantically abusing automated tools to boost their edit count, who appears to want adminship to add to their trophy cabinet, rather than to do anything useful.

    While frowning at the obvious incivility of this line, it does contain a core of thought that you should remember, even though it is rather badly worded. In short the thought behind this is that you have to much focus on editcount and adminship; In the above editors eyes that automatically means that you "Want to have it to have it", and not because you want to do something good with them.". Leaving aside the matter if that is the case, it IS an opinion that is often expressed at RFA's in such cases. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 08:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Freewayguy*

    Freewayguy (talk · contribs)

      • Other than this I've been doing pretty good, learning to assume faith, and I've been polite talking to people, and made some corrections like avoiding 2 changes to sign. Sometimes when people make sockpuppet, is to mention on user page is their brother or sister mostly to trick people like yorkabes.--Freewayguy T C 02:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your editor review wasn't formatted properly, so you couldn't comment on it from the main Wikipedia:Editor review page. While you no longer take two edits to sign your posts, I still see you making pointless edits to change your signature. Two to three weeks is not enough time for us to see any improvement since your last editor review. You still have a loooong way to go before you're ready for adminship, or whatever else it is you hope to achieve by being reviewed here. -- Kéiryn (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to start a new ER. You mean I still know too little things to become an admin. Don't admins have to know how to make highway sign themself becasue I still ask somebody to do them when I can't do it on thier own.--Freewayguy T C 02:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now, I,m not tolerating harassments on my talkpage. People have been posting message about their own junks when I don't care, like getting block and accusations of sockpuppets. People remove those non-sense message if its about their sockpuppets, if they dont stop block them.--Freewayguy Discussions Show all changes 20:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OZOO

    OZOO (talk · contribs) I have been editing Wikipedia for over two years now, but only really seriously since the start of 2007. I am intrested to know where my fellow editors think I could improve. OZOO 17:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • Wow, I can't believe it took this long for someone to review you, I wish I had more to say. I looked over your last 500 contributions, which are all from the time since you asked to be reviewed! Anyway, from what I can see, you are doing great. The articles you have created are well written and properly sourced, your interactions with other users, though somewhat slim, are entirely civil, and you have "exterminated" an awful lot of bad content from articles related to Doctor Who. I also like users who are willing to see other points of view and admit when the other guy is right, as you did here. I would suggest widening the scope of your activities, WikiProject Science Fiction could always use more help. There are also a lot of bio articles on footballers that are in pretty sad shape and could use an editor like yourself to help them out. All in all, I would say keep up the good work. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I recently created all the templates in Category:Doctor Who serials navbox templates. I also feel myself to have assisted in the fight against vandals.
    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?
      I was involved in a minor conflict on Doctor Who story chronology with another editor with WP:OWN issues. This however, was not major. In future, I, like I feel everyone should, will try and deal with the situation calmly
    5. You submitted this a while ago, are you still interested in getting reviewed? delldot talk 14:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    7. I preferentially review people who have themselves given reviews. Have you done one or more? If so, can you link to it? That way I can use it as a guideline for how much detail I should go into in yours. (Drop me a note on my talk page if I miss this in my watchlist). delldot talk 14:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I have not yey done one. --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Let me know if you do one. delldot talk 16:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    A considerable amount of time has passed since this request was made. Netalarmtalk 06:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bluegoblin7

    Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs) I wish to be reviewed because I have now been with Wikipedia for over a year, and I would like to know how I am doing, and that my edits are doing good! BG7 16:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Review by delldot talk
    I looked through your talk page and recent archives. I saw the recent thing over the block--although it obviously caused you a great deal of distress, you didn't seem to lash out at anyone else, which I think is great. If you can get through something like that without yourself causing hard feelings, that's quite an accomplishment. It looks from your talk page (didn't dig anywhere else) like you were blameless, so kudos to you for sticking it out.

    But looking through your talk page and archives also made me feel like you may be taking things too personally and getting too worked up unnecessarily. I think it's great that you're interested in ideas for how to avoid conflict (as you mention in Q2); these skills will serve you all your life. I'm really good at it because I hate people to be angry at me. My advice for avoiding drama is this: first, figure out why you're failing to. Is it because you have trouble recognizing when drama is about to happen, or are you stepping into it willingly? If the former, learn to recognize when people are getting pissed off. It's hard in something like WP because we don't have the usual voice and facial cues you do in real life. But you can always ask, and offer to resume after some time has passed to cool down. If it's the second, that's more complex; it's gonna require some changes in your thinking and attitudes. Looking through your talk page archives, my perspective was that you were sometimes engaging in disputes where it was unnecessary; any party could have been like "k whtvr" and problem solved. Maybe try asking yourself "how important is this really?" If it's something you can just let go, definitely do. I remember seeing a scuffle between you and SteveCrossin at his talk page a while back and thinking if either party would have just said "fine, I apologize, let's drop it" the thing would never have happened. At least from my perspective, it's often not worth it. I think a good way to get this perspective is to step away from the computer for a while, maybe go get some exercise to blow off adrenaline. Frequently when I come back after doing that I think "why on earth was I upset about that?" Or I'll reread the thing that upset me and realized I had taken it much more personally than it was meant. Maybe force yourself to wait until you're calmer before responding to something (definitely true for me at least: the stupidest things I've done on this project have been done in haste). I noticed twice in the past couple months you declared you were leaving and then came back; maybe cooling down for a bit could have avoided this.

    Another thing to focus on is to try and figure out what you can drop and what's actually important to stand your ground on. Always a judgement call, but my advice to you would be to drop more and stand your ground on less. At least take the time to justify to yourself why you're doing it if you do feel that it's necessary to get involved in conflict. Remember, you can always step back yourself and ask someone else to get involved.

    From a more interpersonal perspective, ways to avoid conflict include trying to find the good in what the other person has done: if they're coming to your talk page to criticize an edit of yours, you can acknowledge that they're doing a good job ensuring the quality of the article (if that's the case, anyway). A lot of people you could have potential disputes with are actually very dedicated contributors to the project, if you're having trouble finding good things about them, you're probably not looking hard enough. Acknowledging the good in people's work will have multiple good effects: it de-escalate the hostility, establish a more congenial environment for the discussion, let them know that you don't want to fight, and (let's face it) stroke their ego and make them less likely to want to fight with you. I find that ego is very very frequently the root of conflict, don't you agree?

    Another way to keep conflict situations from ever arising is to establish a friendly tone when talking to people even if no conflict's on the horizon. It helps to thank or compliment people if you can do it sincerely. If you do that before making your other statement, the rest of what you have to say may sound less unfriendly. For example, below someone says "From Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool i say you doing good.  :)" Admittedly, not the most in-depth review, but not harmful. You respond with "Ah but that means nothing to me as i dont have editcountitis! LOL!" not hostile exactly, but you don't establish a friendly tone. The LOL I suspect was intended to do that, but it's ambiguous: are you laughing at them? Is the statement that you don't have editcountitis an implicit statement that they do? You may think it's neurotic, but people are sensitive, it can help to be proactive in making them feel good about themselves. You could have said "thanks for looking, but I don't put much stock in edit count alone. Do you have any comments about the content of my editing?" Or some such. Anyway, hopefully I'm getting across, if I'm doing a bad job explaining feel free to ask for elaboration.

    Lastly, it's important to be mindful of the fact that you might be being trolled (intentionally or unintentionally). While I think the word 'troll' is very dangerous and I almost never use it with a specific target, it's obvious that some people stir up drama for the sake of getting a reaction, whether or not they realize that's what they're doing. If you find yourself engaged in a long argument with someone over something that doesn't have any real consequence, you may be being trolled. The way to avoid it is to employ the above drama-avoiding techniques and others.

    I think you learned from the dishonesty during your RfA so I'm not going to harp on that much. But I do want to point out that trust is a fundamental value here, and abusing it will only bring you misery. Also, I think the discussion about whether to delete the RfA page should have been dropped earlier, there was no need to continue fighting about that, and it was not good that you allowed yourself to get that worked up about it (see above), although I do understand that it must have been a very stressful and unhappy thing for you. I understand not wanting to have that around, but do you see now the value of transparency and openness, the reason why we do want to keep such records? On the whole, though, I think it was great that you came clean about the sockpuppetry during your RfA.

    Other minor comments about editing: I think the /status page is a waste of time and server space. How's it much more helpful than having a look at your contribs? About article, work, I haven't seen much lately. How about choosing an article on a topic you're interested in and bringing that sucker up to GA or FA status? I hope when exams are over we'll see more work from you like that you mentioned in Q1.

    I haven't meant to sound so critical, but I did want to go into depth about the conflict avoidance since I think it's super important. In short, look for the good things in people and drop it when the conflict's not important. And it usually isn't. :P Anyway, I hope you take this in the spirit it's intended, I don't mean to be so negative, just that I saw areas that needed attention so that's what I focused on. Definitely let me know if you'd like to make any responses or need clarification. Peace, delldot talk 18:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      The contribution that I am most pleased of was collaborating and collecting together people and ideas to form WikiProject Derbyshire. The Project has, and indeed still is, grown hugely since it's inception. I also hope that it has enabled Wikipedia's coverage of Derbyshire to grow, and also make the articles a lot better with the collaboration. I am also proud of my tram contributions, in particular my massive expansion of the National Tramway Museum and the creation of Tramcars of the National Tramway Museum. I also am proud of the creation of WikiProject UK Trams, which, although it hasn't been as active as I would have liked, still has been a moderate success. Although I haven't been as active recently due to GCSE exams, my plans for the future include more tram and Derbyshire work... notably Blackpool Tramway, Atlow, and a few others, including reviving my work on British Rail Class 47.
    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?
      Since my time has started at Wikipedia, I have been in several stupid conflicts. The majority have just been either misunderstandings, or simply me not AGF'ing and discussing calmly and politely. Thankfully, these are all behind me now, and in the future I hope that I can deal with them a lot calmer. Indeed, I would like any ideas of the such to be bought up in this review.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The following discussion is an archived editor review. Please do not modify it. If you wish to request a new editor review, please follow the instructions here.

    Save the humans

    Save the humans (talk · contribs) I want to be reviewed becuase I want to put in a RFA. And I want to now what you think. Save The HumansTalk :) 16:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    Hi, "Save the humans"! I thought I'd drop you a (very quick) editor review mainly in regards to your considering applying for administratorship via RfA.

    Most community members who select editors for RfA expect high experience on behalf of candidates. Experience takes time to gain (I'm still learning after almost a year and a half!) and I'm not sure that, in three months of editing, you have enough to use administrative tools.

    Don't be discouraged, though. Build up your mainspace edits and Wikipedia: namespace edits, and remember that we are all here to develop an encyclopedia through interaction, collaboration, and cooperation, and, in two or three months, I would very likely support you in an RfA.

    Best and friendly regards, — Thomas H. Larsen 04:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      Wel my facorite contribution is the creation of WPP:Sims becuase my favorite video Game is the Sims 2 and i just brought it to wikipedia. And also I have been thanked for this project alot of times.
    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?
      Yes. I have reported Naruto134 for a Wikiquette alert and now I understand I overreacted and I wont stress over a small thing like this again.

    Jclemens

    Jclemens (talk · contribs) I've been actively editing for a few months, around for a good bit longer than that, and would like some opinions on my development--are my conduct and contributions meeting Wikipedia Standards? What deficiencies do I display right now, that I should shore up before seeking to increase the level or scope of my contributions? Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    I started off with your User page, and looked at the articles you started, I liked your stub on Rollover. I think it's a great stub and would enjoy seeing it later on if you decide to expand on it. The Marcus Ranum article is great, very interesting stuff about someone who I had never heard of before. very informative and an interesting read. I saw that you made a lot of the major contributions to that article and I think it was really good work in general.
    From there I looked at your answers to the questions. I liked your answer to number 1 because it shows that you understand the process of improving as an editor and keeping a good attitude (something I can relate to, and appreciate in fellow editors) in your second answer I see someone followed you in for some more confrontation and I thought you dealt with it quite well. Your link points to a example of a good judgment call as far wp:npov goes
    So I finished off by looking at some of your huggle rollbacks. you definitely are an aggressive vandal fighter. I checked around 15 of them. I was unsure about a few of them this in particular which I think might have been a good faith edit. I think huggle is more about obvious vandalism and some reverts could have been better handled with undo's using good summaries to help the user know what it is they did wrong. A lot of the rollbacks I saw were of things like poorly worded information or statements that could have been marked with a {{fact|date=June 2008}} or something instead of just rolling it back. I guess my suggestion is to consider doing undo of a few articles that you see on huggle by hand from time to time so as to help out the occasional inexperienced user that you come across. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 19:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments

    • View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
    • Just a little tip, there's no necessity to save the page every time you make a minor change during a long edit session. All you have to do is click to "preview" your edits as you go along then "save" once when you've finished the edit session. Otherwise it looks like you have editcountitis. High numbers of edits don't really impress anyone... "edit counts do not judge the quality of the edits". I only mention this because I saw that you wanted comments about your editing, and it was the characteristic which stood out most in your recent work. Austin46 (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I've been most pleased with the edits I've made to Elric of Melnibone because another editor was constantly challenging me to find better sources, and with Whedonesque.com because that was the first time I really took what I learned and transformed a mediocre article into one that was truly and significantly better than when I began.
    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?
      Getting reverted at first was frustrating, to be sure, but I don't believe I've been uncivil in the process of pursuing learning based on those setbacks. I got my internet hothead stage out of the way the better part of two decades ago. The more I understand Wikipedia process and policies, the less frustrated I get and the better my edits are received; as such, I expect my stress level to be manageable for the foreseeable future.
    Oh, one more bit by way of confession--I originally registered to help topic push DartMUD, but in the process became enlightened, and now I'm a general purpose editor, as my history will show.

    Rodney Satrk is an oponent of Evolutionary Theory. This shoudl be clearly satted in his page, and his readers must know this. By hiding this fact you are making this page partisamn and un-balanced.

    (Above comment by User:Juanholanda in response to this edit)
    What was in the article before you added NPOV text:

    Stark published an article in 2004 criticizing Charles Darwin and Evolutionary Theory. In "Facts, Fable and Darwin", Dr. Stark criticized the “Darwinian Crusade” and suggested that governments "lift the requirement that high school texts enshrine Darwin's failed attempt as an eternal truth."[1] Stark further writes that "today it is a rare textbook or any popular treatment of evolution and religion that does not reduce 'creationism' to the simplest caricatures."[2]

    What you added:

    Mr. Stark is an open enemy of Evolutionary Theory, (see below) and as such his views on all subjects must be interpreted with his religionist position in mind.

    I'm proud to have reverted such WP:OR WP:NPOV material lacking WP:RSing from a WP:BLP. Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary King

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
    Discussion seems to have been closed by user.

    Gary King (talk · contribs) I'd like to be reviewed because after running and failing at WP:RFA with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gary King, I learned that there were several things I was doing incorrectly. I would like to know if I have improved since then or if there is still a long way to go before I become a competent editor. Gary King (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    I noticed that you were here when I was looking at the other reviewees, so I thought I'd review you.

    • WP:AIV I'm impressed that you've taken it a lot slower, and that you are able to comment on premature reports. This for example and this is what AIV likes to see. Obviously you can't go around blocking people with only two edits. I suggest, when the user has been removed from the list, you give the nominator the {{subst:uw-aiv}} template informing them when it is and is not appropriate to block the user.
    • Maturity concerns A key factor in RfA. I'm very pleased that you now have two featured articles, and that Facebook is well on the way. Premature nominations are a sign that you want it to get featured quick, and also gives the impression that you care more about its effect on an RfA rather than wanting to improve the encyclopedia. Furthermore, support voting at FAC because of an RfA, and blitzing AfD was also a big concern. So in that regard I would say you've dramatically improved.

    That said, the behaviour at the RfA was a bit of a concern for me. When people started opposing because of the AIV, you suddenly said that you just weren't going to work there. Instead of responding to criticism it looked as though you were just trying to satisfy the opposers so you could get the tools. However, you've been taking things a lot slower, so I'm sure that won't happen at your next attempt. :)

    • WP:RPP Meh, as always, no concerns!Except for the health of the administrators!!
    • CAT:CSD In general, pretty good. I was a bit concerned by this tagging, so I hope you read the link that was provided about Commons tagging. That said, I've gone through about 3000 of your contributions and all your speedies have redlinks, so I'm impressed!
    • Trust issues Eek. I went on holiday the morning that your request was opened, so I left my support and then left. I was quite surprised to see that it was closed when I came back. The biggest concern for me is the use of an automated bot which you lied about. I know you eventually admitted it but that is a major downfall that will require a long time to mend. I don't know when you're next planning to run at RfA, but I would personally hold off for a few months (in general, anyway, it's not a good idea to re-run for about three months). It's great to see that you're not involved in anything like that now, but a potentially trigger-happy admin is not something that will help an RfA. But you've slowed down now so that's great.

    So, really excellent work at GA, FA, FT and FL! Solid article building is definitely something in which you don't need to slow down. From what I've seen of you, and a random look at your contribs from the RfA to today, I see no problems with civility, and you assume good faith which is always a bonus. Anyway, keep up the good work! PeterSymonds | talk 05:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the review, but the mention about the supposed bot I was running was really scathing. I never 'admitted' that I was running a bot, and still stand by that. It was a script I wrote that made it easier for me to add categories to articles, so it was never an automated bot, and so when you say I lied about it, that is simply untrue. It was my own fault for adding categories too quickly. If it makes anyone feel better, I would be happy to deliver the code I used for that incident, but personally, I wish I could put that behind me. If you check my history on Wikipedia, I did nothing productive until after that event; I would consider the promotion of my first Featured list to be the real beginning of my Wikipedia career. Gary King (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My big, big mistake, I misread a sentence on the original RfA which led me to believe that he'd admitted to using a bot after denying it. PeterSymonds | talk 06:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do you care what others think? Why must you get feedback on what you're doing? What are you trying to achieve - being an admin? Why? Is there anything on Wikipedia you would do as an admin that you wouldn't or couldn't do in the state you're in now? I see a lot of your articles on the GA nominations page - have you done all that work because you want to be an admin? Is your own interest and passion not the driving force behind the articles you seek to improve? How will achieving being an admin improve your skills in writing and adding content to articles? --Moni3 (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Moonriddengirl

    Hi, Gary. :) My primary concern in your RfA was CSD tagging, so that's where I'm focusing. I see you've requested feedback from another editors, and I will leave other concerns to them unless you request otherwise. Most of what I see looks good, but I would like to reinforce my points from your RfA about the speed of tagging, and I also have a question about your tagging of an article as "nonsense".

    I see two more cases where you've tagged articles for WP:CSD#A1 within a minute or two of creation within the past couple of weeks. One of these cases, Dani gets Zack sushi, is perhaps not much of a concern. The contents were "Dani gets up and grabs the sushi. He also gets the soy sauce. Zack eats this - maybe not all of it but definitely some of it. www.sushi.com.ca GO LEAFS GO!" I'd have probably still given it some time, in case the editor's next step was to add the lead "Dani gets Zack Sushi was the award-winning 13th episode of Zimbabwe's most popular t.v. series, Dani and Zack", but the odds of that are pretty slim. In the second case, though, Frank Lee Pillar Jr., the contents at time of tagging were "The Backyard Ninjas".

    Why do I think it's a bad idea to tag that for A1 the minute after creation? Well, as set out at WP:CSD, creators do create articles over a series of edits, and new creators are not always aware how swiftly their edits will be scrutinized. The first point here is that we don't want to bite contributors, and we particularly need to usher new contributors into the Wikipedia environment carefully. Some of them are skittish. :) When an article is tagged A1 (or A3) immediately after creation and then is not edited again, we can't know if a contributor who had intended to develop it was instead scared away. Seeing that content, I would myself doubt that it was going anywhere productive (although we can't be sure; the next edit might be "Frank Lee Pillar Jr. is a New York attorney whose efforts to combat violence on youtube have been extensively documented in The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN"), but that leads to my second point: if they are planning to develop the article further, we may miss an opportunity to teach them what they really need to know about contributing. In this case, the author did not return for many hours. When s/he did, he dropped a finished article under a new title, The Backyard Ninjas. This was quite properly deleted by A7. But it seems that what this author really needed to have explained was WP:WEB.

    I'd like to encourage you to consider sitting on A1 and A3 for a bit when you run into them. If they've just been created, give the creator a little bit of time to advance the article. (I keep them open in a tab and check back periodically.) It would even be preferable to drop a {{context}} tag on the article to give them a clue rather than tagging for deletion too soon. (Not surprisingly, contributors regard deletion & the application of deletion tags as hostile and scary acts. When you do become an admin, you're probably going to get to hear all about it from them.) There's no rush to clear out incomplete articles. G10 & G12 are our most urgent deletion needs, obviously. I don't advocate letting other types hang out forever (or I wouldn't spend so much time doing speedies!), but giving them an hour or so to develop doesn't hurt anything. :)

    Now, this is one where I'd have to ask you what happened: BC^joker. You tagged this as nonsense. Maybe it was. It certainly has some suspicious characteristics in it, but I don't know, because I don't read Russian. If you do, then the tag may have been perfectly appropriate. (It started "Кто такой? BC^joker - IRC bot, сделанный на основе популярной программы mIRC, позволяющей писать интересные программы на языке mIRCScript. Бот создан в ... году одним из основателей игрового клана BlackCrystal, BC^miami." I have to ask because the criterion specifically excludes "material not in English". I suspect, based on the format, that it may have been spam, and the hash that they hand out at freetranslation.com seems to confirm that. If you read Russian and you know that the article was nonsense, then the tag may have been appropriate. If you do not, then you should follow the typical procedure for dealing with non-English articles of tagging them {{notenglish}} and listing them as the steps on that template set out at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation. You can also leave a note for the author, {{UE}}, advising that we can only use English language articles here. So, if it was nonsense, and you know it because you can read it, well done. :) If it wasn't, or you can't, then you may want to re-read some of the criteria, at least the ones you may not be sure how to apply. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by DGG

    • This is on a different topic: article creation. I note that you sometimes quickly create a considerable number of ministub articles without adding material that really shows them to be notable. I am referring to Leonard Development Group . Whitewater Group , Rapid Enterpises Intec Systems, SLR Systems Consumers Software -- all small computer companies, acquired by major companies, in the $1- #20 million dollar range, without any particularly notable products. A number of similar articles you redirected to the acquiring company. I wan tto expand our coverage of corporations also, but I do not seethe point of these. The ones listed are in my opinion valid A7s.
    • with respect to CSDs, I don;'t find enough new material.
    • most problematically, I see very little actual discussion in the WT space except for featured lists. These are the places where one acquires knowledge of policy & demonstrates it.
    • Most of the article work is wikignoming. You need to branch out, and take your time. go slower and do bigger things both in working on articles, and in participating in a major way in discussions . Do less small stuff and learn about the major issues here. And do it for a few months more at least. DGG (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Dlohcierekim

    Thanks for the opportunity to review your edits. Looks like you've already received valuable feedback from people I respect greatly.

    CSD and new page patrolling I need to echo and add my own bit to what Moonridden girl said about CSD's. The first article I created was deleted speedily because I'd the temerity to create a blank article. (I've been composing texts on computers since like 1986. My practice was to save files on creation. That was bad in the context of Wikipedia, where empty articles are subject to speedy deletion.) The feed back I got felt like a slap in the face. I'm a miserable SOB in real life, so was undeterred. Pissed, but undeterred. I can see where such an experience could run a new editor off.

    So I try to make my first edit to a new users talk page a {{{subst:welcomeg}}}. If a deletion notice or edit warning is also coming, it takes some of the sting out. I know this because I received a {{{welcome}}} with a {{{test2}}} when I was very new. Welcoming is important because it gives excessively Bold editors one more opportunity to read the policies and guidelines. It also buys time.

    I don't need to tell you about the feeling of pressure to check new articles quickly. Do it too quickly though, and you're tagging articles for "hasty deletion" and/or biting newbies. I go through the new articles on RCPatrol and lay a welcome on the creators. I do about 15 - 20 of these at a time. Only then do I look at their contribs. By this time, they've had a few minutes to improve their articles. Others may have checked and tagged the articles ahead of me. That's the opportunity to see if I agree with any tagging or editing that's been done.

    Don't know if your already doing this, but I go ahead and apply stub and category tags as needed, as well as appropriate wikiproject templates on the talk pages. This helps bring the article to the attention of the editors having an interest in the article's genre. I also apply any needed maintenance tags.

    I'm always glad to see speedy deletion notices on user talk pages. Communication is very important. I'd like to see more. I am pleased that I don't see a declined speedies. That suggests you have a good understanding of the CSD criteria. Some of us are using "nonsense" as a shortcut for articles we believe will snow close as delete. It is better to PROD, and hope for improvement. I also Google search for the subject and keywords to try to find sources and identify the subject. Don't know if you are already doing this. That's how I found that Eunice is a genus of worm, and that the article was not an attack page. Also, if you find a foreign language article that you can read and can tell it meets CSD criteria, be sure to mention that in the edit summary. Also, mangled translations are an opportunity to improve an article. It is better to improve than to tag for CSD.

    AfD Be careful of "Google count" based rationales like "very few websites that mention the term". It is the quality rather than the number of hits that is important. "Unable to locate reliable sources," is right on the money, though. The argument to keep "laptop sleeve" would have been stronger with Google news hits. I'm happy to say I did not see any real problems with your AfD's, but you should seek feedback from someone else on that.

    Article building I see where you added a lot of {{{clear}}} tags to articles. I see where you have a number of Good and Featured articles on your user page. Be sure that as many edits as possible are substantial. I share some of DGG's concerns about article creation and editing. I'm not much of a major editor myself-- more a stub creator. A stub should contain a lead that explains how the subject is notable and should contain verifiable, reliable sources. It should have all of the categories that are appropriate and have a correct stub tag. Talk pages should have Wikiproject templates so that other editors can find and improve new articles. I know how hard it can be to find subjects and sources. As an alternative to creating new articles, you can tackle the backlogs an articles for cleanup and articles in need of sources. There are many stubs in need of expansion.

    AIV Peter Symonds said you are better with AIV. Always remember that sufficient warnings can achieve our goal of stopping vandals. Blocking should only be a last resort used after an editor has clearly indicated an intent to harm the project.

    Dispute resolution Admin activities inevitably lead one into conflict. Even if one has so far been able to avoid conflict, one should have a thorough knowledge of what to do. On your prior RfA, you showed that you'd used good judgment by seeking help from an admin in dealing with an unresponsive editor. You may wind up being the admin called in to help. You need to be able to articulate understanding of the dispute resolution process.

    Many of the answers on your last RfA showed a good knowledge of policy. Hopefully, you can apply the advice here to improve even more. Thanks again for asking me to review your edits. I hope this has been helpful. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 03:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, it was indeed a very helpful review and I will take all of it to heart. Everyone seems to be bringing up my CSDs a lot, when in fact I've slowed down a lot in WP:NPP recently because I prefer to work on well-established articles, which is also where I end up finding vandals and therefore making visits to WP:AIV and WP:RPP. Gary King (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Questions

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I am pleased with all of my article contributions, which can be found at User:Gary King#Successful nominations. I am especially pleased with my two Featured Topics, two Featured Articles, ten Featured Lists, 28 Good Articles, and 337 articles that I created. I also help out at WP:AIV and WP:RPP; at AIV, I comment on submissions that have been submitted incorrectly, such as users who have not been warned sufficiently or users who are not actually performing vandalism. At WP:RPP, I have submitted several articles for temporary semi-protection requests. I have also spent time working on several templates because of my background as a computer programmer and I do a lot of wikignoming, which is when I usually format references and other minor issues with articles that I enjoy reading but do not have time to improve to GA or FA.
    Besides the monotony of FTs, FAs, FLs, and GAs, I have also restarted WikiProject Economics and yesterday spearheaded an effort to create the first Featured Article generated from the project (the project was just an assessment machine that assessed articles under the project's scope since its existence), at Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive. Gary King (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2. 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?
      I rarely am involved in a conflict with another editor because of what I would consider a calm demeanor to any situation that I am involved in. Most, if not all, of the conflicts that have been involved in were eventually defused because they started off as misunderstandings or minor disagreements. Gary King (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Pascal.Tesson

    I think it's great that you're a very active editor. But there's a downside to this: you get involved in so many things at such a frenzied pace that many times you don't take the time to do things right. I still believe that the incident of the categorization bot is a strong indication that you're unwilling to patiently fix your mistakes. For an other example, look at your current participation in WP:FAC: you've commented at almost each nomination. In a way this is great: comments are what FAC is about. On the other hand, there's little depth in your comments and no effort made to help fix these problems. Four days ago, you went on a request-for-semi-protection spree. I think you should focus on one thing at a time and make sure you do it right. (I have another minor side comment which I'll email if you're interested because it doesn't really belong on-wiki.) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Judgesurreal777

    Brief thought for you. Decide right now if you want to be an administrator or not, because of you want to be one, be really conciliatory toward everyone, no matter how absurd their behavior, because they will only care about how you behave. Don't yell, argue, or insult people, no matter how badly they behave, and you will be rewarded. On the other hand, if you don't ever want to be, like me, just make sure you never do anything that would get you taken to the arbcom board :) You have much more license to voice your actual mind and tell people if they are being jerks or things like that. It's two different paths, and if you go down the latter path, its probably hard to turn around and become an admin, so think about that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Have this

    This is a battery of questions I've found useful in exploring admin candidates's knowledge and understanding. Cheers, Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

    4. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    A-
    5. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    A-
    6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
    A-
    7. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
    A-
    8. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
    A-
    9. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
    A-
    10. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
    A-
    11. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    A
    Thanks, I will take a look at these questions. When I find the time, I will provide a proper answer to each one, although if I ever do become an administrator, any administrative actions that I take would be related to content contributions one way or another. Gary King (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Warren

    Frankly, I'm concerned by changes like this one to the Microsoft Windows article. First of all, "cl" is not a good edit summary when adding completely new content to the encyclopedia. It just isn't. Any editor with tens of thousands of edits should know that the real purpose of edit summaries is to help other editors understand what the heck it is you're doing, and if necessary, why. Second, the specific content added suggests that Gary King is not particularily interested in building coherent articles. Why would companies that Microsoft has acquired need to be mentioned in the lead section for an article about Microsoft Windows? What's the logical, rational thinking behind this? We already have an article, List of acquisitions by Microsoft to list such things. The two companies mentioned as acquisition targets have no bearing on Windows in and of itself.

    It should be made very clear that edits like this damage the quality of the encyclopedia, and are certainly not welcome. -/- Warren 11:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I better close this Editor Review, as it seems that most of the more recent reviews here are just people who encountered a few of my earlier edits and aren't interested in looking at my more recent ones? Gary King (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    l337p4wn

    l337p4wn (talk · contribs) Well, I'm a teenage editor that's been onboard since late 2005. I love to contribute my information to Wikipedia! I want to be reviewed because I want to see what people think, and what they think I should change. :D L337p4wn (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    This is totally unrelated to the review but I thought I would point out that on your user page you mention the year you were born and follow up by saying that you don't want to disclose your age just thought I would give you a heads up... OK now on to the review.
    Looking at your talk page it looks like you are a pretty helpful person who people look to for advice (and have volunteered to adopt users). That is always a nice thing to see! So I moved on to your diffs. I did notice one revert you did that appears to be part of a users attempt at improving an article here but it's easy to run into that kind of thing on RC patrol. Outside of that I have to say that everything looked clean and straight forward. I would say you have done some great work on reverting vandalism, and some good calls with grammar improvements and cleaning things up in general. I can't really think of anything to suggest to improve on, but perhaps a more experienced editor could come up with something so you might want to keep this review up. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! I truthfully don't know why I reverted that edit...

    Also, I'm keeping my age posted. I'll take the risks. :) L337*P4wn 03:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I figured it was something like that, I have tripped over a couple myself and have a plan to go through old edits now that I have done a couple of reviews of other people I wanna spot check my own RC patrolling to make sure I didn't miss any that I slipped up on %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 04:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      Actually, I am kinda satisfied with my Recent Changes patrolling! I think that vandalism is a thing that we all need to get rid of, or at least lower.
    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?
      Well, sometimes I have had some stress because of an accidental redirect, but it wasn't that bad. I deal with it by simply taking a 10 minute break, and then start up again :D.

    Electricbassguy

    Electricbassguy (talk · contribs) I am looking for advice on how to be a better user. Electricbassguy (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    Ok, so I started off looking at your user talk page, and right away I saw the warning you got for the linkin park page. That was a long time ago so I am going to skip over it and try to stick to more recent stuff. The big thing that stands out is the many many delete tags which has me thinking that WP:Notable might be something worth reading and rereading if you haven't already pretty much committed it to memory yet (joking) because not only does it tell you what not to write about but it also helps out for how to keep what you write up and online WP:REF has some great help on that type of thing as well.
    So then I moved to your diffs, saw a lot of baseball articles and very few edit summaries. I took a look at your previous ER, and saw how the advice was to focus your interests in articles and to not be "sarcastic" in your summaries. To me, I think you took that a little too literally. I would say branching out a bit might help you to enjoy Wikipedia more. As far as the edit summaries go, I would say just state the obvious. so for example in this edit you could have said "Adding section: Scott Hollerman" which has 2 benefits, first it helps other editors to know what you did without even needing to look at the diff, they can just consider what they read in the article and know what it is you are talking about, and the other thing it does is protects you from over-active RC patrollers. Many people are using scripts and programs and rush through recent changes without really paying much attention, if you were deleting a section and someone really didn’t know that it didn’t belong they might revert it.
    Hope that this info is helpful


    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      My edits to the Baseball Mogul page and my creation of pages for obscure baseball players.
    2. 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?
      Not really, though I have re-created a couple of speedily deleted pages that I thought were unfairly deleted, and that was frowned upon. I also used to (more than a year ago) use sarcasm on my edit summaries.

    CopaceticThought

    CopaceticThought (talk · contribs) I am studying to be a high school teacher and am passionate about all forms of learning, so I wish to make Wikipedia as educational as possible. CopaceticThought (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • Review by Sykko - Talk to me (This being only my 2nd Editor Review you may still want a review by another editor)
    I started off with your contributions by browsing on wannabe_kate and saw that you had good feedback on the child pornography and I see it really goes in line with the userbox on your page stating that you are willing to make difficult edits by being willing to get involved in what I personally would consider a difficult subject.
    From there I paid attention more to the types of edits you have made and where. Very diverse articles which I think is a very good thing because it shows that you have a good range on things.
    As for vandal issue, I didn’t notice much so I really cant comment on it well enough. I noticed you were in the middle of a couple of things but nothing that made you seem like you were getting personal.
    I loved your contributions to the 1000 things not to write about list "Speculation on why most trolls can't spell, punctuate, or capitalize." very funny!
    All in all I would say you've made some good edits and helped out with a great range of articles. I think you are doing a good job at accomplishing your goal of "Wikipedia as educational as possible." %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 06:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why? Keeping the lethal injection article up to date in light of recent court decisions, and creation of Darnell Jackson.

    2. 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? Yes. My insistence on following through with vandalism and POV issues have led to me getting into a few user conflicts, which is why I am requesting this.

    UBeR

    UBeR (talk · contribs) It's been over a year since my last (and first) editor review. The review was very informative, and I've used that information to alter the way I edit Wikipedia. I can only hope for an equally helpful review, as much as changed since then.

    Unlike when my first review was being commented on, I have significantly reduced how much I edit Wikipedia (see Interiot's tool). But I plan to come back with vigor (but refreshed), which is one reason I've started this review. I used to edit controversial articles, namely global warming (and related), to ensure Wikipedia's policies were being adhered to, namely WP:NPOV. I still do edit those articles from time to time, but I've largely given up on it and often simply ignore their farce disputes. I spend most of my time editing articles relating to glaciology, geology, and paleoclimatology, but have taken some interest in Latin American history and American politics.

    I hope for useful comments, positive or negative. Thanks. UBeR (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    This is my first Editor Review so you may want more than I can offer at the moment but here goes:
    I liked your reply to Remember the dot on your user talk page. You politely let the user know that you weren't able to help them out while adding a little humor. It is always nice to see people who don't take things too seriously around here and as a newer editor it is something I consider to be very important. Actually, I noticed that on your talk page in general you seem to have a really good attitude and seemed easy to talk to.
    When looking through your contribs page I payed closest attention to your small edits. The main thing that stood out is that while you had good summaries there were a few minor edits that weren't marked as minor. To me that isn't as big of a deal, because each time your edit summaries made it clear that it was something simple and minor such as typo or add reflist which show very clearly without needing to look at the diff that it is a minor edit. Minor or not, all of your edits out of the ones I looked at seemed to be good calls and helpful in general. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 05:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, thanks for the review! I'm not very active anymore, so most of my edits are minor these days. ~ UBeR (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I've throughly enjoyed editing Quaternary glaciation, an article about the current ice age. It will someday be a featured article. Editing execution of Saddam Hussein was fun, and I believe it too will be a featured article in the near future. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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?
      Oh, yes. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Amillion

    Amillion (talk · contribs) I have been an editor since August of 2006 (probably even earlier, since I didn't have an account at first), but I've only recently become a particularly active one. I'm not terribly technologically literate, and I had no idea what I was doing when I first arrived, so it's been a steep learning curve. I'd like to know what other editors think about the progress I've made thus far, and what I might do to further improve the quality of my contributions. As far as my level of civility goes, I would like to point you in the direction of heated debates in which I have participated so that you may judge for yourselves: [17], [18], [19] and [20], [21]).Amillion (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    Review by Dusti
    I would first like to commend you by your improvement in the use of the edit summary. If you have a goal of adding your name to this list one day, that'll come to your benifit. Also, being an Adopter and contributing to other reviews is also a good move. One thing that I have noticed (again assuming you want to become an Admin someday) that will not help your RFA is your sporadic editing.

    Helpful Items

    • Continue using the edit summary
    • Continue your editing, but try to remain constant at least a few months before you wish to have an RFA (if that's what your aiming for)
    • Be an asset to your Adoptee

    Other than that, I think your doing great!! Good Job and happy editing, DustiSPEAK!! 00:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I have contributed a great deal to the Unschooling article. Although my initial edits weren't great (I was still learning how to use Wikipedia at that point), I think I've done a lot to improve the quality of that article.
    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?
      I have had a couple of conflicts with other editors. The first was a result of making significant edits to an article without first discussing it on the talk page (something I did not yet know I was supposed to do). Another editor took it personally and said some less than civil things. I didn't return to that article for quite a while. Whenever I feel the desire to say something uncivil, I remember that incident. I try to remain as level-headed as possible and discuss the issue at hand calmly and rationally. I'm not sure that I've always succeeded, but I do my best.
    4. Why did you warn a vandal on the talk page of the Unschooling article? (diff) - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Because I did not know the preferred way to do it at that point. I subsequently did a little research and discovered it. Amillion (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is an archived editor review. Please do not modify it. If you wish to request a new editor review, please follow the instructions here.

    Gears of War

    Gears of War (talk · contribs) I have been on wikipedia and artibuted a goo amount, proving that I can be trusted. But then suddenly, I noticed that most of my edits were being undone and most of my pages have been deleted. But then I thought"Well I have done some good contribs" but then again why are they being reverted. I am working on many things at once and I really want to know if I have been doing the right things on wikipedia. Gears Of War 13:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • Seems like you do a lot of edits on video game articles and the Grey Griffins (series). While those are great edits, you should involve yourself more in AfD's, FLC's, FAC's, and GAN's, being involved in these discussions will help you become a better user, and you can learn the basis of good articles. Also I noticed your edit count, you need to use your Edit Summary more often, as it is helpful to read about your edit. Regards.--~SRS~ 03:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the reverts and deletions of your contributions, I believe they are simply part of the steep learning curve on Wikipedia. Even though anybody can edit Wikipedia and is encouraged to do so, actually editing here is not the easiest thing to do. I believe your heart is in the right place; you want to improve Wikipedia. But you simply lack the experience and knowledge of common practices and policies. In your defense, there are a good number of them, many of which can be complicated and confusing. I know I didn't have a good grasp of them when I first started out, and I'm still in the dark about some things.
    Truco's suggestion to involve yourself in various types of discussions is a good one that'll give you a broader view of what is required to successfully edit on Wikipedia. You'll see which policies are applied to what circumstances and develop a better sense of what type of edits articles require to climb the quality scale. Another avenue to pursue is Peer review. They are less formal than WP:GAN and WP:FAC, but operate in a similar way by reviewing an article and providing suggestions to improve it.
    If you are unsure about whether an edit will be constructive or not, you can also start a discussion on the article's talk page and get feedback from other edits. This way you can modify your edit before it is even made. Leaving a note on the talk page is also good practice because it involves like-minded editors and is a polite way to initiate collaboration. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Gears of War is, in my opinion, a spirited young editor who has overall a good command of the WP editing tools and many of the article-based guidelines. He is relatively new to the Video Games project, and as such started off as many editors do (including myself): By adding a number of new articles, making significant edits to existing ones, and making lots of suggestions and requests in WT:VG (some of which may be off-topic). This is not a problem, per se - it's to be expected, and it is something that I think more experienced (more "seasoned") regular editors should be mindful and tolerant of, perhaps more so than we tend to be sometimes. (I am including myself in this statement.)
    I've reviewed a number of GoW's edits and think that the general quality of his work is good, but maybe a little misdirected. Moreover, though, the incident that RobJ1981 referred to is an example of how I think GoW may tend to take things too personally at times, such as criticisms of his edits or being told that he's stepping outside the bounds of WP policy. After he took some time to calm down, GoW apologized for the outburst and agreed to work constructively with me and other VGProj members, and the situation has been resolved to my satisfaction. I think that the resolution of this issue shows that GoW is definitely willing to learn how the community works - this is refreshing to see. Additionally, I've asked GoW to trust me to the extent that if/when I criticize something he does, I am criticizing the behavior, and not him personally. In other words, I will always mean "This action is not constructive / misguided / against policy or consensus / etc.", not "You are a bad person", and I will try to include suggestions on how to improve or avoid the action in the future. He has agreed to this.
    Following up on an off-wiki suggestion by another editor, I've recommended that GoW seek out a mentor in the VGProj, as this person could work more closely with him to "show him the ropes", as it were. I respectfully declined the role myself because I don't have the time or energy to devote to this at the moment.
    In closing, I think GoW is a good editor with a lot of potential, and I fully believe that (except in situations like the aforementioned incident) he edits in good faith. With time, I think he'll develop a thicker skin for criticism. I know that one of GoW's aspirations is to become an administrator, and I don't believe this is out of the question by any means. I do think it will take some time, and that GoW has much to learn, but I've encouraged him to not let the above incident get him down. Once he has shown that he can handle stressful situations gracefully and not let people get under his skin, nothing more will need to be said about it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I think one of my BEST edits of wikipedia was my edits of Grey Griffins (series) article. I have done a HUGE amount to this article and have risen it from a stub class to a B class. I am still working ever so tire lessly to move it to GA class.
    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?
      I have had a couple of conflicts here and there. One was the conflict I had with Metros. I had created an article here, I was still a new editor and had created many articles. I believed that Metros was just bullying me and I got very angry with him. I reacted immarturaly and then cut off all discusions with Metros. Later I came back and apologized and I went back to editing. Then I had a tiny issue with Orangmike at here and here. I asked Orangemike about advice for an article and suprised me with the fact that all the article of the Grey Griffins series should be deleted. I simply asked him why and then fought for the article's rights on wikipedia. Then there was the conflict I had with another user. Check it out here: here , here and here. I thought this user was contributing to vandalism and I went about it the wrong way, we settled it by deciding that we should always stick together.

    Unisouth

    Unisouth (talk · contribs) Hi, I am Unisouth. I am an established editor having edited articles on Wikipedia for nearly two and a half years. I would like to be reviewed to see if my contributions have been worth the time and effort I have put into them. UNI|SOUTH 07:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    You asked: "I would like to be reviewed to see if my contributions have been worth the time and effort I have put into them." That is a difficult question to answer. How do you evaluate the worth of your time? Depending on your life circumstances, your time may be cheap or expensive. How do you evaluate the value of a Wikipedia article? That is a very difficult question to answer. Some will say the number of page-views an article receives - a variant on impact factor for academic journals - demonstrates how important that article is. Others will say an article should be evaluated for its quality designation, e.g. "Good Article," "A Class," or "Featured Article." I don't know if any one metric can attach value to a project on which we work for free, as a volunteer enterprise.

    I did enjoy looking at the pictures on fingerpost, the article you cited in Q1. If your goal is to teach total strangers about interesting topics, you are succeeding. This project is all about sharing our knowledge with total strangers.

    I noticed on your userpage that you say you want to be an administrator. If you make a request I'd give it serious consideration, but your answer to Q2 worries me. Did you really get into a fight about who was the "lead editor" for two months? I don't have all the context here, but that sounds kinda stupid. If it's worth discussing, drop me a line. Otherwise, save your energy for more important problems. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      My favourite contribution to Wikipedia has to be my Fingerpost article. It was one of my first articles back in 2006. I decided to write it due to its oddity and its place in British transport history. It started off small and quite undignified but grew with help from other editors to a major part in the British Road Signs group of articles. It is also one of the biggest articles in the genre showing how much interest there is in its history. It probably has even raised its appeal.
    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?
      Being a serious editor I have come accross many conflicts in the past. A fairly recent one being with the article Eastern Gray Squirrel. I reverted an edit as it was causing an image code to be damaged thus the image will not show. This is because the image name itself has 'grey' in it. The other editor thus changed it to 'gray' causing it to break. However after talking about it we got the image name changed on the commons and therefore the image code was fixed. An ongoing dispute which has caused some stress is with my WikiProject London Transports newsletter - The Metropolitan. Conflicts over the design and layout and who was the lead editor. Again after talking for over two months we come to the conclusion that we should both become the joint Lead Editors. We are now currently working on a new desing for Issue 6.
    The following discussion is an archived editor review. Please do not modify it. If you wish to request a new editor review, please follow the instructions here.

    Scetoaux

    Scetoaux (talk · contribs) I've been a member of Wikipedia since March 2006, but my editing has been rather sporadic. My active contributions to Wikipedia started at around February of this year. I'm currently undergoing admin coaching with Malinaccier at User:Scetoaux/Admin coaching, aiming for maybe a July or August RFA. I'm mainly a wikignome and recent changes patroller for antivandalism work, but I have also created some articles and made significant expansions or work on others. —  scetoaux (T|C) 01:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I'm rather pleased with my contributions to articles related to the Civil Air Patrol. I have made significant changes to the Civil Air Patrol article, the History of the Civil Air Patrol article, and have created the Maryland Wing Civil Air Patrol article. Other articles I have created are Poverty's No Crime and L-Tronics. I have also done significant work on Maryland High School Assessments and Continuum (instrument)
    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?
      Certainly I have been in conflicts over editing. I generally hold myself to a 1 revert rule, although I have never explicitly stated this. If a change of mine is reverted, I always discuss with other editors before changing an article back to my version. More important to me than having my contributions included is the prevention of edit wars.

    Danielaustinhall12

    Danielaustinhall12 (talk · contribs) I'm adding myself because another user suggested that I should, and I also think I should see what problems I have that need to be taken care of. Danielaustinhall12 (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • Hi there Danielaustinhall12. Well done on creating the Thrust Air 2000 article. Looks good and plenty of info, but it could do with some citations to back up the information, such as a few web links and news articles. Have a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources which should help with this.
    • You very rarely use edit summarys to let others know what your doing. While its not compulsory, many users find it helpful to know the nature of your edit without having to delve into the history each time. Try to be concise and informative, for example here where you used the edit summary well. Also, with small edits like that you might like to check the "minor" tab.
    • I did noticed your RfA which didn't succeed. I've never seen an RfA pass with under 1000 mainspace edits, and you currently have just over 160, but don't be discouraged by this. You need to build up your mainspace edits, comment on a few articles for deletion and get involved with a few of these. Also take a look at the Community Portal where you can get some more ideas of things to get involved with. There are many, many things you can help out with without being an administrator, and they will all count in your favor if you decide to reapply.
    • Overall you are an enthusiastic editor with a good attitude. Keep up the good work!! D0762 (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Advice from Dlohcierekim .

    You may find the following advice helpful. If you have not done so already, please read

    Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Also, nominees returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 3,000 edits and 3 months before trying again. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
    The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
    Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
    Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience. Alternatively, one should have added a total of 30,000 bytes of content, not necessarily all in one article. I find a large number of "Wikignome" type edits to be helpful. Hope this helps. Dlohcierekim 13:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      I am particularly pleased with my creation of Thrust Air 2000 because it is a page that I made completely by myself.
    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?
      I have been in a edit conflict in which I put that the band UNDEROATH is screamo and others disagreed with me and said the they were exclusively metalcore. I dealt with it by giving citations, and I will do the same in the future.
    The following discussion is an archived editor review. Please do not modify it. If you wish to request a new editor review, please follow the instructions here.

    Sceptre

    Sceptre (talk · contribs) I'm adding myself to Editor Review because it won't hurt to see where I need to improve things. Sceptre (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviews

    • I've known you for what seems like forever here and at WR. Yes, wikidrama is not good for your health, although I can't resist it either. Those are some pretty impressive articles you've put forth, especially the M62 Motorway. Keep up the good work, and feel better. Yechiel (Shalom) 16:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • I'd be willing review your editing, if you are interested. You may be thinking, "oh, Z00r... I've disagreed with that guy on pretty much everything, he must be trolling me". Well, that is not my intention. Let me know if you are interested. Z00r (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Questions

    1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
      See User:Sceptre/contribs. I'm particularly pleased with my contributions to M62 motorway (first article I've ever edited, promoted to GA in November 2007, and Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), which went from stub to FA in fifteen days (which I think is a record - it went from stub to FA in 62 hours).
    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?
      I've been an editor of Wikipedia for three years, so it's an inevitability that I've been being in conflicts in the past. I'm not exactly the nicest of people in conflicts, but I'm not going to be a dick like I have done on several events in the past.
      Additionally, I'm going to disengage from seeking drama. I might comment on ANI now and again, but other than that I'll mostly Wikignome. Drama-whoring doesn't go well with illness. Sceptre (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review&oldid=219315015"