Wikipedia:Editor review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

General information
   Main page
   Discussion
   Backlog
   Archives
   Templates
edit · changes
Shortcut:
WP:ER

Editor Review is a way that any user can have his/her contribution to Wikipedia evaluated by peers, who will provide tips and pointers on areas for improvement. If you are here because your goal is to become an administrator, you should direct yourself to Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Editor review seeks to review your contributions as an editor only, not as an administrator candidate.

Anybody can ask for an editor review, regardless of their tenure at Wikipedia.

When asking for a review, please consider doing a review of another editor.

Purge page cache if reviews haven't updated.

[edit] Guidelines

Editors are asked to remain civil and assume good faith.

When reviewing, consider:

  • User conduct - informative edit summaries, constructive comments on talk page, any problems indicated on user talk page, etc.
  • Number and types of edits - is the editor doing a lot of the same type of minor edits (if so, why?); is reverting vandalism accompanied by the right level of warnings and by reports to WP:AIV as appropriate; is the editor contributing (constructively, not rotely) to XfDs, etc.

Users with an asterisk next to their name in the subheader have not been reviewed at all yet. Users may still need further reviews even if they do not have an asterisk.

Here is the backlog for unreviewed requests.

[edit] Requesting reviews

If you would like to be reviewed, please follow the steps below:

  • Create a subpage using the box below, replacing "USERNAME" with your own username. NOTE: Please make sure there is no space after your username, as this makes it hard for reviewers to reach your request.
  1. If you have had a previous editor review, don't overwrite it. Instead, repost it (if it was recent and received little feedback), or create a new one appending a number after your username (usually, 2 if it is your second review, 3 if it is the third, etc).
  2. Do not save the new page yet!. Replace "STATEMENT" in the edit box at the bottom of the page with a brief message about yourself and why you want to be reviewed.
  3. Save the page.
  4. Next, answer the questions. Please be specific in your answers.
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:Editor review/USERNAME}} to the top of the list on the Editor Review page.
  6. Then you will be reviewed. Once you are happy with the feedback received, remove your section and archive it.
  7. Optionally, you can put the {{Editor review}} template or the {{Editor review sticker}} template on your user page to advertise the review page.

[edit] Archives

Sections with at least one review will be archived at Wikipedia:Editor review/Archives thirty (30) days after they have been created.

Contents

[edit] Reviews

Add new requests below this line

[edit] Valley2city

Valley2city (talk • contribs) Hi everyone! I've been an editor on Wikipedia for over a year and a half now and really never had constructive feedback as to how I have been doing. I have done a lot of gnome tasks as well as a large amount of work on the Counter-Vandalism Unit, but have also made a substantial amount of contributions to Wikipedia and I am immensely curious as to what people think. Thanks in advance, --Valley2city₪‽ 17:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hi Valley2city. When I think of Hebrew, I think of religion, lol. Anyways, regarding you as a Wikipedian, while the experience is definitely there (editor since November 2005, active editor since June 2006), I would like to comment on couple things:
  • Your interest is on Jewish-related topics. That is great; however, I don't find much of it. Selichot and Shemini Atzeret looks awesome, but they are both essentially still stubs. You need to find a article and adopt it, and you will develop your prestige. Your prestige will be crucial in your success in RFA, which you are interested in the future.
I was trying to find out more about you, but I have to stay your user page is not very useful. I doubt other users would like to read your philosophy on Wikipedia. Most people are interested on user's personality and interests, so they can engage better in discussions. On a side note, I don't think you have communicated enough with other users - subtract the auto reverts, your user talk edit is quite low.
  • Other than those, all I have to say is that you should maintain a higher average of activity. Some quality discussion in WP:AFD, which is good. Good user, cheers! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 01:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am certainly proud of my contributions to wikipedia. In particular, I have been very involved in projects of WikiProject:Judaism, especially the series on Holidays. I created the article on Shemini Atzeret and greatly expanded Selichot. These two occasions are not widely known even in the Jewish world and I am glad that I can share my expertise in these subjects, at the same time learning new things from other articles (see why on my userpage). I have also spent a lot of time on tweaking templates. I am particularly proud of this because I do not tend to be a graphical person.
  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?
    We are all human and all have opinions and there is no one who is free of biases. I do get impassioned with certain issues, especially those relating to Israel, yes; however, my job as an editor is to remain as unbiased as possible. That is not to say things have not gotten heated. When my personal biases come into conflict with the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, then I try to recuse myself from the discussion.

[edit] Real96

Real96 (talk • contribs) I am a user who has been around since January 2007. I have been heavily involved with articles relating to Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell. I have also participated in the Biography Assessment Drive as well as WP:ALBUM assessments. I help out at the help desk, help file cases on WP:CHECK, as well as mentor three new Wikipedians. I have been here for almost three months. Any comments would be appreciated. Real96 22:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • It is my pleasure to review you. Foremost, I am very surprised that you didn't reveal the fact that you constantly revert vandalism, or that you have racked over 6000 edits in three months (I, for one, have only 3000 edits in 6 months)! You seem to be a very efficient user, and have experience in almost all aspects of WIkipedia. I don't know of any tweaks you have thus far. If you are considering adminship, you may need a little more experience (I would say, two or three months) and you will be guaranteed to pass with flying colors. If not, you are doing an amazing job here. Happy editing! Sr13 (T|C) 06:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You are a great user and have an impressive amount of edits in Mainspace, I too would leave the adminship for a few months and get more experience, it would be good to see some more article work and work in WP:XFD but except for that you are doing excellent! Thanks - Tellyaddict 11:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Generally, I help new users who don't know how to structure a page. I am currently going to expand Tammi Terrell in a couple of weeks. My goal is to make this a GA article. I also helped to nominate Dreamgirls (film) into a Good article.
  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 have been in minor conflicts, but the main conflict that I have been involved with concerned assessing Judy Garland with Outrigger's script. The discussion is listed on the the talk page and on one of my archives. Personally, I took a break in the discussion of the assessment portion. Whenever there is conflict, I avoid the discussion temporarily and/or ask for a second opinion.

[edit] Roastytoast*

Roastytoast (talk • contribs) I've been here for a while and would like to know how I'm doing. I mainly do WikiGnome stuff and make userboxes. Review Away!ROASTYTOAST 21:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviews


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Recently I started the WikiProject Arena Football League and we now have 10 members.
  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?
    No, not really. Besides for vandals attacking me, which didn't really phase me. But, I would take to discussing the matter.

[edit] Lakers

Lakers (talk • contribs) My work here is mostly vandal fighting, and warning the users of there vandalism whether it is a accident or not. I would like a review on my behalf for improvements. Thank you. Lakers 04:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • On this edit, you warned a user with a test-4. The user has last vandalized three months ago. When giving warnings to users, do test-1, test-2, etc. (shown in User:Real96/96:FEW#Warning_Users). Dynamic IPs can change (especially AOL) from time to time. Real96 04:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, you registered a year ago, but made a surge in editing. I think in WP:RFA, that may be looked down upon. Real96 04:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I see, I should wait months to come to actually request RFA first. The warning was a mistake I guess, I might have given another warning if they continued than reported them, thanks. Lakers 05:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I revert hundreds of vandalism daily, I would say that is what is significant about my contributions at Wikipedia. I'm looking forward to become an admin in a few months if my reviews are positive after I have improved. I would like to help in all areas of the backlog, I vote for Afd's, I assess articles, I do stub sorting everything that is available for improvement. Lakers 04:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  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?
    My experience here is usually without conflicts, I usually try to help both parties in conflicts and succeed to both there likings that is all, if a member of the certain party is being disruptive and is obvious I would report it, so it won't disrupt both parties into achieving there goal. Lakers 04:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DennyColt*

DennyColt (talk • contribs) I've been actively reading Wikipedia for ages but didn't do much besides the odd IP edit here and there (typos mainly, grammar stuff) from AOL and Roadrunner previously. I logged in on a lark to fix a typo one day and to try making an article (I cheated at first, just copying the layout from another bio article and redoing the shell of the layout into the Tim Kirk article) and some vandal account immediately tagged me for vandalism. I found the ANI boards after googling for admin help to report the guy, and through that ended up finding out about RC/recent changes patrol. RC seemed like a nice way to help out on a site I loved reading, so I started to do that in my spare time. It seemed like a good way to learn the ins and outs as well, and how people did stuff by watching them work at it. I ended up making some more articles, and just tried to do a bit more here and there as I learned more of the site's ebbs and flows. I love reading about the history of Wikipedia as well, and ended up doing work on articles like the Essjay controversy, and also try to help on BLP and policy issues (still learning, there) as well when I see them. I am a firm believer in not enabling disruptive trolls or vandals. I want to make sure I've been helpful so far, and wanted to get some feedback on my work so far, and to where I could go next. Thanks! - Denny 18:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviews


Comments

Questions


  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
My work on the RegisterFly article which I jumped into after it was made and I heard about it. It seemed like such an interesting story I couldn't resist. I made Template:BttfSidebar, and have been planning when time permits to go back and redo all the major Back to the Future articles... the three film ones, and the timeline one to try for FA status on all four. I also made Template:Wikipediahistory, which I am especially proud of mostly for being the first to think of it. I am also very proud of my efforts overall to help beat back the waves of vandals on RC patrol. Also, for the header on the Watchlist for the WP:ATT poll. Yes, I know its annoying, but it's needed, and for helping to get that horrible thing at least started. Yes, I know voting is very evil, but what could we do? It was going to start no matter what, so go for a neutral starting format I figured.


  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?
I helped out (I don't even know how I got into that mess now) on the Daniel Brandt fiasco. I wanted to see if the guy actually was notable, and found 60+ sources showing he was without trying. Given that heated cesspool of a mess, I think I held my calm very well. There was very moderate wikistress on the ATT poll issue. I'll detail. I had been trying to follow the mess that was the conversation/stalemate/anarchy on the planning talk page. After reading it a long while, it seemed like there was a couple of relative concensus points. So, on a lark, I made a quick straw poll to see what most preferred, which panned out to no one complaining about the idea. Soon there were a couple more ideas on the straw poll and forward progress. Next thing you know... the poll was live. I was super-careful to not ever remove ideas there--I actually integrated about everything suggested, and I got a bit sensitive to even implied accusations of my possiblying "owning" the poll process.
As no one ever said they weren't happy with my attempts at concensus building till the 9th hour, when a couple of 'newbies' relative to the work done up to that point sort of jumped on me and a few others over it. I got a bit flustered over that, since I had deliberately tried to *not* OWN the page. Anytime people asked for something or did something, I never tried to fight it, but accused of ownership anyway either outright or indirectly, which felt a bit stinging. In the future I'd like to try to be less averse to getting tagged like that, but I suppose it's bound to happen. I'm not sure why the ownership issue is so particular for me... I think its because I'm a super-firm believer in the ideals of concensus and that no-one ever should have any kind of super authoratative control over a system like this. The idea of an oligarchy terrifies me as an evil thing.
  1. Have you edited Wikipedia with another account? I am not asking whether you currently do, only whether you ever have. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grace Note (talk • contribs). 03:51, April 4, 2007
    I edited anonymously here and there over the past year or two, fixing the odd error, but nothing beyond that, no. Why do you ask? - Denny 05:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    It is impossible to answer that and remain within the bounds of WP:AGF, so I decline. Grace Note 23:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reywas92*

Reywas92 (talk • contribs) Hello! I've been here on the Wiki for nearly a year now, and I'm quite interested in becoming an admin. I have 3500 edits, 2200 in mainspace, with fairly good summary usage. I will often CSD new articles, I participate often in XfD, and obviously patrol RC. Backlog is much too high and vandalism is on the rise, so I'd like some input on what I can do to better myself for an RfA. Thank you very much in advance for your comments. Reywas92Talk 03:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviews


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I don't particularly have major edits I am proud of, but anywhere I have made many edits I like. I make more minor edits - copyediting and vandalism reverting, but I wish I could make bigger edits. I only regret that I am not quite knowledgeable of most topics to make major edits. Wikipedia is already so big that it has nearly everything; I can't add too much more!
  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 have been in many minor conflcts on rather minor things, but nothing in particular has caused much stress or needed arbitration. I must remember to post on talk before reverting again.

[edit] Malcolm*

Malcolm (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) Again I just want to know how I'm doing in general. (first ER, second ER, third ER, first RfA, second RfA) — MalcolmUse the schwartz! 01:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviews


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I haven't done many contributions to articles lately, having recently become an admin. I have worked on Mario (before the overhaul) primarily. I've also contributed to Luigi's Mansion and List of Mario antagonists.
  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?
    One ongoing conflict with Henchman 2000 (talk • contribs) and Bowsy (talk • contribs) over minigame lists of Mario Party. It's a long story, and I'll explain it tomorrow, as I have to leave Wikipedia for now (I know, it's sad).

[edit] Carom*

Carom (talk • contribs) Doing this out of curiosity, mostly, because it is always interesting, in a communal/collaborative project, to find out what the community thinks of your contributions. Also: I'm not neccessarily interested in adminship, so broader comments would be appreciated. Carom 01:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviews


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am the primary maintainer of Portal:World War I, which is a featured portal, so I am quite pleased with that; Portal:World War II is also working in that direction.
  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've been in a few minor conflicts (mostly disagreements over article assessment), none of which were particularly heated, and all of which were resolved amicably through communication.

[edit] quatreryukami*

quatreryukami (talk • contribs) As I eventually hope to accend to admin status (having previously failed) I would like input on how I can better help Wikipedia. I will be using this review to improve to hopefully just a well known user, and a good editor. I know my edits are not very big, and I don't have many, but I would like to know what others think Quatreryukami 01:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    All of my edits I am pleased with, but I am particularly proud of my edits to Rakion and I am currently working on GI Online which, as you can see, needs lots of love.
  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?
    Maybe; I have debated, but never got in a edit war ( I always take steps to avoid it) and I tend to look for general consensus in arguements, before I even post. I hope to continue doing the same.

Quatreryukami 01:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jared*

Jared (talk • contribs) Hello, I'm Jared (formerly JP06035) and I've been editing for a while now. Basically, I've come here to gauge where I'm at. I've RfA'd myself twice: the first time I know in retrospect was too early. The second, I think a single "conflict" was blown out of proportion. Nevertheless, I think I've amply recovered, and I'd like to see where I should go next.

I focus most of my editing (if not all) on Olympics-related articles. Our WikiProject has been doing well, and I've greatly contributed to the goings-on there. I've looked into admin stuff recently, too, like the noticeboards, and expressed my opinions in XfDs and FXCs. And that's about it! └Jared┘┌talk┐  23:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Well, I'm pleased with my Olympics-related contributions. There may not be a specific article I am pleased with per se, but there are definitely hundreds of Olympics articles that I have greatly contributed to and some I have brought up to GA. Of them, though, I've done a lot with 2008 Summer Olympics and recently 2012 Summer Olympics bids (although my colleague has done most of the work there to prep for FA, I did a lot of GA prep work). My work seems to be constantly flowing, as I go where I'm needed by the rest of my colleagues at WP:OLYMPICS, only occasionally drifting to work on my own projects.
  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?
    The few conflicts I do get into, they are mostly conflict of opinion things, where I may believe one thing whereas others may believe something else. Sometimes, it seems my strongly opinionated mind gets me in trouble, but I tend to keep a clear, straight head (for the most part). I think my major "problem" is learning to hold back even when I know someone is being a total jerk. It'll just make me mad sometimes, but I pretty much have that under control. I don't stress. In the future, I know that everyone has different opinions, so I have to come at the situation with an open mind knowing this.

[edit] ANNAfoxlover

ANNAfoxlover (talk • contribs) I'm Anna. I would like to be reviewed because someone suggested it on my talk page. Also, I want to know what other people think of me as a Wikipedia user. I do want to become an administrator in the future, but in the meantime, I want some tips from other users. Also, I am a member of WP:-D, and I am trying to make every user feel at home here at Wikipedia. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 20:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Here's my review:


  1. Take a look in the edit window, compare your sig to mine, see a difference? Your's is 5 lines long at shortest, mine is 3 in a condensed state. Try shortening it.
  2. Also try to avoid signing sig books / editing your userpage (like I should talk ;-)
  3. Try doing some anti-vandalism work.
Don't nominate yourself for adminship until you have a higher mainspace edit count percentage (see your talk page for a further discussion).


I hope this helped.  ~Steptrip 01:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with signing sig books? I only do that now in my spare time, after I edit the mainspace in the morning. And I am doing anti-vandalism work, but am I doing enough? I think I am, but what about you? But I'll take your advice and try to shorten my signature. It is quite big. By the way, your sig is a little disruptive in the way it uses a hard-to-read font and bright colors. Do you have any suggestions for my sig? If so, (and I hope you do) please put them at the bottom of "My Signature's Evolution". A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 02:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I don't think it would be a very good idea to nominate yourself for adminship right now; you have less than 1500 edits, and only about 500 in the article space. Also, a lot of people are going to be annoyed at you for the signature books, and your signature itself. My advice: Stay here a few more months, get some more edits in the encyclopedia, and we'll see in October. Abeg92contribs 15:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, I see that your edits are going up pretty fast (2118 as of now). Still, the users above are quite right that you need a fair few more before you're ready for adminship. Some specific suggestions:
  • Concentrate on making more edits to the mainspace - only 525 of your edits are mainspace (around 25%), which could draw opposes at RfA. Both vandal-fighting and article-writing are essential; I know you already do both of these things, so keep it up.
  • More edits to the WP namespace would be good as well. Try hanging around WP:AFD, as participating in deletion discussions will give you more policy experience.
  • You can also increase your WP talkspace edits by participating in policy discussions. There's an interesting one going on at WT:AI, for instance.
  • I'm not going to complain about your sig book, high number of userspace edits etc., as I think these would be bad reasons to oppose in an RfA. What I will say is that, although some users don't like elaborate sigs and userpages, these things are more likely to be overlooked at RfA if you have enough edits to the mainspace and so on, per my comments above.
Don't be discouraged. At the rate you're going, you should be ready in 1-2 months. Just concentrate on the key areas of Wikipedia - articles, vandal-fighting, XfDs - to get appropriate experience across the encyclopedia. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, thank you very much for the encouragement. I think you have encouraged me the most in the time I have been a Wikipedian. By the way, I have a better signature. How is it? Again, thank you very much! ;-) A•N•N•A hi! 18:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
In response to Walton's review, WP:MOTD would be another great place in which you could gain some WP edits (we're highly understaffed at MOTD, and it lacks all of the heated debate present at WP:AFD.  ~Steptrip 00:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Anna recently nominated Great Barrier Reef for FAC, having never worked on the article before and then promptly went on wikibreak. I contacted her and politely (I think, you can check for yourself in her archives) asked her to do something on the (pretty lengthy prior to the FAC) to do list if she wanted to give back to the article (she had said in the FAC that she had used the article for research, so I guessed that she was nominating the article as a favour to it). I was completely ignored, despite Anna contributing to some "word association" games in the meantime. Anna has yet to contribute to the article at all. Sorry Anna, but you're getting a thumbs down from me. -Malkinann 05:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Remembering the sig deletion talk and your posts at Talk:Cuteness do not leave me thinking highly of your editing. I think you spend a little too much time in the 'Fun' mode to the point that WP is something of a playground to you. In all, I suggest you take things more seriously, and perhaps you will have chance in the future at being an admin. The Behnam 09:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with The Benham's comments. While there are far too many users out there that are much "worse" than you (that is not meant to be derogatory to you in any way), you do need to focus more on editing the encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't for fun; fun can't be counterbalanced by doing some mainspace edits in the morning. I suggest you find a website to entertain yourself that is not only built for that purpose, but somewhere you can do it without people badgering you about it all the time. In addition, I believe you have a long way to go before adminship yet, but if you keep working, it's certainly possible. Good luck. --Deskana (ya rly) 01:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, back then I was just looking for a place to have fun. I am over that now. I know that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a playground. That Talk:Cuteness thing was back in what I like to call my "not so good days". I take things seriously now, but I am still a member of WP:-D, but I know that is not the most important thing. I am much more serious now, and am editing the encyclopedia the most. I am working hard on the List of Cars characters article; IT'S A MESS!!! Oh, well. A•N•N•A hi! 02:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You could perhaps do with a slightly higher edit count, although there is no recognised minimum figure (some editores like 3,000+) But you do need to show a significantly higher participation in WP:NAMESPACE; both your wikipedia and wikitalk edit counts are too low, I believe, to satify most editors.--Anthony.bradbury 16:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:ATT, WP:3RR, WP:BLP. These are the most crucial rules in Wikipedia, in my opinion. Also, not to be nitpicky, but you need to create some articles, as well as trim down the signature to one or two lines (at max). The spam incident with the autograph book may render negative votes. In addition, you have hardly any reports to WP:AIV. That detail at this point will be looked down upon as well. Real96 05:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I believe that every contribution changes Wikipedia. Since my edits are not vandalism, I would have to say that I am proud of every contribution I make.
  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?
    When I first came to Wikipedia, I was pretty much a horrible user. I am extremely unproud of those first days. Well, what I did was I used Wikipedia as a web host for my own website, creating a survey. HighInBC and I got into quite a fight. But I'm over that now, because I know that Wikipedia's main purpose is to be a free encyclopedia. Another problem I had is when I found out about autograph pages. It turns out they were a lot of fun, and I got to know quite a few users. I guess they were too fun, since I went to users everywhere, asking them to sign my autograph page. It got way out of hand, since I got a few other users doing the same thing. I even caused an AfD discussion, putting hundreds of other users' autograph pages in danger. Deskana helped me a lot, and eventually became my current adopter. Now I am an experienced editor, editing the encyclopedia much more, and am currently working on becoming an administrator.

[edit] A Link to the Past*

A Link to the Past (talk • contribs) I want to have an Editor review so that I may one day be able to improve myself so that I can fully adhere to the "1RR" and to not be short with anyone. A Link to the Past (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Henry Fonda and Kirby's Dream Land. Also, I merged all of the Kanto locations (locations in Pokémon) into one list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  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?
    Well, I used to be shorter than an ant with people, but now I'm taller than a medium child. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] casmith_789*

casmith 789 (talk • contribs) After returning from a two month break from Wikipedia, I have decided to take up an editor review. This is to ask others what I have been doing wrong, and to help me evolve and improve as an editor. Eventually, I would like to become an administrator, however I do not feel I am ready yet, due to my lack of involvement in Wikipedia processes such as WP:AIV and talks on Wikipedia namespaces. I patrol special:newpages regularly (when I am online) and, looking through my contributions, I have noticed that CAT:CSD is not cleared as speedily as hoped. This is one of my reasons for wanting to become an administrator. Two months ago, I felt that the standard of new articles being created had increased, but now it is the same as before, and so I wish to know what else I could do to help this, and other areas of Wikipedia. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I have not created many articles, or contributed to many articles. However, the two articles I have created (Penmon (place) and Problems in coal mining) I felt were useful additions after finding that they were not on Wikipedia. I am especially pleased with the first of these two articles, and I want to get it rated (from FA class to Stub class) but I do not know where (can someone please help!?) My contributions to the mainspace, which are around 900, does not include the many articles I have tagged for speedy deletion. I am particularly pleased with my contributions there.
  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?
    Any conflicts over editing I feel have been delt with in a civil manner, and so I feel that I will act accordingly in the future. I have had a few conflicts when tagging for speedy deletion, but I feel that any conflict I have had has been sorted out quickly and efficiently and no-one involved has been hurt afterwards as a result. Other users have influenced my views on speedy deletion, but none of them have caused me stress and that is something I find good from an editing point of view.

[edit] Gnixon*

Gnixon (talk • contribs) Interested in balance of edits to articles vs. talk pages. Interested in whether discussions with other users have been useful, anti-productive, or time wasted. Thanks, everyone, for your comments. Gnixon 08:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I'm happy about promoting hat/hab archiving of recurring debates on the the Talk:Evolution page in order to keep them from dominating discussions, as well as other efforts to maintain and improve that high-volume talk page. Generally, I've tried hard to promote attainment of unbiased consensus on popular and controversial scientific articles such as Evolution and Physics in order to increase stability while encouraging further improvement.
  1. I have worked hard to encourage an expert biologist to stick with Wikipedia (see Talk:Evolution#Suggestions from Mandaclair and various talk pages), and I'm interested generally in how to encourage experts to contribute cooperatively without overwhelming them with Wikipedia culture and a cacophony of novice's opinions.
  1. I'm proud of usually maintaining civility and good faith during heated debates and encouraging others to do so, and I'm proud of focusing on Wikipedia policy and long-established consensus instead of taking sides when discussing controversial edits.
  1. I think my reorganization of Physics has been useful, particularly in that it encourages direct, bold editing of the article itself instead of pushing edits to Talk:Physics/wip. I think it will lead to further improvements, which I hope will return it to Featured Article status. I guided an addition to Stokes parameters that I think added useful new content, although it is poorly integrated with previous material.
  1. I'm proud of generally taking the time to copy-edit and otherwise attempt to improve articles as I read them for my own interest.
  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've been involved in edits conflicts with at least one editor who I think is representative of a particular class of Wikipedians who are well-intentioned but have a negative net impact.
  1. In particular, I'm very concerned that a group of editors anxious to eliminate anti-evolution bias from creationists go so far that they poison Wikipedia articles with anti-creationist POV. See, e.g., Evolution (history), Objections to evolution, Misunderstandings about evolution, and Creation-evolution controversy. This is not a small issue, given the significant presence of creationists in the U.S. and the intensity of their beliefs.
  1. I've been frustrated by what seems to be almost religious fervor for purging from Wikipedia anything remotely sympathetic or even neutral toward Creationists, along with a strong propensity to use Wikipedia articles and talk pages to disprove Creationist viewpoints, often in an extremely inflammatory way.
  1. During edit conflicts, I've attempted to follow long-established Wikipedia conventions intended to minimize strife, which include maintaining civility and humility, assuming good faith and establishing it by offering compliments, using humor to cool tensions, taking "time-outs" from discussions when necessary, and apologizing when I fail to maintain composure. I've tried very hard to avoid pushing my own preferred version of articles, instead attempting to build consensus on controversial edits of sensitive topics or heavily-owned articles. I've also spent considerable effort trying to settle quarrels as a third party (see, e.g., history of User_talk:Mandaclair.
  1. However, I've been discouraged by the apparently minimal impact of my efforts and the feeling sometimes that I'm alone defending Wikipedia principles and traditions against a united front of POV warriors and article owners. I wonder whether Wikipedia would be improved by having a group of "policy watchdogs" who collectively monitor edits to particularly vulnerable articles and the discussions about them. I know I have a lot to learn about how to make Wikipedia work, but I believe in it, and I'm trying my best.

[edit] User:Bloodpack

Bloodpack (talk • contribs) Hi! ive been here in wikipedia since the beginning of this year, and id like to know what are the things that i still need to do to help the betterment of wikipedia and also help my fellow wikipedians †Bloodpack† 17:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hello there, Bloodpack, how are you doing? Here is my review.
    • The first thing I noticed upon visiting your talk page was a warning for a unsourced image. Reviewing the different ones you have uploaded, I notice Image:Leinilyu.JPG is tagged with apparently an obsolete license (note that it suggest to use {{No rights reserved}} instead). Also, there is no text claiming the image to be free (if it is stated somewhere in the site, please add a link to there). In fact, when uploading images, try to link to both the page holding the image and the image itself, so that users can easily verify the image and the copyright text for it. The same can be said about Image:Marsravelo.jpg, there is no way for any editor to verify the image is free. As for Image:Kudeta.jpg, see if you can use a fair use rationale for it (and any other fair use image you may upload in the future).
    • Examining your statistics, with around 1,200 edits in the article namespace and 200 edits in talk pages, I see you spend some time discussing with other users about the article itself. Although I see several edits where you added different banners, in others you actively discussed. Pretty good. Also, with an average of 4.53 edits per article, I take it you are very specialized in comic-related articles. Maybe you could use that to your advantage, focusing in a single article, polishing it according to the fictional guidelines to achieve good article status.
    • Mathboth reports a very low summary usage, 40% for major edits and 25% for minor edits. Summaries are extremely useful for everyone. First, it allows other editors that have the article in their watch list to know what you did in the last change (in example, reordered sentences to match chronology, wikified section, removing some speculation, someone please add a reference for the other sentence). And second, it allows people (including you) to quickly locate revisions by just looking at the history (in example, if you want to know where your speculation was removed because it was unreferenced and you just found a reference, it is much easier to check the history and find the one that says removed speculation about wings, please add a source than having to blindly check every revision for it). I heavily suggest you to use summaries, as long as necessary to explain your changes to the articles. Even a +comic in the talk page is useful, so that people know you have just added a banner to the talk page and not asking a question (which, if they think you did, would make them go check the talk page, losing seconds that could be invested writing articles).
    Your work with the different comic-related articles is appreciated, especially your ability to write articles about unknown artists (considering most of the articles from America and Europe, don't take that as an insult!). My suggestions are basically that you spend a couple of seconds more writing an edit summary whenever you save a change (if you have problems remembering to do that, just click at Special:Preferences, go to the Editing tab, and tick the Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary option), and that you focus on an article, polish it according to our manual of style (try to encourage participation at the Collaboration of the Month), and to try to achieve good status. Maybe with time you could help also to polish one even more to featured status. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 18:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    im most pleased with the articles i contributed specially those that i started, it provides additional information in wikipedia, the clean-ups and the minor edits. i strongly believe that even with the little edits i do, it means a big help in wikipedia
  • Comment can you provide any links to your contributions in order for editors to have something to assess you by, please? (aeropagitica) 15:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
im most pleased with the Russian (comics) article and seeing it how it improved when i first started it. also with the Carlo Vergara article
  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 learned that different people have different attitudes, its just a matter of how you deal with them, but i try to be reasonable as possible and avoid personal attacks, as i also respect the other party's personal opinion
  • Comment Can you provide diffs to any conflicts in which you have participated, please? (aeropagitica) 15:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
the article that i started Pat Lee caused me to be involved in an edit conflict. it started out with this which eventually led to this

[edit] Theunicyclegirl

theunicyclegirl (talk • contribs)Theunicyclegirl 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

Brief comments: Sounds like you've got a handle on using warning templates, which is a very good thing. I'd dip my hands into WP:UCFD, WP:TFD and WP:CFD, which I believe will help ease your way into the truly important WP:AFD. Keep fighting vandalism, and take out a book from time to time from your library to add contents to the encyclopedia. Xiner (talk, email) 16:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well first and foremost, great job fighting vandalism and nice job filtering new pages. You are great at knowing what to do when the occasion arises (i.e. the Bobo incident :) ). You have a decent mainspace count, but your Wikipedia edit count is low. Consider joining a Wikiproject (I like WP:MOTD a TON!), or get involved in some simple XfD's. Keep up the great work! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to offer a stronger dose of criticism, but it's meant with love. I saw you wrote an article about a silent film from 1915, but you've hardly written anything else. In your last 400 edits, I could not find a single substantive contribution to the encyclopedia (not counting vandalism reversions, which are praiseworthy). There's no rule that requires you to contribute material to the encyclopedia, but everyone agrees that an ideal, well-rounded editor makes that one of her goals and priorities. Or if you don't want to add material, you could try WP:CLEANUP to work on existing bad articles. Where will you find the time to do that? You could start by tinkering less with your user page. I wish you good luck. YechielMan 00:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It was 1914, by the way. --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 19:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see consistent use of informative edit summaries. I'd also like you to avoid practical jokes on widely seen pages such as Jimbo's user page. This is an encyclopeida, not a play-ground. At most, a joke on your own page or that of a close friend might be appropriate. Anything more than that is a distriction and a waste of other people's time. Thanks for participatig in editor review. Please let me know if there is ever anything I can help with. Johntex\talk 05:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be known that I have never edited Jimbo's page. Actually, I may have given him a barnstar once, but that surely doesn't count as a joke. --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting me, it was my mistake. I misinterpreted something I read and I should have checked the diffs myself. I'm sorry about that. Best, Johntex\talk 19:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have several comments.

  • Good work reverting vandalism - keep this up. I notice you always remember to warn the vandal, which is very good.
  • Another good point is your consistent politeness and willingness to help other users. :)
  • As other users have already mentioned, your projectspace edit count is low (80 out of 1275) which will be a serious problem if you ever want to run for adminship. I suggest hanging around WP:AFD; participation in deletion discussions will give you valuable experience of the deletion policy and process, which is essential at RfA.
  • Your mainspace editcount is also quite low (241) compared to userspace and user talk, although this should improve if you continue fighting vandalism.
  • Your edit summary usage is also on the low side, although I notice you're improving in that respect.

Overall, you're a very promising user. You haven't said whether you aim to be an admin or not; if you do, you'll need at least another 1500 edits until you're ready for RfA (it's not as hard as it sounds, however, particularly with lots of vandal fighting). But in a couple of months I'd be happy to nominate you for adminship. Keep up the good work! :) Walton Vivat Regina! 19:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I frequent the New Pages and delete many pages that are vandalism, edit tests, or other unwanted pages.
    I put the suggested templates and warnings on each user's talk page and even created my own warning that can be seen here.
    I have reported several repeated vandals at Administrator intervention against vandalism.
    I have adopted Cremepuff222 and am helping him learn to better edit Wikipedia.
  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?
    The only conflict I've been in was when I nominated a vandal's (Charlieparr123) page for speedy deletion and he placed an insult on my user page. I removed the insult and put the correct warning on his user talk page. I also reported him at Administrator intervention against vandalism. I also reported a sock puppet of his, Birch34. However, I don't know if this constitutes as a conflict, per se.
    I will deal with any conflicts in the future in a calm and polite manner, even if the opposing user does not show the same respect towards me. I will take any time that's necessary to resolve said conflict and if it gets out of hand I will report it to an administrator (unless I become one, of course, in which case I can ask a more experienced administrator for advice.)

[edit] Kntrabssi

Kntrabssi (talk • contribs) I spend a good majority of my time on here fighting vandalism, but I'd like to know what I can do to help the community, what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong. Kntrabssi 12:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

I have several comments:

  • It looks like you're doing a good job of reverting vandalism and warning vandals - keep that up.
  • If you're aiming for a second RfA at some time in the future, I advise getting some more edits in the WP namespace. Commenting on AfDs is a great way to do this, and will also give you more experience of the deletion policies, which is essential for an admin.
  • Also consider commenting on policy discussions to bump up your WP talkspace edits - some users like to see this at RfA.
  • Your article contribs are very good, and you have a fair percentage of your edits in mainspace. That will help at RfA.

Overall, chalk up another 1000 to 1500 edits (including a few hundred in the WP namespace) over the next few months, and you will be ready to re-apply for adminship. If you don't want to go for a second RfA, then obviously there's less need to worry about your editcount. However, I would strongly urge you not to be discouraged by the failure of your first RfA - you're a great user and definitely a potential admin, you just didn't have enough experience the first time round. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Most definitely the Double Bass article, which I have helped write over the past year or so. This article has reached Good Article status and is very close to Featured Article status, which makes me very proud of it. I also started the Maine Black Bears article.
  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?
    Oh man, I have seen quite some problems over the past few weeks! Recently, 69.254.29.248 accused me of "abusing my pull" around here to go on a crusdae against him and the Leandro Barbosa article, which ultimately ended in his being blocked and the article being semi-protected. The whole fiasco can be found on my talk page. I also see occasional personal attacks and vandalism, but such is life when you RC Patrol.

[edit] BlackBear

BlackBear (talk • contribs) I am at a point where I know most of the ins and outs of Wikipedia, yet I'm trying as hard as I can to work my way towards adminship. I'm sort of stuck because I know all the policies, yet my RfA failed. As always, comments appreciated. BlackBear 12:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

Looking at your edit summary i would say there is a healthy amount of mainspace and Wikipecia type edits. Looking at talk, i would say get more involved in discussion of articles and Wikipedia pages. It is nice to see a lot of contributions towards the prevention of vandalism. As templating seems to be one of the key features of wikipedia, it would be good to see more editing here, getting to know templates and that. However, do not spend excessive time editing, instead use the preview button to see if you've done the right thing.

With ref to RfA, it is likely to have failed because people feel you have not enough experience but do not let this discourage you. It is best to get to know other areas of Wikipedia. Just keep editing but remember quality over quantity. Reviewing some of the comments, please review the instructions more thoroughly and more familiarise yourself with the process.

Do not feel disenchanted. You will get there. I hope this helps. Simply south 18:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    My whole contribution of vandalism-reverting and newpage patrol is very prominent, and I am proud of that.
  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?
    Most of the conflicts were when I was still new at Wikipedia. These mostly happened when I didn't know a policy or me and another user didn't know a policy. I used to solve it with common sense and by reading Wikipedia's policy guidelines. In the future, I am going to try to compromise more, to make both users happy, instead of mad.

[edit] Ageo020

Ageo020 (talk • contribs) I have been here for over a year now. I would just like to know what other editors think of me. Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 00:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

The discussion you referenced at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pradip Somasundaran was one of the nastier AFDs I've seen, and I've seen several hundred. You mostly kept your cool, but it's not always necessary to place all your statements in bold. :) Also, someone accused you of having a sockpuppet; I don't know whether you did, but anyway you need to know the policy. It happened last August, and if that's the worst conflict in your wiki career, you have nothing to worry about. From your second answer, it seems that you've learned from the experience.

Other than that, my comments will be standard.

  • I'm curious why you have 600 mainspace edits, 600 Wikipedia-space edits, and 1000 user talk edits. It's great that you're friendly with other users, but don't let it become a distraction from improving the encyclopedia.
  • On the same note, the edit counter says you've never edited any article or template more than 8 times. Of course, sometimes you get it right the first time, but many times you need to look again and rewrite and improve your original work. You might consider spending more time on writing articles.
  • Your participation in AFD, RFA and vandal-fighting is noted. You're not nearly ready for adminship, but you're on track for that if it interests you.
  • I find your userpage confusing because most of the links (such as "tools") don't go anywhere. Of course, your userpage is mostly for yourself, but consider switching to (pardon the pun) a more user-friendly format.
  • I wish you luck with your mental health issues. I can sympathize. :) Obviously, such issues are an excuse to disappear from Wikipedia, but are not an excuse to disrupt Wikipedia - but I'm sure you know that already.
  • I was touched to see the picture of Jerusalem on your user talk page. I, too, hope for its restoration in the Messianic era.

I wish you good luck. YechielMan 00:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I have not contributed in a major way to any Featured articles, but I do create quite a lot of templates. I created one for Sony, and another one is a template for List of Formula 1 champions. Also, I am now very active in creating articles for episodes of Frasier, which I am very well pleased.
  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?
    The major conflicts I have ever got into was this AFD. One was the [1] for Pradip Somasundaran. In this AFD I was dead sure of the fact that Pradip was non notable and even though references were provided, I still got into a edit war. After the article was kept, I apologised to User:Gluewhale and Jyothis, and I have very good relationship with them. The next time, I ever get inton a conflict or debate, I make sure that the article or the person's references are correct and I'll try to be as civil as possible. I have realized in a conflict or a debate, there are no winners, only losers

[edit] Social Studiously

Social Studiously (talk • contribs) I would like to be reviewed because I am rather stuck on Wikipedia and would like to know what others think of my contributions so far. I am new - I came here on 21 March 2007, and so far I've learnt a lot of the Wikipedia markup. Social Studiously My Editor Review! 12:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

I don't have enough data to give you any helpful advice beyond what User:Gnangarra has been helping you with. As a wild shot in the dark, I suggest you look into WP:CLEANUP and its various subsidiaries, which you can find at the community portal. I wish you good luck. YechielMan 01:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Review by delldot:
Hi Social, looks like you're already doing great work in your time here, especially in airline-related articles. A few points:

  • [2] You are friendly on talk pages and are willing to admit mistakes (I didn't look at the edit this refers to, so I can't say whether or not this was one). These are two very important traits for Wikipedians, so you're off to an excellent start.
  • You're skilled with the markup. Do you know HTML or have experience in other wikis?
  • A minor point: Articles should avoid self references, so edits like this should probably be avoided (unless it's something really notable about wikipedia, like something that has made news. I can discuss this further if you like.
  • You're impressively involved with the Wikipedia community and are enthusiastically involved in communication with other users, especially surprising for someone as new as yourself. The only thing I'd add is an encouragement to be bold, jump right in, and edit more articles! Don't worry overly much about messing things up, it can be corrected and you can ask someone (me included) if you ever need help or are unsure if something is appropriate. I can already tell you'll be a great asset to the project, thanks for joining! Leave me a message on my talk page if you ever need anything or want to discuss anything. delldot talk 03:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • By the way, one thing to add: this comes off a little hostile, don't think you meant it to. There are some really specific behaviors you specifically ask others not to do, have these things happened to you here? You might want to soften the language or even consider getting rid of it; I doubt anyone that would want to curse at you would find it much of a deterrent anyway! delldot talk 03:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Since I have not been a contributor to Wikipedia for that long, my proudest edit was probably the Requested Move for Royal Brunei.
  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 have not had to deal with any of this. If I did reach such conflicts, I would probably ask my adopter, Gnangarra, for help.

[edit] Spebi

Spebi (talk • contribs) Hi, I'm Spebi and this is my editor review. I've been editing since January 2007, although it hasn't been long I do pick up things quickly and I have learned how things work around here and read all policies and guidelines, etc.

I want to be reviewed because I would like to know how I am doing as a Wikipedian from more experienced users, and gain some advice from experienced users of what I can do to continue being a great Wikipedia editor. --Spebi 10:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

You're off to a good start. I make the following recommendations to you:

  • You have 300 edits to your user space and only 250 edits to articles. This is a frequent issue I have with new users. In many cases, the edits to your user page are justified: placing convenient links to all the Wikipedia policies and guidelines you consult is a good idea. However, as you mature at Wikipedia, you should leave well enough alone with you userpage and turn your focus elsewhere.
  • Most of your article edits are not substantive. There are some vandalism reverts, which are of course praiseworthy, and there are some minor adjustments to improve formatting. I'd like you to be bold and start writing your own text into articles. Of course it needs to be attributed if the fact is not patently obvious, but don't let that stop you - look for references on your favorite subjects, and start writing!
  • You might consider participating in Wikipedia project discussions, such as WP:AFD and WP:RFA. I think you have enough experience to comment in those areas.

I wish you good luck. YechielMan 01:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    My edits to Habbo Hotel because some sections of it badly needed rewriting when I found it, and since then the article has improved alot, and recently been protected stopping vandalism that was abundant.
  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 have not been in any large conflicts during my time here, but I have been in a few and I have been trying to stick to policies, and have been removing some of my comments from others' user talk pages that might spark a personal-attack war.

I have also been wrongly accused of a personal attack, I sent them the wrong user-warning message...

[edit] Wikihermit

Wikihermit (talk • contribs) I would like to know what I can do to help wikipedia out and if I am doing the right things. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 03:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

I think you're doing well, and you're making a few mistakes based on inexperience - you've been here only for a month. The most basic issue is of priorities and proportionality. You have more "user talk" edits than article edits. That's understandable for a recent changes patroller, since you do your due diligence to warn every user who appears to be doing vandalism. My only concern is that recent changes patrol, when not counterbalanced by other activities, can give you a skewed understanding of Wikipedia and can cause unnecessary stress. (That's part of why I'm not an RC patroller.) By all means, stick with the RC patrol - but do other things, too.

I see you've expressed a strong interest in topics relating to central Pennsylvania, which apparently is where you live. That's great! Your edits show a familiarity with the subject matter, and you mostly adhere to the policy of citing references. I wonder if there are any other subjects where you think you can contribute. By the end of April, assuming you are equally active as in March, you should have more mainspace edits (including vandalism reverts) than user talk edits. It will put your RC patrol in perspective if that's not the primary field of your engagement with the project. There are lot's of other ways to help: click on "community portal" at the left for some examples.

Chairboy's comment to you about RFCN was worth learning from (of course, I didn't see the original discussion, so I can't comment on that). In general, you need to mind WP:BITE when dealing with new users and IPs, since others have questioned you on this point in the past. I wish you good luck. YechielMan 04:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    There isn't one article in particular that I am pleased with since I am more of a Wikignome and a Recent Change Patrol. If I had to chose it would probably be Lock Ridge Park. However I am still working on that article.
  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 have not been involved with an major editing conflicts. Most of the time an IP user will complain about how his/her edits shouldn't have been reverted. One thing that can be stressful is when more experienced Wikipedians complain because of one of your noobie mistakes.

[edit] Soumyasch

Soumyasch (talk • contribs) I joined Wikipedia In January, 2006. I was searching for some information but the article here was sorely lacking. I took it upon myself to fix it. However, the result was a disaster - almost everything I added was copied from some other article, commentary-ish, PoV, wrongly licensed, copyrighted images and what not. (IP 220.225.53.35, for those edits, was me) My changes were reverted a day later. I was shocked and hurt but resolved to find out why my edits were not accepted, and started going through policies and guidelines. Finally, I realized what should have been done with the article (220.224.84.27 was me). Sure, that has some PoV and other problems, but, hey I was only a few edits old then. But it was the basis of what the article is today. Fast forward to today, I have grown in experience and familiarity with the stuff here. I contribute mainly on programming and computing related (primarily Microsoft technologies) articles. My most significant contributions are to Windows Vista and related articles, WinFS, BitVault, Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Reflection (computer science) et al, and of course Alizee. A more comprehansive list is at my userpage - which also shows I am planning a lot more edits in the near future. As you can see, I work on articles that are highly technical, and I tend to make them extremely detailed. I would like to know what I am doing right and what is wrong so my future edits can be of higher quality and help Wikipedia in a better way. In my edit paterns, you can see that I really cooled off half a year (or so) back. I got busy with real life activites temporarily. Prior to that break, I used to be fairly active in RC patrolling and XFDs. But after returning, I am presently focussing on clearing off my backlog. :) --soum (0_o) 20:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

Here's a short response to a long request. Your user page speaks for itself. You are an extremely intelligent, creative and dedicated contributor. With all the article writing you do, I don't think you need to be involved in XFDs or other processes. I do XFDs, but that's because I generally don't write my own articles. You should focus your time on Wikipedia in the most productive way, and write about what you know well.

I wonder if you participate in any WikiProjects. You seem to be excellent at collaborating with other users, even in difficult situations. You might consider Wikipedia:WikiProject Computers as an example.

It seems to me that your early struggles had a lot to do with your mastery of English, which is your second language (I presume). Clearly you have improved there, and will continue to improve. I wish you good luck. YechielMan 02:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging words. About participation in Wikiprojects, well, I have not done yet. Long back, I had thought I should join WikiProject Computers, but then decided that since I work significantly on articles that have very little activity sorrounding them, it meant that the WikiProject members may not be interested in them. So, there is no point joining one. However, I kept on following the activities of few WikiProjects like WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Microsoft Windows, WikiProject .NET among others - following the policy and guideline discussions, articles they were focussing on etc, as an outsider. And only pointing out inconsistencies in case I happened to notice one. Maybe I should no longer stay an outsider but rather join one. --soum (0_o) 13:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Ideally, I would like to view all my contributions, over all articles, equally. After all, an article or two does not make Wikipedia, all the articles contribute towards it. But if I have to choose, I would choose Alizée, WinFS, Microsoft Office 2007 and Features new to Windows Vista/Technical features new to Windows Vista/Security and safety features new to Windows Vista (all three articles were initially together), closely followed by Virtual folder and BitVault. Alizée, WinFS, Microsoft Office 2007 were virtually little better than stub when I started working, and I - along with significant help from other editors - took it to a stage where it formed the basis to be gardually morphed into the form it is today. In fact, Alizée is a Good Article. In depth technical information was added by me to the Windows Vista articles. All these articles are very comprehensive sources of information available anywhere on the web. Having said this, I would also like to thank all the editors whose extreme hard work has been immensely important in getting the articles to the level they are tooday and keeping them referenced, neutral and vandalism-free. --soum (0_o) 20:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  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?
    Overall, my stay here has been largely peaceful and positive. Sure, I have been in disagreements over some edits (not editors), I tend to resolve the differences through mutual dialogues and not resort to revert warring or other means. I always try to be polite and civil and do not let personal attack get to me (which, fortunately, has been rather insignificant). Almost all the differences that I can remember were resolved amicably. Except for maybe a single instance. Some edits, IMO, were not suited for the article. So, I reverted and left a note on the user's talk page. However, he repeatedly ignored all comments both on the article's talk page as well as on his talk page. This started to reaally stress me out. I realized that I was not in a position to make rational judgements at that moment. So, I asked an administrator (Thank You, Jaap. I never got around to thanking you then :) ) to take a look at both our versions and comment. The dispute was soon resolved with a mediated dialogue and we even collaborated for the betterment of the article. And that continued even months afterward. And that incident happenned almost a year back. Thats the only incident I can remember. --soum (0_o) 20:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steptrip

Steptrip (talk • contribs) I have not been very active for 4 months after I created my account, but now I am on wikipedia daily, and will respond quickly to any questions on my talk page. My areas of expertise are RC patrolling, userpage design (which I really need to step away from, pardon the pun), WikiProjects, and any technical queries (although I know no programming languages).  ~Steptrip 02:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Please cut your signature length in half, and try to avoid editing userspace (i.e. signature pages). Concentrate on your good work so far in the encyclopedia. Majorly (o rly?) 01:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delving into the encyclopedia itself is the best direct experience you can get. When other editors start to the get the better of you, begin to read policies. But until then, pick your favorite subjects, and get to work. The Transhumanist   02:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Please shorten your signature per WP:SIG. It shouldn't be more than about 2 or 3 lines. Yours is 6. Also, as Majorly said, try to spend more time on the encyclopedia, not signing autograph books or trying to build yours up. Keep working hard. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 01:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Shortened sig to 3 lines (excluding timestamp). I also do some anti-vandalism work, but I am still using my sandbox instead of WP:SAND (that is probably why my userspace count is so high), and I have not signed many autograph books / requested for users to sign mine is some time now.  ~Steptrip
  • Well, you are quite a good editor, you do great work on MOTD and a nice person. The only drawback that I know of so far is your sig, but I think that's OK now. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 09:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Great vandal-fighting work. Just a comment: you need to make sure that you always warn users after reverting their vandalism so that they know that it is unacceptable. There are a number of tools available for fighting vandalism as well, such as VandalProof if you use Windows and VandalSniper if you use Linux. —METS501 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello Steptrip! As per your request I'll submit my review:

Article-space/Main-space: It seems you are actively building up some mainspace edits through helpful copyediting! Wikipedia never cannot have enough copyeditors, so what you're doing does certainly help. Also, your regular vandal-fighting is quite helpful as well.

Wikipedia-space: I see that you are utilizing Wikipedia-space, which is a good thing. However, I only found one AfD on your record, which you created, but I have never seen any edits participating in AfD discussion. AfD's help sift through Wikipedia's content and help provide necessary decisions as to what is appropriate to keep and what is not. You could also get involved in some policy discussion. This is also fundamental to building Wikipedia.

Edit summary usage: Your edit summary usage is on the strong side: 83% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. But, major edits are something you definitely should leave 90-100% edit summaries. Major changes to article structure and content are hard to sift through but with a descriptive edit summary, editors are not surprised to come back and find an article drastically different than they left it before.

Signature: Your signature is much more compensated now, thanks for fixing that. I don't think there's much else to gripe about that.

Civility: I am very happy to see that there were no major problems on your record in regards to following WP:CIVIL. You always have approached other users politely and thoughtfully. It also seems that you have not fallen into too many edit wars with other editors which is something that one rather wants to avoid than get into.

Overall: I think you are editing very constructively and all that is needed is to keep growing from here. Keep up the good work.

¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you asked, here's a quick review. I don't think you've yet found the right balance between article writing, administrative work (i.e. vandal fighting), and social interaction. Basically, you've only written articles about things you know well. See if there's something you don't know as well, but you can learn about it easily by consulting a book or a website. Then cite your reference when you add the information. This is how Wikipedia continues to grow.

I want you to ask yourself the following question: what can you do for Wikipedia that wouldn't get done without you? Personally, I feel guilty sometimes for wasting my talents on RC patrol and New Pages Patrol, which any teenager can do, as opposed to cleanup, categorization, and deletion work, which require a degree of sophistication. Clearly you have the sophistication to help with requests at the help desk, for example (e.g. if someone wants to enhance their signature or place a colored background on their userpage). See if you can help with that, and with article writing, instead of sinking all your efforts into the never-ending game of cops and robbers. YechielMan 01:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

For the love of all that is holy, fix that userpage. Blinking text should never be used, the distractions are endless, and I honestly was trying to remember if you could have an LSD flashback without ever using LSD. Also, the main space (you know, the encyclopedia part of the encyclopedia) is, well, crying for a little of your love. -Mask? 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a high-ish mainspace count, and I believe that your statement about blinking text is a personal opinion, unless you can direct me to a policy which explicitly states that blinking text should not be used.  ~Steptrip 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Another user has already complained here, and m:Don't be a dick pretty well covers it. -Mask? 23:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, one note, your transclusion/substitution prevention is not allowed. By the terms of the GFDL, which you liscensed the page under, people are allowed to take, edit and use what you write here in anyway they want so long as they give the same rights to other users. people may want to substitute your page to a subpage to copy out chunks of code they like. -Mask? 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
My method is not meant to discourage transclusion, it is to discourage impersonation, and if the user in question wanted code, he / she should go to the subpages on which the real code is.  ~Steptrip 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, really, the GFDL does not allow additional restrictions, if someone wants to sub that code and work on it, they're allowed. Please leave the code out, and understand the language and values behind the GFDL. -Mask? 23:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... looking at your contributions, edit count, and your answers to the questions below, I see you've started reverting vandalism (recently I believe, since you have 600 edits to mainspace, with most of these being the last couple of months). You currently have more edits to userspace than to mainspace; try to balance that out more. A few suggestions? Don't update your status too often (I just have mine in case I'm not going to be here for a few days; I usually have it on "inandout"), and don't sign signature pages (as Majorly said).

You should also try to get involved in more XfD deletion discussions (I find AfD boring, but MfD is alright) :). Another great (and interesting) way to participate in wiki-space, IMHO, is in FPC.

Something else you might want to try is one of the dispute resolution processes. I was in MEDCAB, and I learned much about policy because of two cases I took (if you join, make sure you don't take a hard case; I got frustrated with my second one, because it never got anywhere; it closed after a month, exactly where it started).

Also, you might try to write an article on something that interests you, and maybe even try to get it to GA or FA.

One final thing... always enjoy working here on Wikipedia. Sincerely (too much perhaps) :), · AO Talk 17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • Your signature is still broken. To fix it, follow these steps:
    1. Follow this link.
    2. Remove the text in the "Signature:" field.
    3. Click the "Save" button at the bottom of the page.
Thanks – Qxz 02:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Humbly requesting the removal of blinking text from your user page; it's quite distracting. Then again, perhaps that's the point. Jouster  (whisper) 06:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The only reason I have the blinking text is to get my point across.  ~Steptrip 22:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you could turn off <blink> when the user is, in fact, using Firefox? Jouster  (whisper) 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
        • There would be no point in my having the code, as <span style="text-decoration:blink;"> only works in Firefox (it does not work in IE, Opera, or Safari), so if I did that (which I have no idea how to do so), no browser would display blinking text.  ~Steptrip 21:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am pleased with all of the articles that I have come across, as I have reverted about ½ of them due to vandalism. I am very pleased with the AJMS article, as I mainly created an account to start that page, and look how far that I have come! I have also established myself as a frequent viditor to WP:MOTD/N, and have made some helpful minor edits to The Suite Life.
  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 was once bothered by an anon. vandal whom I had reverted and decided to vandalise my userpage as retaliation, I was not aware of the problem until a message was posted on my talk page. However, I was glad that when I returned to the vandal's talk page there was a block notice on their page (all of this happened in a 10 minute time span).

[edit] Verkhovensky

Verkhovensky (talk • contribs) I've been at Wikipedia for a while now, and I was just curious about how I've been doing. I haven't been getting a lot of feedback from other editors so far, so I just wanted to know where I stand, and what I can do to improve. Verkhovensky 17:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

If I had to give you a letter grade, it would be an A. You are doing very useful work in your article creations, especially those relating to Tolstoy. Your sorting and fixing of dead-end pages - one of my old habits, but I'm not as active there as before - is also quite useful. I don't see a lot of XFD participation, which I bring up because there are two schools of thought for handling WP:DEP. One school of thought is that these pages are missing wikilinks, so let's put in the wikilinks and move on. The other school of thought is that these articles are problematic, and if we're looking at them, we should try to fix all the problems, or at least note them with templates. Thus: wikify by splitting into sections, add a category or stub type, fix grammatical errors, etc. Then there are some articles which don't seem to belong at all; don't be shy about nominating them for deletion - or if you're unwilling to do that, you could try using the {{notability}} tag. As you may understand, I advocate this second school of thought, but the general rule is, as long as you're trying to improve the encyclopedia, that's all we ask for.

If you have access to electronic versions of Tolstoy's short stories, you should consider copying them to Wikisource, the "free library" that is a sister project of Wikipedia. Short of that, you could link to Bibliography of Leo Tolstoy as a "See also" of your short story articles, or you could make a template similar to the Fyodor Dostoyevsky template if you know how to do that.

That's all the advice I have. Keep up the good work, and I wish you good luck. YechielMan 04:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am very pleased with my original content contributions with the short stories of Fyodor Dostoevsky and Leo Tolstoy. The stories of Leo Tolstoy are particularly difficult to find information on elsewhere on the web, and I'm pleased that I've had the opportunity to make Wikipedia a better resource for that information.
  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?
    There was one time when I cam across a troll while editing the Hollywoodland article. I tried explaining the Wikipedia policies to the user, because they didn't seem to understand why their edits were being reverted. I remained civil and did what I could, and my advice was unheeded I participated in the notice to bring the attention of an administrator to the problem.

[edit] Fleagle11

Fleagle11 (talk • contribs) Hi there. I've been an off-and-on editor and recent changes patroller for about seven months. I am interested in improving the work I do on Wikipedia, therefore I'm asking for editor review. Thanks! Fleagle 20:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • From the looks of your edit count, you're on your way to becoming an ideal Wikipedia user. The only thing I have a problem with is your userpage edit count. About 1/4 of your edits are to your userpage. I suggest editing more in the Wikipedia and main namespaces. Cheers, Nol888(Talk)(Review me please) 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am pleased with the work I have done concerning Three Stooges shorts. I feel that there is a significant lack of high-quality information concerning the Stooges, and I have been proud to do my part in expanding the information on Wikipedia. I plan to do more in the future.
  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 have not yet been in any conflicts over editing. If I do find myself in a position where someone is disagreeing with me, I will try to be non-confrontational.

[edit] Saber girl08

Saber girl08 (talk • contribs) I wish to be reviewed so that I know if I'm doing okay. I don't want to get through another thousand edits just to discover I've been doing things wrong. I would also like to know if there's anything I could improve. Saber girl08 11:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Thanks for fixing my spelin errs.Jmpenzone 21:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Having looked at your edits, you seem very focused on fixing minor spelling errors, which is wonderful. But you also seem to be very into chatting with other users, which is not the point at all of Wikipedia, outside of things that are involved with Wikipedia itself anyways. Also, I left some notes for you on your user talk page, which you appear to have gotten already! Finally, it is wonderful that you do want to be involved, but please remember to not focus too much on chatting or doing things with your own user page, etc. You might do well to read this editor review. Also, if your goal is to become an admin, please see this! I will also freely admit that I have some of the same issues, but I thought it might be helpful for me to try to point them out for you! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Saber brings with her the enthusiasm and energy of youth coupled with an eye for detail and a desire to use all these attributes to improve wikipedia. Her interest in welcoming new users - as well as communicating with some old ones strikes a healthy balance. She has already earned the Thumbs Up Award from me so I'm thinking that she will have a long and productive life here. Carptrash 16:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Saber is quite an editor: She is friendly, energetic, determined, and a perfectionist. She also has the virtue of being very persistent. She continuously keeps on learning despite personal attacks or destructive criticisms, which shows her personal integrity and willingness to continue contributing to Wikipedia regardless of personal circumstances. I've known her for quite a while and she is always in a good mood. I can also safely say that she always seem to have the best intentions in whatever she does. Seraph 03:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Saber was very prompt in editing an article that I requested she she work with. Very friendly also. Wpktsfs 18:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In her 61 days here, Saber girl08 has displayed an incredible amount of energy and enthusiasm, especially for behind-the-scenes work like fixing spelling mistakes and adding links. Additionally she does an excellent job of using edit summaries, with the Mathbot tool giving her a score of 98% for major edits and 100% for minor edits! If I were to make a few suggestions on how to be an even better editor, I would recommend that she proofread her spelling corrections to ensure accuracy (as an example, in a recent edit [3] "The minimall has a small eatery" was changed to "The minimal has a small eatery," and "loading docks for the convience of tennants" was changed to "loading docks for the connivence of tenants"), and also encourage her to familiarize herself with the Manual of Style (as an example, every change made in this edit was in violation of our guidelines on headings). However both of these issues are relatively minor, and are relatively common with new editors. Overall I feel that Saber girl08 does a fantastic job, and has the potential to be one of wikipedia's most prolific editors! --Kralizec! (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If you haven't joined the kindness campaign, I strongly suggest it, I have seen your smile on approx. 4 different, random userpages. Keep up the good work,  ~Steptrip Make me fall 01:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I would second most of what has been written above. If you want to be an admin in the future, consider participating more in XfDs, as this will increase your WP namespace editcount and give you experience of the deletion policies, always essential for a would-be admin. I also notice that your mainspace edits are very focused on spelling/grammar corrections and minor edits - this is great, but consider getting involved in some heavier article-writing, as voters at RfA always like to see a diversity of edits. On the plus side, you're clearly very good at civil and helpful interaction with other editors, as per the comments above. Overall, you need to chalk up another 2000 edits or so, with a good balance across namespaces (consider participating in policy discussions to push up your WP talkspace edits) before you're ready for adminship. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am quite proud of how many people I have welcomed. One of my friends wasn't welcomed for over a year, and because of this, they quit editing Wikipedia because they didn't feel part of the community. Because of this, I dedicate at least 30 minutes welcoming new people every day. Every member of Wikipedia counts!
  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 have been chastised for giving too many smiles in one day, and for welcoming people who then became trolls. Also, I used to Americanize articles, which I no longer do because I learned British spelling as well. I accept my criticism and move on. You can't get better unless you listen.
  3. Optional question from Zazzer: Have you considered participating in WP:AFD and/or WP:RFA? If not, why not? If so, why have you declined to become involved?
    I might do WP:AFD, but I'm not sure if I'd do a good job. I'm still learning all the categories. I also want to do WP:RFA, but I will wait till I'm better at editing and helping, and until I have a few thousand more edits.

[edit] Canadianshoper

Canadianshoper (talk • contribs) Been here for a good while, but feeling like I haven't done much useful here. Any advice? Note: Most of my better work is in 2007. Canadianshoper 17:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • You have been quite active in the past few months, and your contributions at a glance OK. However, many editors like to see a user who focuses mainly on the Wikipedia and main namespaces, not on the User namespace. I see you have make >100 edits to your own userpage, and your userspace count is only about 50 edits lower that your mainspace. I recommend that you focus more on the mainspace. However, your overall contributions look thoughtful, and I think you'll make a fine editor, give a few months. Nol888(Talk)(Review me please) 19:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Many of my userspace edits are useless. I can't get into the habit of using the preview first, so I have one edit to do something, and one or two more to correct it! Also, I contribute to a wikicleanup project located in the cetor's userspace.Canadianshoper 22:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip! Do you know where the full shortcut list is? Canadianshoper 19:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Go to Wikipedia:Community Portal and look at the top of the page. --TT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Transhumanist (talk • contribs) 20:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
I saw the link. Thecnical difficuly though, some shortcuts don't work! Someone help! Canadianshoper 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Modzilla Firefox works, but no IE! Canadianshoper 22:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's 3 main support pages: Wikipedia:Contents, Wikipedia:Community Portal, and Help:Contents. All three are on the navigation menu on the sidebar on the left side of the screen (unless you've changed your skin). Those 3 pages have a navigation bar at the top of the page which leads to all the main pages of that type of page. My strongest advice is to become extremely familiar with all of the pages I just mentioned. --TT
  • There's a lesson at the Virtual classroom called Learning the ropes which you may find very useful. --TT
Thanks for all the tips! Canadianshoper 21:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    None really. I just do what I feel I can, and don't feel I do much good enough for me to mention here.
  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, just a little. In those cases, I tried to leave. In most cases, nothing really happen, and I'm not bold enough to do anything causing conflicts.
  3. What are your greatest strengths as an editor to Wikipedia?   The Transhumanist   19:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. What areas do you think you need to improve upon the most? -TT
    First, speed of editing and wiki-mark-up, which I stumble upon, and spend lots of time trying to create tables and such, then give up. Also, I don't have the nerves and ability to do big things. (Copyedit) Canadianshoper 19:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masky

Masky (talk • contribs) I want to be editor reviewed. Enough said. Masky (Talk | contribs) 17:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

I feel that a full review should be left to somebody more experienced than I, however I couldn't help but note that over 70% of your edits have been to your userpage. It would be nice to see a greater number of other edits in relation to userpage edits. Fleagle 02:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • There's no way to sugarcoat this. You're not doing very well. In addition to Fleagle's point, you created a Wikiproject on Super Monkey Ball that just got nominated for MFD; I had voted to delete before I came here. You made the ugly mistake of not signing the comment (like this: ~~~~) that you wrote there. Even your article contributions have been suspect: how much of encyclopedic value is there to say about a video game? Did you reference your contributions, or did you just sort of write about what you know? You should read the policies on attribution and notability and learn from them what to write about, and how to write it.

More than that, you need to change your attitude. In a couple of phrases below, you say "my projects." Nothing is really "mine" on Wikipedia. We don't WP:OWN our contributions, or even our user pages. We are part of a fictional community, trying to achieve a common goal of compiling and disseminating knowledge. You can either participate in that community with a full heart, or you can continue working on "my projects." I hope you learn and live in the spirit of collaboration, and I wish you good luck. YechielMan 04:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am very pleased with some of my projects and innovations to Wikipedia, but I am also proud of my contributions to many articles, and I hope that I will become a great Wikipedia editor, one step at a time.
  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've been involved in a userbox conflict with a user named Scepia around New Years. He was stealing other people's userboxes (Including two of mine) and I wasn't too happy. So I formed a WikiProject designed to help people migrate their userboxes, and I tried to put all of Scepia's userboxes back to their orinigal owner, but I came across some problems and that Scepia was mad too. So in the end, I just became neutral and stopped moving people's userboxes, and everything and everyone settled down very quickly.
  3. Supplement to the above: Do you feel that the comment "I wonder why everyone is trying to sabotage my Wikipedia projects." accurately describes your interactions with other users? Alai 23:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    Well, whenever I try to improve the encyclopedia with a little project of mine, it gets deleted on sight. I really want to do something good to Wikipedia, but I don't know where to start, and it is bugging me. I said that everyone was sabotaging my projects because I want to do something good to the encyclopedia, but I don't know what types of things would make Wikipedia good, and my project still are getting deleted. I read the Wikipedia rules from time to time, and I don't know what is the urge to delete them. That's why I started my Beta Program (In my userpage menu), so that I can get suggestible feedback from other users that would probably make my projects better.

[edit] Kopf1988

Kopf1988 (talk • contribs) I have been editing Wikipedia for a while now, and may someday request Administrator-ship. How am I doing overall so far? Kopf1988 17:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • You seem to be off to a pretty good start. Your edit count is a bit low to be considering adminship, but it's a good thing to keep your eyes on the future. You have a lot of user space and talk space edits, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially since you seem to be doing a decent job of editing in lots of different ways - templates, article mainspaces, and Wikipedia project pages. It is also very good to learn from deleted articles. Your edit summaries are informative, and your edits seem to be done in the utmost of good faith. I say, keep up the good work! Verkhovensky 17:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Of all my contributions to Wikipedia, I could barely pick out a mere handle that I am particular pleased with. I am glad to have worked with others on the RPG Maker series articles, as I added as much information as I could. More recently, I have done a lot of work on the various anime conventions all of which have some great material out there to use that just needs found and brought to Wikipedia. I suppose I would say I am particularly please with my edits to Another Anime Convention (hopefully it doesn't get deleted), and to AnimeIowa. Others I'm glad to have helped with include JRuby and RPG Maker both of which needed the attention of someone knowledgeable in the fields.
  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?
    Most recently I have created and done a lot of work to the article about Another Anime Convention, and found out that the article had been deleted before for lack of notability. Of course seeing one's work come close to deletion would cause nearly anyone stress, I'm glad for the experience, as it only caused me to work harder on the article to prevent it's deletion. Since its nomination for deletion I have added a few references, and participated heavily in the deletion discussion. In the future if I ever encounter such problems again, it will only continue to push me to work harder.

[edit] Citicat

Citicat (talk • contribs) I seem to have become very attached to the idea of working to improve the project lately. I'm happy with what I've done (although I may need to start using the Wikipatch before too long), but would be glad of any advice the more experienced could impart upon me Citicat 04:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • I'm not the most experienced editor, but I must say that I am absolutely impressed by your work on Wikipedia so far. You have a great number of mainspace edits, and you have done a great service to Wikipedia with your vandal fighting. You have a great user page (nice cats) without spending the majority of your edits on it, and you've edited a great variety of articles. You also have a diverse range of Wikipedia activities on your resume already, everything from vandal fighting (and all the attendant activities for that pursuit to be successful), to meaningful contributions in content and discussions. The best advice I can think to give is keep up the good work! Verkhovensky 17:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    It may not be the most import article, but I have a fondness for the Louis Klotz page I started, he's a real interesting guy. Here's weird little one; I came across this article which had been recently created by someone with limited English and was about to be speedied, and I cleaned it up a bit. Even though it's just a stub, it lives on.
  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 had a little conflict recently over the Fetus article with a editor whom I felt was editing in bad faith, in that he was trying to change that article to influence people to support his point of view on abortion rather than improve the article. I had tagged the article for {neutrality}, which he removed. I entered a request for comment[4] and engaged in a debate which resulted in a compromise on one section. Feeling I had accomplished as much as I could without devoting most of my time to this one article, I backed away at that point. As for the future, I feel the important thing is to remember that whatever I might do is only a drop of water in the ocean (well, lake maybe), and that even if I can't accomplish every task that goes through my head, it won't bring down the internet

[edit] Wpktsfs

wpktsfs (talk • contribs) I would like to know how I am doing so far. Wpktsfs 23:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Wpktsfs is very courteous, and has a quality I love seeing in editors - not being afraid to ask for help. Wpktsfs is very dedicated, and has created articles that are simply superb. I really don't see anything that can be improved. All I can say is please keep up the good work! Saber girl08 20:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Given your level of experience, both in the real-world educational system and on the fictional world known as Wikipedia, you have contributed with surprising facility. You are starting out the way many people start out: writing about what you know. I recall that my first article, back in December 2005, was J. David Bleich, one of my rabbis. So it's to be expected that you'll write about places in your hometown. As you develop, you will learn to check the notability of your subject before writing too much about it, and you will branch out to cover topics outside your immediate concern.
I wish you good luck. YechielMan 04:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I haven't had enough of an opportunity to form a strong opinion. Sorry, but good luck. --evrik (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments


Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    'I am partcularly pleased with the articles on St. Francis de Sales High School and the Hippoquarium. The article on the Hippoquarium was created by me, and the article on St. Francis needed additions. I feel I have made a nice addition to the wiki, and I take pride in all of my work here.
  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 have not had any major conflicts and I wish that to stay the same.

[edit] Krimpet

Krimpet (talk • contribs) I've been a registered editor for about three months so far, though I've done anonymous minor grammar/typo fixing for years before. I've really enjoyed learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia, and I am interested in eventually becoming an administrator; I have a lot of spare time and would love to volunteer my time to help with routine janitorial tasks, as well as clean up after the long trail of {{NowCommons}}'s I leave behind =P. I would like to request any comments or suggestions on my editing if there any aspects that I could improve. Krimpet 04:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Ok. Your edit count is great- over 1300 edits in 3 months is pretty impressive. 700 mainspace edits, and you've got more Wikipedia edits than I have!
  • I can see that you mainly concentrate on AFD's, which is good. We need more people working on them. If you wanted variety, perhaps you could try WP:TFD and WP:CFD if you haven't already? Not as many people go there, and it would be good to have some more input. In the AFD's your comments demonstrate a really sound knowledge of Wikipedia deletion policy- really good! You keep a cool head in your comments, and remain CIVIL. Well done.
  • Looking at your contributions, I see you've recently done some vandal-fighting. Your reverts were good, and the warnings were the right level.
  • You've also been working a lot with Images- not my area of expertise, so unfortunately I can't offer too much feedback on that. I see you've been adding the "now on Commons" templates and the "commons category" templates- well done, again I haven't seen those templates around as much as I should have.
  • A couple of suggestions- I saw in your contributions that there was no need for one of your user subpages anymore. If you wanted the page deleted, you could put a speedy deletion tag on it- {{db-author}} .
  • When you say "love to volunteer my time with routine janitorial tasks", you could, if you haven't already, have a look at the pages in Category:Wikipedia backlog. Many of these pages are closely related to other admin backlogs, and it would give you some more variety in your edits.
  • Using mathbot's tool, I see that your edit sumamry usage is 91% for major edits and 74% for minor edits. In the future, try to get the count a bit higher- preferably the late 90%, if not 100%. This means that other editors can see what you've done in recent changes, and can also explain why you made that edit- clarification. In your preferences there's a setting that you can put on that prompts you to enter an edit summary, which might help.
  • Altogether, I think with a bit more experience and time on Wikipedia you'd make a fine admin. Work on Wikipedia for a few more months, bring the edit count up to I'd suggest at least 3000, and you'll be fine. I hope that was helpful- happy editing! CattleGirl talk | sign! 09:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You are a very good editor. I really do think so. About your edit count, I have seen that administrators usually have 3500+ mainspace and 5000+ total edits, so you may want to bring that up a bit. Your AFD participation is key for a future administrator, as those need people that can be really nitty-gritty. You also may want to consider vandal fighting, as I have seen admins doing that lately as well.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions 15:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am particularly pleased with the improvements I have worked on some of the Philly-area Interstate articles, particularly Interstate 476, which is now a GA. I also enjoy moving and categorizing open content images over to the Commons, it gives me a fuzzy feeling inside as I watch the categories build up. Krimpet 05:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  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 am active at AfD and have been in a few heated debates, particularly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrus Farivar (4th nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny (4th nomination), though I have tried to keep cool, remain civil, and assume good faith at all times. I have also taken flak on my talk page from one user for replacing the neologism "multiplex" with "concurrency", though the folks at WP:USRD agreed with me in the end that the neologism should be discouraged.

And stresswise, I've got enough to worry about in real life, I refuse to let Wikipedia stress me out. =) Krimpet 05:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] darkstar949

darkstar949 (talk • contribs) I have been on Wikipedia for over a year and a half now and I while I do not maintain an extensive list of articles that I contribute to, I would like to ensure that the work I contribute is the best it could be. Darkstar949 02:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

Okay. The dispute between you and SU182 over there at OS-tan is getting pretty nasty. You sometimes come close to the line of WP:CIVIL without actually crossing it - just be careful. Your response to the anonymous IP who said "How dare you ruin that article!" was unwelcoming - again, not a violation, but be careful.

Even though you've been here a while, you still don't have a lot of experience. Part of the reason for the aforementioned conflict is that your writing skills are not at a college level. You tried in good faith to improve the article; whether you did or didn't is debatable (I briefly checked both versions, and I have no clear opinion). You need to work together with other editors. You focus on bringing in new material and references, and they can help you with editing and formatting. Maybe you should become (more) active in Wikipedia:Wikiproject Anime and Manga. You might also find it helpful to put the articles linked from your userpage on your watchlist, if you haven't already done that.

I wish you good luck. YechielMan 04:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Honestly, the edits that I am most pleased with it when I find more references to add to an article; however, I have been working on trying to standardize some of the military awards pages so that is nice to have done at the end of the day.
  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?
    To be honest I am currently in the middle of a dispute over the OS-tan article for a fairly dramatic re-write that I did, most of the page was re-written. However, I would like to think that it was for the better.

[edit] UBeR

UBeR (talk • contribs) I've been on Wikipedia for nearly five months now. I'm most interested in keep a neutral and blanced view on controversial topics. I also work extensively on maintenance, syntax, and removing vandalism. I contribute most often to articles in which I have a general or advanced knowledge. I'd like to have an editor review to evaluate my edits made to Wikipedia. This may be particularly informative and helpful because I am often involved in certain controversy that are simply a spurious construct. Outside comments should be particularly useful--positive or negative. ~ UBeR 21:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Review

You and I have completely opposite proclivities. You work on controversial articles for hours and days, while I write a few low-profile articles and contribute in ways that intentionally avoid controversy.

I was reading parts of your talk page, and I am extremely impressed by the tone of your dialogue with other users. It's not just civil, it's respectful and honorable. I don't give out barnstars, but if I did, I'd praise you for your respectful tone in resolving disputes and hashing out controversial issues. Your writing style is also first-rate.

I noticed that 900 of your edits - about a third of your total edit count - were to "Execution of Saddam Hussein" and its talk page. I'm totally mystified how it's possible to make that many edits to one article without being a bot. Either you're extremely committed to sourcing, neutrality, and vandal-fighting, or you just forgot to hit the Preview button a few times.

Since you're so effective at resolving disputes on high-profile articles, or articles that you've worked on, I recommend that you take that skill to another area. Wikipedia has a shortage of mediators at WP:MedCab and WP:3O. With a little independent research, and your typical positive attitude, you can be very helpful as a mediator.

I'm sorry to read about your issues with admins. It might have mattered whether they were abusing admin powers (e.g. threatening 3RR blocks) or they just happened to be admins. In the former case, you might have been able to appeal at WP:RFC in the "administrator abuse" section - keep that in mind if it comes up again.

I wish you good luck. YechielMan 03:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Review

Hi UBeR! We have run into each other primarily over global warming and the related pages and contributors. I'm glad for this opportunity to shortly describe how I perceive your editing.

I very much appreciate your diligent work to improve language and flow of articles. In fact, in these areas I trust you, even on controversial articles, to the degree that I rarely even check your edits. It is a valuable service, and you are doing a great job. The only thing that you could improve in this area is increased use of "preview" button to avoid the sequence major edit, correction, correction that I sometimes see in edit histories (but, as I know myself, some errors carefully hide until you actually submit the edit ;-).

On the other hand, I notice that you have added very little actual content. In the end, that is what makes Wikipedia the useful resource that it is. I would like to see more original, sourced content, maybe in a totally uncontroversial area that you happen to have useful expertise in.

I have to say that I'm appalled by some of your behaviour outside the main article space. You often seem mean-sprited and vindicative, and fail to assume good faith. While your language is, as always, impeccable, its often full of vague allusions against "some administrator", despite the fact that the issue at hand is purely a content issue. Experienced editors that have strong support in the community don't have it because they are admins. They have it because they have a proven track record of valuable contributions. Being an admin is no big deal.

You also often resort to Wiki-lawyering instead of arguing the actual substance. Your allegation of sock-puppetry against User: William M. Connolley and User:Philosophus was completely uncalled for, as was your creation of a (now deleted) page to collect allegedly controversial edits of certain users.

--Stephan Schulz 10:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Review

I have far too many issues with your wikilawyering to make them worth listing here. But on a technical point: you recently broken 3RR on the global warming page, and marked only one of your edits as reverts: this is bad form. Also you submitted an invalid 3RR report on KimDabelsteinPetersen - there is nothing wrong with that, but once it has been pointed out why you were wrong - that contiguous edits count as one - you should have gracefully withdrawn and apolgised William M. Connolley 11:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, William. Seeing as how you didn't leave a message on my talk page, I will reply here. First and foremost, I do not believe I broke the 3RR on global warming. If you do believe I did, the appropriate place to inform me is on my talk page, not on my editor review page. That aside, I believe that ever elusive fourth revert you were perhaps looking at is where I reinserted the NPOV template. I believe erroneously removing a template, especially when the deleter is engaged in the discussion, is vandalism. As such, reverting vandalism is no big deal. However, I will work on marking my reverts as such. Thank you for that. In Kim's case, she reverted six times what other editors had changed. That is, some editor changed the content (in good faith, mind you) of the article in to a NPOV statement. Kim reverted six of these (without once bothering to read engage in discussion on the talk page). That, I believe, would be twice the allowed daily limit; a clear violation.
On the wiki-lawyering part, if some people choose to ignore Wikipedia's policies, there is, I believe, no other manner to present to said violators the policies they are breaking. If they are going to ignore the policies, you should at least make sure they know which policies they are breaking. If they don't understand them, then I believe it to be reasonable to explain to them how Wikipedia works. ~ UBeR 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Its been pointed out to you that contiguous reverts count as one; which is why KDP didn't break 3RR. This is part of the 3RR policy. Stubbornly refusing to admit error is one of your major faults as an editor, and is highly relevant here. Asserting with no evidence that KDB failed to read the talk page is a violation of the AGF that you press on others.
And while we're on stubbornness, refusing to admit your own 3RR is also bad, which is why I bring it up here. The reverts in question are these: [5], [6], [7], [8]. And no, removing templates is not vandalism - this kind of weaselly excuse does you no credit.
But I'm glad you'll (try) to mark reverts in future. Don't forget that partial reverts count as one William M. Connolley 17:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said previously, the appropriate place to raise 3RR concerns is my talk page. For the comment on Kim, I apologize for using a poor set of words. I meant she did not bother to discuss any of the content on the talk page whilst a discussion was ongoing. As for my reverts, it's clear Count Iblis was not acting in good faith and should be considered vandalism. ~ UBeR 17:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Right - this is bringing out very nicely whats so wrong with your editing - your refusal to accept or apologise for errors, instead choosing to evade at implausible length. The issue with KDP is not the choice of words - the issue is that contigous edits count as one, hence KDP did not violate 3RR. Why you refuse to admit this, when its the verdict on the 3RR page, is a mystery. As to your own 3RR - no again: the vandalism exception is drawn very tightly, "should be considered vandalism" is weaselling and never works as an excuse. But if you like... you also have [9] (marked as an rv). So you have 5 by my count and 5-1 by yours William M. Connolley 20:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
She reverted 6 six times what constitute good faith edits. It's a clear breach of policy. Her edits, separated by a lengthy amount of time, I would hardly consider contiguous. But how many times have you apologized for the countless policies you have violated? From my count, zero. UBeR 21:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought you'd be reduced to attacking me rather than considering your own conduct. But back to you, since this is what this page is about: you've not answered my point about *your* 4R: whats your current count? And (once again) KDP's edits came in several blocks. Each block only counts as one revert (the last 3 are one: [10]; the first 2 are one [11]; leading to a max of 3 possible reverts). This is explicitly in the 3RR policy. So it appears that you are (a) unable to read the 3RR policy correctly (let me quote it for you Note that consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule.) (b) unable to recognise a violation of 3RR by yourself. This (once again) is a fundamental flaw in your editing: an inability to admit you are wrong William M. Connolley 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
William, I am not sure if you are here to make a mockery or what, but I reckon you are in the wrong place. I usually do not engage in fallacious arguments such as these, but I thought you needed a nice introduction to Mr. Kettle. (I don't see how the same argument from one person could be considered an attack and constructive criticism from another.) But I concede, I should not engage in such boorish and fallacious arguments you often stoop to. Sure, I could cry about your so-called lawyering above, but what does that help. It only retards our discussion of the main point, which is that I made four reverts to one article in a matter of 22 hours. But I think I will reiterate it again: Wrong place to discuss. But you seem relentless for some reason. If you are having problems with the internment of your personal feelings, might I suggest for you a few days to cool off. The issue is behind us, the article is locked, and, as one administrator pointed out to you, 3RR blockings are not meant as punishments. So why do you continue?

Once again, you seem unable to keep the focus on you, which is what this page is about. The issue here is your editing faults. You put yourself up for review because you were interested in areas where you can improve, yes? And it becomes obvious that admitting your errors is very difficult for you, even when they are blatant. Your 3RR report of KDP was wrong. Theres nothing terrible about that - people submit wrong reports quite often. The problem is your refusal to admit your error, and your apparent inability to understand the rule on contiguous edits.

Its nice to see you finally admitting to your own 3RR violation: I made four reverts to one article in a matter of 22 hours - well done, this is real progress, even if you did your best to bury it and haven't actually apologised (and of course it was 5, not 4). Now you need to re-examine the rules in the KDP case - you are, I understand, a stickler for rules? William M. Connolley 09:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I know full well what this page is for. I would appreciate, however, if you wish to inform me, or any other editor, of a possible 3RR violation, that you notify them on their talk page. You ought to know better than that, William. ~ UBeR 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
We've established you violated 3RR, and you've admitted it, though grudgingly. Thats good. What you still haven't managed to admit is that KDP *didn't* violate 3RR. You're half way there - why not go the full way? And the reason this is here, of course, is that it relates to your style of editing - in this case, you appear to be embarrassed to admit that you've misread the rules. Since you spend so much time elsewhere explaining the rules, this is important William M. Connolley 18:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Embarrassed? The able, learned, and distinguished William, if anyone should be embarrassed it should be you for your behavior. If I were embarrassed I would follow your archetype and delete anything that might animadvert on myself. I don't care if people see this. This is just petty and a waste of time. You and I both know this. You are here for fun and games, for little more than a mockery. If you wish to continue your oafishness, feel inclined to do so. Seraphimblade already identified [12] and [13] as reverts. [14] is reversion of my edit that explained the SPM position that volcanism and solar forcings play most of the role over the last seven centuries till 1950. That's three, if you haven't been keeping count. When taken together, edits [15] and [16] you considered reverts. That's four. ~ UBeR 19:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Still failing to stick to you, I see. As to KDP: Each block only counts as one revert (the last 3 are one: [17]; the first 2 are one [18]; leading to a max of 3 possible reverts). This is explicitly in the 3RR policy. So it appears that you are unable to read the 3RR policy correctly. Are you aware that contiguous edits count as one for the 3RR? Are you aware that some of the edits yor're listing are contiguous? Once again: your twisting and turning is not seemly, you do yourself no favours William M. Connolley 20:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Review

Actually despite complaining once about you (for a personal attack on WMC) I am happy to have your input and there is a clear sign of improvement towards the rules. Don't get wound up about William M. Connolley or other editors though. Life is short and we are all trying to get Wikipedia better: practicality is more important than ritual here. --BozMo talk 09:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, BozMo. ~ UBeR 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Review

I believe that you prefer to leverage WP policy when it helps you achieve a particular POV goal. When it doesn't suit you, you ignore it [19], [20], especially when you made this comment just after breaking it yourself; "Editors are not here to pass judgement on what number is "large"". Your future contributions to WP can have promise if you take steps to significantly reduce your POV, 3RR, and wikilawyering tendencies. --Skyemoor 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Skyemoor. Seeing as how you didn't leave a message on my talk page, I'll respond here. To start, I will say you are grossly confused as to what I am doing here. The two diffs you presented show me inserting sourced and correct material. Do you object to me doing that? Either you are grossly confused as to how Wikipedia works and what editors reviews are meant for, or you trying to make a circus out of nothing. Making an assumption, I suppose, would be considered not assuming good faith, so I'll leave that one to the imagination. Last I checked, you're the one with the double standard. But before you start changing my bona fide edits again, I suggest you actually read the sources I am providing, rather than making presuppositions. If you are, then please inquire about them on the talk page if you are unsure of what the source is saying, as I agree this can sometimes be difficult science for the unlearned.
The next issue I would like to address is your continued accusations or excuses of wiki-lawyering. They are inappropriate and distracting fallacies. I suggest you avoid such arguments in the future. You're making ado over nothing. Are you suggesting following the rules is a bad thing (again)? I'm having difficulty understanding you and your logic. ~ UBeR 21:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You've violated 3RR, have been called on the carpet numerous times for wikilawyering, and have pronounced POV tendencies that many other editors have complained about. Now you've asked for an editor review, wanting nothing more than what amounts to gratuitous applause (else you call reviewers 'unlearned'). Re-read Wikipedia:Editor review and quit pissing into the wind. --Skyemoor 02:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I apologize for my strong language. I suppose people from all walks of life contribute to Wikipedia, including those with thin skin, and I will take that in consideration. Thanks. As for the 3RR, it was exactly that. Three reverts. As for wiki-lawyering, it seems only you and have William have stuck to the claim, and somehow are trying to use this excuse your behavior. I'm sorry, but it's just a sad, sad excuse. "POV tendencies"? You seem to be the one inserting blatant unsourced POV material, so I'm not sure you're the best person to be judging "POV." ~ UBeR 03:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Review

UBeR's style of editing the Global Warming page reminds me of this person's investigations of this issue. He'll try to use "wiki law" to edit out well established facts instead of constructive editing and discussing disagreements about the contents of the article. Any discussion with him on the talk page quickly shifts from the factual disagreement to a discussion about "wiki law". This, of course, doesn't produce good results.

Indeed, no legal system can function properly without a neutral judge. So, if we all start to behave like UBeR, then you would end up with wiki-lawyers and wiki-judges. The lawyers would be able to edit the talk pages, argueing about changes to the articles and the judges would make their rulings and change the article accordingly.Count Iblis 14:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Count Iblis. Seeing as how you didn't leave a message on my talk page, I'll respond here. Just a note, editor reviews are meant for the editor, not other people. More helpful to direct your comments toward the editor. Second, I would like to point to you that Wikipedia isn't truth, it's verifiability. "It demeans the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is not to advance a particular theory, but to present the browser with the current state of knowledge. Wikipedia is not here to say what is the truth, it is not here to evangelize your idea, it is here to provide a summary of what is being said—even if you don't like it." And there is good reason for this. Very good reasons. This is what Wikipedia is built upon. Denying this is denying the very pillar that supports the survival of Wikipedia. OK, so this isn't about what I believe or what you believe. If, in fact, as you purport, there are well established facts, surely there should be some other source other than Wikipedia talking about? So there are good reasons why Wikipedia allows statements from reliable sources be included, instead the original ideas of its editors. Next, your accusations of not constructively editing is against the spirit of Wikipedia and assuming good faith. Next, you're right I'm not arguing on the factual accuracy but rather how it relates to what Wikipedia allows. I'm not arguing against any factual accuracy (with a few exceptions such as natural forcings causing cooling), but rather how much opinion and subjective statements editors should be allowed to include. ~ UBeR 20:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
UBeR, thanks for replying! I think that the problem is that science is different from most other topics. Science is about finding the truth and in many cases we do have something that is close to the truth. Alternative theories must be mentioned, but cannot be given too much weight if the science is settled. If there is a public debate in which the science is much more disputed than in the scientific comminity, then that's a separate subject on which one can write a separate article. This is not really that different from how one deals with Neo-Nazis who dispute that 6 million Jews were killed in WWII. This is not given much attention in the article about the Holocaust. But there is an article about Neo-Nazis and their beliefs.
Also, note that by "constructive" I meant editing in the way I think is going to improve the article and we clearly have disagreements about that. Count Iblis 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm not arguing against any scientific theory. ~ UBeR 22:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments


Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Mainly, creating glacial history of Minnesota and making major contributions to execution of Saddam Hussein and global warming.
  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. I've had multiple edit conflicts with particular users, and especially administrators, who feel it necessary to own articles and push their POV on articles. In past, I tried talking to them on their talk pages, but a few select administrators, who had personal feelings and opinions that they could not preclude, classified it as "trolling." I took it upon myself to gather edit diffs of these particular administrators who abused Wikipedia policies, but the pages were deleted as "personal attacks."

    Now, I've had to resort to wiki-lawyering to demonstrate on article talk pages the specific policies being violated, and most users agree. From there, any adverse edits are removed.

    There are other significant conflicts I've had with non-administrators, with whom I've debated more civilly and came about agreed-upon compromises.

Comments

My limited experience on WP have shown me that UBeR is civil, good-faithed, and holds neutrality as a core WP principle. It only happens that what is neutral for some is not for others, and UBeR seems well aware of this.

I am although flabbergasted that this page has been invaded by User:William M. Connolley and his crew. This is getting closer and closer to a witch hunt. It should be known that while making good faith edits to climate-related articles, UBeR had the "misfortune" to vex a few of William Connolley's views about worldwide global warming. It is widely known throughout these articles that whatever User:William M. Connolley decides regarding these articles, Skyemoor, Stephan Schulz and Count Iblis, among others, are usual supporters, as can be seen by their invasion of this page. Dissent among this group is a rare phenomenon, perhaps simply because they each believe in anthropogenic global warming.

You will note that User:William M. Connolley actually came here to accuse UBeR of Wikilawyering (an accusation typically coming from people who find Wikipedia policies "annoying") while starting and engaging in a long discussion about... the 3RR rule (a purely procedural guideline without any regard to content on Wikipedia). Count Iblis did somewhat the same, coming here to express no more than his "views" about Wikipedia policies, while Skyemoor couldnt find better than to repeat the accusation of Wikilawyering raised yet again by User:William M. Connolley.

Comments by members of this group here should be taken with special care as they have regard with their views towards climate change science and politics. Odds are too high that the objective sought is to silence as much as possible someone who could propose further changes to the views exposed in climate articles. The debate regarding climate change policies is heated and highly political, and has reached the heart of Wikipedia, whose success has made it the target of attempts at using it to promote certain POVs. Both sides are guilty and accuse the other of pusing its POV, like Skyemoor just did. But if we are to cleanse Wikipedia of this, we at least must not let these personal interests interfere in discussions such as the one discussed herein. --Childhood's End 21:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Childhoodsend. Is this meant as a review? If so, please make sure it's in the review section, not the comments section, and addressed to the reviewee. If not, ignore this mumbling. :-) Thanks for your comments, though. I recognize there are a few trolls paroling the global warming article. Best to ignore their nonsensical and fallacious attacks. It's a shame some people cannot appreciate the English language for what it is either. It's a shame people make unfounded assertions. It's a all a shame. At any rate, I invite you look through these derisory ploys and contribute regardless, in an effort to better the project that is Wikipedia. ~ UBeR 19:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
So you keep the comments that attack other authors (and delve into global conspiracy theories), delete the responses, and then add further attacks? How balanced of you... --Skyemoor 20:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Skyemoor. If you wish to troll, please do so elsewhere. My regards, ~ UBeR 20:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tghe-retford

Tghe-retford (talk • contribs) I have been editing on Wikipedia for around one and a half years and I feel that alongside a review of the things I do on the Internet, my role as an editor on Wikipedia should be reviewed. I would like to see what I am doing right and where I need to improve. I welcome all suggestions, positive feedback and constructive criticism. tgheretford (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

I'm going to make a radical suggestion for you. Consider taking a Wikibreak: you can post a notice of this on your user page so that other people know. It can be for whatever length of time you choose: one week, one month, or longer. If you can't keep yourself away for that long, you can edit anonymously or create a second account, which you'll stop using when you return. I say this because I also am doing psychological therapy, and I also use Wikipedia as an outlet for social interaction. It's important not to get too caught up in the social scene here, with Wikiprojects, AFD, RFA, ACID and who knows what else. A few weeks ago I had to take a Wikibreak for that reason. I edited anonymously during that time, logging in only to nominate a couple of AFDs (which anons can't do) and vote on the Daniel Brandt and Essjay debates.

I notice in particular your fastidious manipulation of your userpage. My general advice regarding this is that your userpage must be in proportion with your contributions. If you've contributed a lot, you have a right to make yourself a fancy userpage. If you have 100 mainspace edits and 300 user page edits, you're wasting your time.

Now, your userpage is proportional with your contributions - in fact, you are doing well, and you are not making any mistakes that I could detect. In particular, your knowledge of policy has been a solid guide for all your activities here. What concerns me, from a human interest point of view, is that you may be making your Wikipedia identity into too much of a substitute to your real-world identity. You put your photo on your userpage, formatted a funky signature, added a dozen text boxes to look just right, maybe because you're trying to turn "Gareth" into "Tghe-retford." If that's what's happening, the best response is just to walk away for a while, and establish your identity in face-to-face social interactions. Once you're back on track, you can return here, and you'll do fine.

If you do continue to contribute (with or without a Wikibreak), you may indeed be ready for adminship at some point. Even then, adminship does not obligate you to do anything; there's a long list of inactive admins.

I wish you good luck. YechielMan 02:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I feel that I have made a number of valuable contributions to Wikipedia articles, including the expansion of the 102.2 Jazz FM article from a stub to a fully fledged article. I am also proud of my contributions to the Quiz channel article, as well as providing citations for the contributions I make where applicable. The What Satellite and Digital TV article was a special achievement for me because it gained recognition and praise from the editor of the aforementioned magazine on their web-blog. I am also pleased with the progress I am making in discussions, on talk pages, project namespace and in AfD/MfD discussions (all the more so considering I have been diagnosed with social anxiety by my doctor).

    A number of editors have also praised my work on Wikipedia and I have been asked to take part in a RfA because an editor believes in me to become a good administrator. However, I declined the offer for the time being because I need to concentrate on my cognitive behavioural therapy first.

    Wikipedia has also helped me in learning basic HTML, Wikitext mark-up and CSS coding which I believe have been valuable in my contributions to articles as well as experience of coding outside of Wikipedia.
  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, but they have been with new or anonymous editors who have no or little knowledge of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I have been in a situation before where the three revert rule was violated and this is regrettable and I see the error of my actions and have made efforts not to repeat the same mistake. It can be frustrating (not to a major degree) when editors who you are involved with a disagreement with do not respond or come back to form a consensus on an article, and indeed this happened with me before. In these situations you add the appropriate templates and discuss the issue on the talk page. I have helped reached a consensus before on the wording of ITV/STV/UTV between a good number of editors on the Freeview article, so I can demonstrate good neogitation skills to help editors reach consensus on a heated issue.

    My procedure in the event of a conflict is to tag the section accordingly, to alert the other editor there is a problem with their addition, thereby avoiding any potential three revert rule violation and encourage the other editor to discuss the issue on the articles talk page and encourage discussion until consensus can be reached between the two sides, using Wikipedia policy and guidelines within the dispute process if required.

[edit] Mschel

Mschel (talk • contribs) I would like to become an admin. I am a vandal fighter and I have experience as an admin on another wiki. Any suggestions would be very appreciated. - Mschel 14:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hi. Well, I see that you would like to be an admin here; I think that would be great, since it would certainly help you in your fight against vandalism, and I suppose you wouldn´t have to much problems with getting to know the new tools and the adminship policies and guidelines, since you are an admin on anoter wiki. But the only thing I am not very sure about is with the number of edits. Usually users request for adminship once having at least 3000 total edits or 150 per month; for instance, I also wish to become an admin, but I still haven´t reached certain ilestones and am still sort of new here. I suggest that you continue with your good work reverting vandalism and after some time request for adminship... You would be perfect for the job! Good luck... TomasBat (@)(Contributions)(Sign!) 12:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Being that I don't really do anything but revert vandalism, I do not have any one contribution that I am particularly pleased with, but I am pleased with all the vandalism I have reverted.
  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. I had made a mistake when reverting vandalism and I reverted by a good edit by SakotGrimshine that I thought was vandalism. He posted an angry message on my talk page and I (wrongly) replied by pointing out a very miner policy he had broken in his comment. A few minutes later I realized I was wrong and I apologized on his talk page. In future I will try to be calmer and carefully look into the situation before replying.

[edit] GofG

GofG (talk • contribs) I have been reverting vandalism exclusively for about one year and one month. I have had very little contact with so called "editors" (I think they're a myth) and I guess I think it might be time to move on to maybe writing articles, or maybe applying for adminship. I honestly have no idea, because I don't know any admins very well. GofG ||| Contribs 01:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • You seem to have done a lot of great work on Wikipedia so far. Great vandal fighting, and you seem to handle yourself in disputes well. You haven't spent an inordinate amount of time on your user page, and you have done a decent amount of mainspace edits. If you want to become an admin I think you'll have to rack up a lot more edits, but other than that, I would say keep up the good work! I think your idea of moving onto writing more articles is a good one, especially if you would like to pursue adminship. Verkhovensky 20:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    My single article that I've ever written fully. Aubrey Haynie. I didn't know how to do references, so I got my friend User:Commander Keane to do them for me. I uploaded the image myself though, a milestone in my learn-to-use-wikipedia career.
  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?
    There was the whole User:Shinemygrillz incident. He was basically a new editor who compiled edits amazingly fast. I was one of the ones who always answered his questionable {{helpme}}'s. Also, there was an editor on one of the articles I attempted to get involved in. User:Lou franklin basically wanted the word cocksucker removed from the text (it was a quote from a homophobe) under the grounds that it was unnecessarily obscene. I disagreed, and it pretty much snowballed. You can find the argument here.

[edit] Luckyluke

Luckyluke (talk • contribs) Seeking adminship and improvement feedback. Luke! 06:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Well, you seem to be in good shape for becoming an administrator; you have got over 2850 edits since October 2004 (making you quite an experienced editor) and you seem to assume good faith along with remaining cordial and friendly (making you a trusted and friendly user), but I am not sure if you are familiar with the so called sysop chores... If you are not familiar with them, then just learn a bit about them and that´s it; but if you are familiar with them, then you seem ready to request for adminship... --TomasBat (@)(Sign) 18:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Not particuarly. I believe myself to be a fairly well-rounded individual here on Wikipedia. However, I am involved to varying degrees with Wikiproject Hong Kong and WikiProject Vancouver. I re-vitalized the WikiProject Hong Kong effort and am one of the main contributing editors to maintaining Hong Kong-related articles; in addition to Vancouver-related ones.
  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?
    No, I have not been in any conflicts since I started editting for Wikipedia. I have remained cordial in my dealings and for the most part (99.9% of the time) assumed good faith in other editors.
  3. Why do you want to become an administrator? The Transhumanist   07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    I feel that by becoming an administrator I am in a better position to improve on Wikipedia's scope and quality of articles. Granted that all editors technically do this, I feel that I have gained the trust of the community to properly exercise the community's consensus in performing the necessary housekeeping activities to help Wikipedia achieve its goals. Luke! 00:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Do you think like an administrator? The Transhumanist   07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    I believe I do think like an administrator. Luke! 00:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. How so? The Transhumanist   07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    Adminstrators need to have clear and evident knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies that have developed through community consensus. Through my edit history, it has been shown that I have consistently acted within community consensus guidelines - whether that be XfD processes, Manual of Style for articles, notability guidelines, etc.
  6. What types of things should a sysadmin (or any experienced editor, for that matter) notice or look for when arriving at a page? The Transhumanist   07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    I believe that one of the first things that an experienced editor or admin should look for when first arriving at a page is that it actually meets the general guidelines for notability and inclusion. Furthermore, some articles, such as biographies of living persons and organizations, are subject to additional notability guidelines. Once notability has been established or is evident, the Manual of Style guidelines for article development. When I first arrive at a page, these are the first two steps that go through my mind. A close third step behind is I usually copyedit the page and, if required, add any necessary tags to the article. Luke! 00:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. What do you notice about Wikipedia:Editor review? The Transhumanist   07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    Well admittedly it has taken me a while to get on this question. From reviewing the WP:ER pages, we can see that there is a substantial backlog of editors requesting comprehensive editor reviews. Most editors have at least one review by another editor. I have found that the process of an editor review is not as well known as other Wikipedia processes may be. It may be that perhaps the guidelines for giving reviews is not clear.
  8. In general, when an administrator (or editor) finds a problem with a page, what should he or she do about it? The Transhumanist   07:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    Because of Wikipedia's size and scope of articles, it really depends on the problem. Some problems may just require the appropriate cleanup tags, criteria for CSD, copyedditting, etc. Before doing anything, it would be prudent to check the article's talk page first to see if any relevant discussions have taken place. Following that, I believe that if a page does not meed criteria for CSD or AfD, then the appropriate cleanup tags be introduced while correcting any obvious deficiences. All these actions would be followed up with a summary of the problem and your edit acitivity summary to try and correct the problem being noted in the talk page. I would also attempt to notify any editors that have contributed to the article significantly, seen through the page history, to solicit their help. Luke! 00:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wooyi

Wooyi (talk • contribs) I've been editing wikipedia on a lot of articles recently period when there was little or no homework and much spare time. But currently i might get busy and not able to come for a period of time. Here I'd like to request you all to give assessment and constructive criticisms to my edits, so I will improve when I come back. Thank you! Wooyi 03:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hi Wooyi! Greetings from another Chinese editor :) I occasionally edit Chinese Wikipedia as well.
I like the fields that you're interested in. History, biography of political personale, law and criminology are all sophisticated topics, so good for you! I am glad that you have never confronted any major conflicts since your talkspace edits are not low. There are always disagreements in AfD and image copyright disputes, so you don't have to worry too much about it (and it's not like you are worried about it anyways :)! ).
The only thing I'd like to recommend you is about your editing habit. I have one suggestion: Don't spend all your time on Wikipedia at once (I am referring to the huge spike in February), distribute them. When you are busy, you can still edit Wikipedia, but you can edit articles that relates to the homework subjects that you are working on (which I often do).

Cheers! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • A number of comments:
  • You have a fairly good balance of mainspace to WP mainspace edits, which suggests a good combination of article-writing, participation in XfDs, etc. This will help you if you want to become an admin in the future.
  • Good work with images as well. (You caught me on that Chavez picture!) There aren't that many admins who work the image side of things, so this will give you a huge advantage at RfA.
  • All in all, after you've chalked up another 1000 edits or so I would strongly encourage you to go for RfA (if you don't want to self-nominate, I would be pleased to nominate you). You would have a very strong chance. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I have contributed in a various of areas. The ones that I'm particularly pleased include my participation on the creation of WP:CRIME project and my work of adding infoboxes to criminal biographies, also I've edited and added infobox to US politicians, which is something I am pleased. More importantly I am particularly pleased about my contribution to Supreme Court cases and justices, and federal judges.
  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?
    Generally I have refrained from engaging in any edit wars or personal attacks, and I've seldom confronted major conflicts. The only ones were image copyright ambiguity and AFD arguments, but none of them are major, and I have usually been civil.
  3. In what specific areas would you like to improve?   The Transhumanist   09:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    As of now I would say I need improvement in my familiarity with the wiki codes and tools, also there are other things I might not know that I would like you to tell here.
  4. What tools do you use?   The Transhumanist   09:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    I currently have AWB, for tedious minor edits, but as of now I have not used it because I've not found such tedious edits after I got AWB. I might try to get VandalProof because I have been and I am interested in fighting vandalism. Today I just added WP:TWINKLE and found it very useful.
  5. What (other) departments would you like to work in?   The Transhumanist   09:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    Departments? Do you mean category or topics, or places like AFD, MFD, RFA, etc.?

[edit] Danielrocks123

Danielrocks123 (talk • contribs) I'm looking for an honest assessment of my Wikipedia work. I'm going to encourage constructive criticism because I really am interested in what everybody thinks. Thanks a lot! --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 22:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hey Daniel! Your userpage is messy, organize it now! lol! Partially j/k. The way it is right now, people probably won't spend much time reading about you. Anyways...

Some of the comments addressed in your previous editorial review still applies to you at present. Great job on Wikipedia-related edits, especially on the mediation tasks and AfD discussions. However, this is a encyclopedia, so you may want to contribute to the article content or writing articles sometimes. Most of your mainspace edits that I looked through are either reverts, correcting spelling, fix wording and other minor things. They are also spread out all over the place. You are definitely welcomed to do that! (Hell, I love it when users like you help on correcting my grammar/spelling). But to progress into a more sophisticated editor, contributing to article contents is crucial. Minor things can be done by bot somtimes.

Good editor. Good philosophy on #2. Cheers! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am probably most proud of my contributions to WP:MEDCOM. The mediation committee has been a great way for me to get involved in resolving disputes. I am also a New page and recent changes patroller. Finally, I like to help welcome new users when I'm not doing anything else.
  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've never really been in a terrible conflict on Wikipedia. Naturally, the MEDCOM work involves working with arguing parties, but so far I've been able to deal with that. I avoid getting involved in disputes by never editing when I'm in a bad mood and always remembering that if the other person is willing to seriously argue with me, he obviously thinks that what he is doing is good for the project.
  3. Questions from The Transhumanist   09:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    1. What is the purpose of Wikipedia?
      The main purpose of Wikipedia is to write a useful, accurate, and easy-to-use encyclopedia. The other aspects (aka community, etc.) are beneficial, but not the main purpose of the project.
    2. What is the essense of Wikipedia?
      I'm not completely sure that I understand this question, but I'll take it to mean, "What makes Wikipedia what it is?" I think what makes Wikipedia so unique is that it is user-created. While this causes us vandal-fighthers some headaches, it keeps the encyclopedia up-to-date. Wikipedia does not need multiple volumes like other encyclopedias.
    3. Do you want to become an administrator, and if so, why?
      I would like to become an administrator at some point. In fact, my recent RfA is one of the main reasons that I put myself up for review again. While I received some support, it is clear that the community doesn't think that I'm ready to be an admin yet, and I want to find out more exactly what everyone is looking for, but I digress. I would like to be an administrator so that I could block vandals, help out with speedy deletions, close AfD's, and protect pages that are being repeatedly vandalized.
    4. What activities are you engaged in now that admin tools would help you do better?
      See my answer to the previous question.
    5. What are the most important things an administrator should keep in mind?
      The most important thing that an administrator should keep in mind is that not everyone has as much Wikipedia experience as him or her. Administrators should live by WP:BITE and WP:AGF. These policies are what help new users stay involved, and admins should be conscious of that.
    6. What areas do you feel you need the most improvement in?
      I am far from proficient in all of the copyright rules, and I would like to learn a little more about that.
    7. What departments have you worked in?
      I have been involved with WP:MEDCOM. In addition, I patrol Special:newpages and Special:recentchanges.
    8. What would you consider your greatest strengths as a Wikipedian?
      I consider myself to be a friendly and helpful user. I am willing to help other users out who have problems. In general, I try to be as helpful as I can.
    9. What are your Wikipedia goals?
      My main goal is to do my part in making sure that Wikipedia is useful and accurate. I spend a lot of time reverting vandalism because that is the kind of thing that ruins Wikipedia's reputation.

[edit] Evilclown93

Evilclown93 (talk • contribs) I joined the site in early February 2007, and I have gained an interest in WikiProject Ice Hockey recently, and general RC and New Page patrol. I am interested in become a sysop, especially because of the pages I have ran into during New Page Patrol. I curious to know whatkind of editor I am. I know my edit count (about 430) and experience (1 month) easily is to little for an RFA, but that will come with time. The Evil Clown 20:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews

I'd like some more reviews, please!!

  • Hey Evilclown! Because you are a new editor, it's hard to address what sysop chores you need to work on; I am not allowed to address it here anyways. Regarding what kind of editor you are, by looking through your contributions, I think you are a quality editor off to a great start. Broad topics such as Ice Hockey is tough to get it featured. It is also harder to organize, but you are doing some great work to it, so props to you. I invite you to also join WikiProject Canada or other regional Canadian WikiProjects (you can find it in the navigation). I am from Vancouver myself. Canucks is surely the hot thing here :)

I generally don't like userpage redirecting to talk page. Userpage is important on letting other users know what kind of person you are. But that's your choice.

Cheers! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi, I just saw you on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_25. Just so you know, your contributions to the AfD discussions there are rather unhelpful. Comments like "Speedy Keep This is a very well written article" indicate that you should read up on WP:SK to understand what "speedy keep" means and on WP:AADD to understand why it's irrelevant on XfD whether something is "well-written" or not. Sandstein 15:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I'm pleased with my RC and New Page patrol, because it feels good to be eliminating vandalism from Wikipedia. As for WikiProject Ice Hockey, I've lately been revising Ice Hockey, and my goal is to bring it and related articles to FA status. Ice Hockey is now sort of my pet project, since there is so much work to be done about something that is important to Canada as wine is to France. I have at least 40 edits in the Sandbox (I LOVE to experiment there), and another 20 on my Userpage(playing with the layout, that sort of stuff. Just so everybody knows, I redirect my userpage to my talk.
  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've been in a few conflicts. In an RFA, I voted a very controversial oppose (see discussion here [[21]]. I was pretty stressed about it at the, on the point of a meltdown, but I kept my cool, and the issue is done and settled with ([[22]]). I also had an argument ([[23]]). That issue has been resolved.
  3. Questions from   The Transhumanist    10:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

4 From the very start of this account, your edits show a level of wiki-expertise. Please describe your prior Wikipedia experience.
I had an account(created in about January of 2006) that I trashed in January of 2007; I have never edited it again and nor was I banned or blocked. I wanted a new account, because I felt I needed a new start. With the old account (around 290 edits) I had a rough start and a rough finish, but I learned lots about Wikipedia, and as EvilClown93, I do show a level of wiki-expertise. I don't want to be associated with that account anymore, so I'm not going to merge or name-change them. The old account was sort of a training one.
5 What wikiskills do you have?
I obviously know very well (and very fast) how to revert, and tag speedy-delete templates. I can add images (and I uploaded two at my old account, none as The Evil Clown). Writing for Ice Hockey is actually a very new skill; I was more looking around Wikipedia policy with the old account. I have been playing with templates in the Sandbox, so I occasionally Welcome new users. However, one Wikikill I haven't mastered is the Preview Button; consequently I mess up a lot. (Before was the minor edit button).
6 What are your goals at Wikipedia?
I have a lot of goals at Wikipedia. I really want to improve WikiProject Ice Hockey, I want to learn how to remeber to use the preview buttons( I always forget), and later I feel like getting into Admin coaching, but I don't feel I am at that stage yet for any sort of admin involvment. I know the criteria well, though.
7 What is your wikiphilosophy?
If I vote in an RFA, and I can't support because of editcountitis issues raised by others, I try to always vote neutral, since I feel opposing in such a circumstance is too harsh. I revert suspected vandalism (because it very probably is vandalism), then I open to be hecked for reverting a useful contribution (I'm talking about stuff like replacing 1997 with 1999, and there is a lot of that in one edit). Always notify the creator of the article after I or someone else has tagged for policy violation, no matter how pointless (34315414yghfdgfgtegef) or deflamatory [Suzie is a (choice of expletive)] the article is. I want the users to know that they are being noticed ( I was welcomed within 10 minutes, I think), so I welcome them, or I leave notices about anything pertinent.
8 What wikiskills do you wish to acquire next?
Right now, I'm confident doing what I am doing right now; however, I am curious as how to do a detailed vandalism revert summary ( like "reverted 2 edits by The Transhumanist identified as vandalism to last version by EvilClown93").
9 What tools do you use? Huh? I learned recently how to use an automated revert summary, but that's about all I can think of. I'm not sure what you mean by tools.

[edit] Dwaipayanc

Dwaipayanc (talk • contribs) I have been in wikipedia actively since November 2005. I mainly participate in articles related to India. I would like to know what other editors think about my strength and weaknesses are as an editor in Wikipedia. Dwaipayan (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • From the articles you've provided, I can see that you can contribute to Wikipedia very well. You show knowledge about how an article should be written. Good job and keep up the good work. Nol888(Talk)(Review me please) 22:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dwaipayan, you are one of our best editors, and your featured articles are spectacular. You are an exceptional facilitator in discussions, and can easily change roles to a leader when the pressure is on. I suggest that you run for adminship, as I think the extra tools will serve you well for what you'd like to accomplish on-wiki -- 74.12.75.51 22:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've had a close interation with Dwaipayan, and I have a lot of positives to speak about. I'll instead focus on some weak spots here: 1. Few contributions outside the India and medical related fields 2. Any involvement in disputes? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Yes, my contributions are limited to India, at best, South Asia. And some medical articles. I wish I could participate in many other areas; but every time I wish so, some Indian article or topic comes in notice that may be improved! And again I am on the same track! However, this is not a major negative thing IMO. Because it's not uncommon that one user devotes most of his activities in one or two particular fields, according to his interest or knowledge. Reading Mathematical series or Renoir is definitely enjoyable, but I cannot even dream to edit those articles (baring style issues, minor copyedits, typos etc)!
The other point you have raised is vital. No, I hardly participate in disputes. One reason, they seem boring and unencyclopedic. Having said this, one cannot deny the importance of civil mediation of any dispute, especially in this user-editable format. People are bound to have opposing POVs, and clashes are unavoidable. Otherwise the world would have been too perfect and too much unexciting :) Sometimes I follow disputes, but usually those get so long-drawn and sinuous, I wonder why the hell people are giving so much time when they have got much better works to do! Anyway, recently I have started to see disputes more closely (though rarely participating), and hope will get a better understanding soon. Basically my point of view towards disputes is also not very productive, in the sense, you cannot ignore disputes just because you do not like them. Rather, trying to mediate disputes in a civil manner is much more difficult and intelligent job. And I respect the wikipedians who continue to mediate disputes wisely and help wikipedia maintain NPOV as far as practicable. I am learning this aspect slowly. Thanks for your observations. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dwaipayan is vey much helpful and supported me in every matter in Wikipedia. He remained polite and explained me the right way when i made some small mistakes when i was a newbie in Wikipedia.Amartyabag TALK2ME 04:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Yes I am pleased about my contribution to some articles. It took me a few months to understand how wikipedia works. Then I started a featured article drive for Kolkata. I received immense help from many editors. The article got featured status in May 2006. It was a nice feeling. Apart from this, it was nice to be involved in some other featured article drives such as Darjeeling, West Bengal, Satyajit Ray and Delhi. However, two more articles I would like to mention where I was not that much involved, but was pleased because I liked both and wanted to see them as featured articles. One is Tourette syndrome, and I was involved since it was in peer review. Another is Hippocrates where I tried to help the main author as far as I could. Apart from all these FA drives, my stay is wikipedia has been very pleasing, thanks to the excellent community.
  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 do not remember any serious conflict I got involved in. During the initial days, I got involved in some debate in the talk page of the article Bagha Jatin. But I now understand it was a rather minor debate (taking into account the serious debates/conflicts we get to see!). The dispute was resolved reasonably.
  3. How much danger is there of Wikipedia becoming the propaganda engine for corporations and governments? The Transhumanist   00:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is inherently susceptible for being used as a tool for propaganda. With increasing use and acceptability, the chance is increasing. Hiring of editors by companies like Microsoft and announcement of a business offering to create Wikipedia articles on behalf of corporations clearly show the tendency. Such open offers/incidents are easy to identify and take necessary actions. More of concern is self-promotional editing. For big companies, I think it would be hard to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. Because there are many users in favour of or against every big shark! Microsoft cannot write blatant propaganda without being noticed by some user who is anti-Microsoft, or, at least, neutral. Unattributed claims/edits will be reverted or toned down. However self-promotional material by smaller corporates are often hard to notice, unless some neutral user stumbles upon those. Such articles are often put up for AfD.
    Despite vigilance by the editors, there is every chance that propaganda would creep into Wikipedia, especially when done subtly. With an ever increasing mass of articles, the problem is going to increase. Regarding propaganda by government, it will be more tough for governments. The number of wikipedians who are against a particular government/political party is much more than wikipedians who are strict vigilant for a particular corporation. As a wikipedian from India, I can say that government propaganda is very tough to creep into wikipedia in this part of world. If federal or some provincial government tries to do some editing without proper references, that will be taken care of by Indian wikipedians themselves. Certain propaganda tends to be overlooked by the citizens of that country. For example, Indians may act in a biased way and let some anti-Pakistan propaganda stay in wikipedia. However, there are wikipedians from Pakistan to take care of that. And thankfully, there are wikipedians with cool heads who can mediate in case of any major dispute.
    I want to emphasize that major blatant propaganda is easily recognizable and actionable, just by sticking to the basic principle of Wikipedia:Attribution. But subtle intelligent propaganda are likely to be found with increasing frequency in Wikipedia.
  4. What can the Wikipedia community do to prevent that from ever happening? The Transhumanist   00:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is a good place to start with. Subtle propaganda issues can be discussed here. For blatant propaganda edits, editors should be bold and remove.
    Task forces/ groups can be built in order to keep vigil on particularly susceptible areas, such as, articles on terrorist organizations, articles related to sensitive international relations, or sensitive religious issues. However, participation in such groups is subject to an editor's knowledge of the subject and interest. There should also be some members in such task groups who are somewhat distant from the subject matter so that they can retain an unbiased point of view in case of conflicts.
    May be in future wikipedia may need to hire some subject experts as well! They can help mediate arbitrations on their field. However, that is somewhat against the basic principles, and I don't think will be needed or possible in near future.
    New users should be encouraged to know what is going on in Wikipedia. Signpost is a good thing that can be advertised, even in the main page, so that new users get to know the internal stuffs. This is needed because with the immensely increasing bulk of content, it is not easy for any task group or a few editors to see what is happening everywhere. If reporting of propaganda/errors by new users increases, the workload may ease. An average new user or passer by hardly go to the Community Portal. So displaying some important aspects of the community portal may be needed in the main page.
    Ending in a somewhat philosophical note (!), every wikipedian at all point of time should remember and act according to the Five pillars of Wikipedia. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Would you like to be an administrator? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, I would like to be an administrator. But not in near future, because of two reasons. First, some personal commitments. Second, IMO I am yet to learn some functioning of wikipedia, and participate in certain aspects which I am somewhat ignorant about. For example, as you yourself have noted in the review, I usually fight shy of disputes. With the ever increasing inflow of information, Wikipedia needs some more administrators, and I would like to be one sometime in future. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Transhumanist

The Transhumanist (talk • contribs)

I've been teaching others at the Virtual classroom, in general, and as a coach for admin coaching. And since I've been recommending to each of my students to sign up here, I figured I better get some first-hand experience in this process. So please, review me, and don't hesitate to pull out all the stops. If critiquing is what this page is all about, please give me your best shot. Thanks. The Transhumanist   22:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

[edit] Vassyana (talk • contribs)

First, I had never encountered your classroom before seeing you here on ER. I want to strongly commend you for that resource. Overall, it seems like you're a very productive editor. A number of your Wikipedia space and related overhauls are excellant. You always seem ready to offer advice and a helping hand, which is a quality I greatly admire. I found it very hard to find something to be critical about and I looked extensively, but I did come up with two minor nits/suggestions to bring up. I would recommend you spend a little more time in Wikipedia talk. Someone with your experience and viewpoint could be a very valuable contributor to policy discussions. I'd also recommend a little more time spent on article building. While your list, portal and redesign contributions are fantastic, I was highly impressed with the article work you've done and I think Wikipedia could benefit from you putting more attention towards that. Overall, you are a fantastic contributor and it was very difficult for me to find something to criticize or suggest you do differantly. Even the "criticisms" I brought up are a matter of personal preference in time distribution and should not dissuage you from the excellant work you have been doing. Vassyana 16:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool --- (for complete contribs, see my archives, accessible from my user page). I've put in 23,000+ edits including those from my anonymous IP and previous accounts.

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Lists of basic topics (that page, and the pages listed on that page). Because they provide the closest thing to a concise version of Wikipedia currently available, organized by subject, and because they provide overviews of subjects in a somewhat standardized "cheat sheet" format which is easy to understand. The pages seem to be getting a lot of traffic, and have generated very few complaints. I've enjoyed and am pleased with the results of almost all of the various projects I've taken on, which are listed on my user page.
  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, but those are fading into the distant past - distant in wiki-time, anyways. The last one was in November, I think. I was chastized for being overly "shouty" and immature in a deletion debate. I didn't realize that text formatting (bold, italic bold, strikeout, etc.) was interpretted in that way, but I've refrained from using excessive formatting in deletion debates and administrative discussions, because of its wiki-interpretation. Another conflict, from about a year ago, is explained on my user page (a Request for comment for overzealousness). I haven't been subject to any RfCs since, nor would I put myself in such a position again. Being more experienced in wiki-markup and Wikipedia-style page layout nowadays, I've been able to make sweeping changes to high-traffic pages without ruffling feathers nor raising concerns. Once you get a "feel" for the community's wants, needs, tastes, and standards, things go pretty smoothly. A couple months or so ago, I misjudged the reaction to changing a shortcut, and momentarily lost AWB access. After apologizing and offering to help clean up my changes, my AWB access was restored. See User:The Transhumanist (AWB). So now, I restrict my redirection of shortcuts to those which show up on no more than a handful of pages - if someone still objects, I would revert my changes without hesitation -- though no one has complained as of yet. When an existing shortcut is in greater use than that, it can be very time-consuming to get it changed (requires a proposal, discussion, etc.).
     
    All in all I'm much more laid back than I used to be. There are a great many ways to influence change in the right direction without being defiant or resorting to edit wars. The Transhumanist   22:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. I am proposing a policy. Let's suppose wikipedia starts a new thing called "dependable users" or "trustworthy users" (or whatever the name be). They may or may not be admins. They are chosen by a method somewhat like RfA, with special emphasis on their past anti-vandalism activities. They are not given all the admin tools. But given relaxation from the 3RR, in order that repeated vandalism can be fought more easily and in a straigh-forward way. Do you support this proposal? Give reasons. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for the question. I would have to respectfully oppose the proposal, for two reasons. First, reversions of vandalism are exempt from 3RR, and second, we don't need another approval process like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. (RfA). The main factor that determines whether a user is qualified for the mop is trust by the community. Therefore, RfA already serves the purpose of selecting trustworthy editors. The "Dependable users" department would unforfunately be reinventing the wheel, and might compete with RfA for participators. RfA needs all the feedback it can get, which such users could provide. It's best to steer them towards WP:RfA, or towards Editor review, which helps prepare editors for RfA. Just my two cents. The Transhumanist   17:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] casmith_789 (talk • contribs)

I have encountered you and your work on the virtual classroom before. He has done a great deal of work, working like a bot on some articles. Your edits to articles that I once tagged because they did not contain any information was and still is superb (but I still encourage you to actually create articles with information in). Your userpage just about sums everything up - and the summary is very long anyway. I would recommend you as a user and I feel that your RfA would not have been out of place if it had passed. The amount of work you do is amazing, and so are the barnstars.

How to improve:

  • Create articles with information in.
  • Maybe do a bit more work on Wikipedia talk, participating in discussions to show users that you do not go against policy or have bad behaviour.
  • Continue to work at the Help Desk and work at AfD.

I can't see anything major wrong, however, and I thinks mistakes in the psat do not lead to mistakes in the future. Good luck! -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tree Biting Conspiracy

Tree Biting Conspiracy (talk • contribs) I've been here for around 16 months, during which I've made over 12,871 edits. I'm currently an admin on the Simple English Wikipedia (where my username is "TBC"), and I've been thinking about the possibility of RfA. So, any suggestions on the best ways for me to improve? TBCΦtalk? 08:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • TBC...all I can say is that I was surprised that you're not an admin. Lately, you've become hyper-involved with AfDs, but if you could help out with other XfDs, it would be fantastic (WP:CFD, or the highly unpublicized WP:UFD). Other than that, if you're planning to have a nom, or you'd like a co-nom, I'll keep an eye out for you. bibliomaniac15 23:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd also be happy to Co-nom. Your a great editor, I'll give you some admin questions rom My Admin Coaching. Dfrg.msc 00:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Portal:Food, which is currently featured. Jews in Japan, No. 5, 1948, Planetary Fourier Spectrometer, Romanian wine, Super Robot Taisen: Original Generation, Thomas Highs, Christianity in Mongolia, and Stay the course, which are all DYK.
  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've been involved in numerous editing conflicts, but I've always managed to do my best to assume good faith and remain civil. My most recent disputes would have to be those I've had on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes.
  3. What is your Wikiphilosophy, and how has that helped guide you in your contributions to Wikipedia? The Transhumanist   20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Please describe your experience and exposure to Wikipedia policy, and your application of it. The Transhumanist   20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Optional questions from Dfrg.msc and Glen S

  1. In your opinion, what attributes make someone a good admin?
    A:
  2. Why would you want to be an admin?
    A:
  3. 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:
  4. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
    A:
  5. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    A:
  6. We all know that good-faith edits, while not being vandalism per se, sometimes reduce the quality of an article, and should be reverted or amended. In your opinion, however, is it possible for an article to be improved by edits made in bad faith? What course of action would you take if such a scenario arose?
    A:
  7. What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Have you tried to overcome these and would adminship make life any easier for you?
    A:

[edit] SMC

SMC (talk • contribs) I'd just like to see how I'm doing on Wikipedia and how I can improve. SMC 00:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Great job on reverting vandalism and expanding articles. However, I'd like to see you get more involved with the project namespace. For example, you should particpate in deletion debates, join a Wikiproject, work on a portal, or help someone in need at the Help Desk.--TBCΦtalk? 07:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I've added various character articles for the TV show NYPD Blue - expaning them was (and still is) a pleasure. I also have enjoyed taking pictures for various articles - I'm better at picture-taking than I am at article writing :)
  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?
    Mainly just the usual vandals - I've pointed out what they're doing to them. One case involved an article an anon user dismissed as non-notable, I removed the CSD he placed. Later the user was warned by an admin about doing so. That's about all the conflict I've had to deal with, thankfully.
  3. What's the link to the support page for the script on your monobook.js page? The Transhumanist   20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Support page? There's a support page? Sorry, don't quite understand.SMC 06:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. What are your Wikipedia-related goals? The Transhumanist   20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Mainly, for the time being, I'm looking at helping to complete the NYPD Blue character list with articles. Two almost constant goals are attempting to fill requests at requested pictures, as well as reverting vandalism. I contribute other articles where I feel I have the general knowledge and the resources to back it up with. SMC 06:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. What's the link to the page about the script you are using? The Transhumanist   04:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vox Rationis

Vox Rationis (talk • contribs) I've been editing Wikipedia for a while, and I've done a number of maintenance-related tasks. I'm looking to see what else I could/should do, and mostly what I can do better. Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 22:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • All in all, your edits look quite satisfactory. You seem to be doing more that just maintenance, you've contributed to Mainland High School quite a bit. You have a high Mainspace to userspace ratio (10:1), and your edits contribute a lot to Wikipedia. Keep up the great work ^_^ Nol888(Talk)(Review me please) 21:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am most pleased with my contributions to the page Mainland High School. Before it oscillated between vandalism and next to no content. Now, it is a half decent article, but it still has a ways to go. That article is the only article I have really seen grow from the ground up.
  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?
    A couple, both over conflicting views. One involved an image of a mouse trap (with mouse inside), and I made a comment on the images talk page about its somewhat gruesome nature. Another editor then "attacked" me with inflammatory remarks, including generalizing due to my political affiliation (which used to be posted on my user page, but I've since removed it). I politely urged him to calm down, while reverting his remarks as inflammatory. He posted more inflammatory remarks about how my political affiliation does not like to allow differing points of view. I then realized that my comment was to inciteful (at least for him) and so I removed both comments and just put up a {{talkpageheader}}. I also left him a subst'd user warning template regarding his inflammatory remarks. The other occasion was regarding an excessively long talk page. While on patrolling RC for vandals, I noticed a user deleting large sections of a talk page without an edit summary, so I reverted his edits. He exploded. He claimed he was cleaning it up, and how I was so rude to revert (and then left his remark unsigned). I explained to him that it was not reccomended to delete talk page material, but rather to archive the material. He wouldn't really listen, and when another editor came in and warned him as well, I dropped the matter (I didn't want to get into a debate with him, especially since most of th stuff being deleted was not very legitimate discussion; also, to note, when I was recovering my own remarks for archival on my talk page I had to search through his talk page history, as they had been deleted!). All in all, I think that I am very good at remaining civil and polite, and many times through in a bit of kindness, and I hope to keep this as I expand my boundaries.

[edit] Nol888

Nol888 (talk • contribs) This is my second review, and this time I have different answers to the questions. I am shooting towards a RfA in a few months, this will help. Nol888(Talk)(Review me please) 13:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • I think you need to review the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 asian games to refine your understanding of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - I don't think your response to the AfD discussion quite hit the mark in the light of other editors' comments. You are of course entitled to a different view but if so then you would need to give more explanation for your approach. I appreciate that you comment was early on, but that to me highlights even more that you do not necessarily have a view on this policy that is shared by others - had you actually read WP:Crystal before adding your vote?--Golden Wattle talk 21:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Second comment - separated from the first in order to allow you to respond to a different set of points. I really think you need more mainspace experience and not just vandalism reverts. Wikipedia is about writing an encyclopaedia. If you don't contribute to content I am not sure you can understand what the project is about. Hope this helps. Regards--Golden Wattle talk 21:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Your comment regarding my oppose at AzaToth's 2nd RFA is unacceptable, and not becoming of an admin. – Chacor 02:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    I'm confused. I've removed the comment because I've deemed it inappropriate. I corrected my mistake. You must have something else to say besides that one flaw. Nol888(Talk)(Review me please) 18:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Nice job rv-ing v! And A-ing gf where applicable [24]. A couple suggestions: Judging from your reviews of other users, you seem very focused on edit count (e.g. "From the looks of your edit count, you're on your way to becoming an ideal Wikipedia user. The only thing I have a problem with is your userpage edit count."). I'd remind you that edit count is not a reliable way to judge a user's contributions; someone with a high edit count could be making many mistakes or mediocre edits or intentionally trying to run up their edit count, and someone with few could be making large, valuable edits and making liberal use of the "show preview" button. In that vein, I liked your answer to Q3. One other minor suggestion: here at ER, if you are going to do a very short review as someone's first review, I'd consider putting it in the comments section rather than under "reviews", so others don't pass that person by for reviewing because they've already been reviewed. I don't know if this is common practice, but it's just a suggestion anyway. delldot talk 22:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


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 contributions to Marlboro Middle School. I also contribute to the XfD discussions quite a bit, and participate in the CVU, and the Welcoming Committee. Of course, I spend lots of time reverting vandalism.
  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?
    There have been few conflicts with vandals over the past, but since I got my userpage semi-protected, the amount of vandalism and conflicts has slowed to almost none.
  3. What are your opinions of the RfA process? The Transhumanist   20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    I think the RfA process is fair, but it has gotten stricter over time. I also believe that the people judge a little too much on the candidate's edits rather than the actual quality of the edits themselves.
  4. Have you read all of Wikipedia's policies yet? And what policy-related discussions have you participated in? The Transhumanist   20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    When it comes down to the policies of Wikipedia, I think I am familiar and have read most to all of them. There are some obscure policies that are not often mentioned in WP:LOP, but I know all the common ones such as Vandalism, 3RR, Username, XfD, CSD, etc. I mostly participate in discussions for XfD and the Username policy. I often report users to AIV. I have begun tagging images without a copyright tag.
  5. Please describe your administrative activities on Wikipedia. The Transhumanist   20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    Um, I really don't understand this question, but I'll answer it best I could. Well, if I were an admin, I would actively patrol AIV for user-reported things, and block if it seems a block is needed. I would also patrol the newpage and CSD list for pages that could be deleted. I would also work with images that do not have proper licensing information.
    1. I'm sorry, let me rephrase the question: please describe your current administrative activities. (The term "administrative" applies to more than the chores performed by sysadmins). Good answer above, by the way. The Transhumanist   21:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      Well, I do patrol the RC page most of the time, although I use the IRC channel sometimes. I often put a SD tag on pages that seem to serve no purpose. Over time I've gotten used to the different types of categories, and can tag them quite accurately. Once in a while I participate in RfA discussions, they are quite interesting.
  6. What do you see as Wikipedia's greatest challenges for the future, and what do you envision your role will be in helping this encyclopedia meet those challenges? The Transhumanist   20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    Hm, I think Wikipedia's greatest challenge is to keep up with the massive influx of data and information in the rapidly changing area of the modern world. And included in that is making sure all the information meets all of Wikipedia's policies and that they keep a neutral tone, etc. Don't forget keeping all the spam and vandalism out is a great challenge too. I imagine myself helping control the information that comes into Wikipedia, and helping fight vandals. Once in a while I might help author an article on a subject that I'm proficient at.

[edit] Sapphire Flame

Sapphire Flame (talk • contribs) STATEMENT Sapphire Flame 15:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • It is difficult to review with only 134 edits. My advice ... keep editing, ask for help from your adoptor when you run into trouble, and spend some time reading the Wikipedia policy pages and guideline pages. Other than that, my only other comment would be to make sure you provide edit summaries -- you do pretty well at that, but there is room for improvement. Keep at it. -- Pastordavid 20:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Not really, I'm afraid. My school's filter prevents me from looking for sources, reducing me to a mere wikignome.
  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?
    Well, I made the mistake of making an article about my school, and before you know it, it's a vandalism magnet. I put up warnings in the talk page, the IP's talk page, and it was finally banned. It only increased my hatred of vandals who exist only to post stupid messages *takes deep breaths*. All right, I'm fine now. I really want to be more useful to this site, so any advice or things for me to do would be great.
  3. What activities on Wikipedia have you enjoyed the most? The Transhumanist   20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not sure. I guess I like using the random article feature and seeing if the page I arrive at needs improvement. Since I have Firefox, I can use a spell checker to scan the page. Of course, regional language differences is one hitch in my plan.
  4. What do you like the most about Wikipedia as an encyclopedia? The Transhumanist   20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    Well... I like the scope of all its coverage. If you want to know about it, you'll find the most up to date information here. And if you don't like what you find, you can edit it.
  5. What do you consider as your area of greatest wiki-expertise? What key advice do you have for others concerning that area? The Transhumanist   20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    Wikignome activities, probably. I'm a little timid when it comes to editing articles and I'm not too good at finding sources, so I like to categorize articles and fix glaring typos.

[edit] Eastmain

Eastmain (talk • contribs) I've been contributing since May 2006, trying to improve articles, including those facing deletion, and doing some vandal-fighting. I would like to contribute more effectively, though. --Eastmain 01:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

You're an A-level editor. I have a few recommendations:

  • I'm not sure why you're user page has two "This is a userpage" boxes. Also, feel free to say more about yourself.
  • Your talk page is getting long. You should WP:ARCHIVE it.
  • I think you should continue your participation at WP:AFD, especially the subject-specific lists (places and transportation). I would describe you as an m:inclusionist, where I personally am a m:deletionist. Reading about this philosophical difference might give you a sense about why you think an article is notable and other people don't think so.
  • If you contribute at the current rate, that's plenty good enough. If you're looking for a new challenge, you can try the Cleanup Wikiproject and its various subsidiaries; my preference is to sort through WP:DEAD, but there's also WP:O, WP:WIKIFY and others.

I wish you good luck. YechielMan 14:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I have helped save some articles at risk of deletion such as George Randolph Hearst III. I also did a lot of useful work with the MSC Napoli article. Because I also participate on the French-language Wikipedia, I sometimes translate an article from French to English and try to expand it, such as Antoine Labelle. --Eastmain 01:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  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?
    Being civil to everyone reduces the chances of being on the receiving end of incivility. Vandals can be annoying, but I limit my interaction with them to reverting their edits and posting the standard warning templates on their user pages. I will report vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but I wish that I could block vandals who have received a final warning myself rather having to ask an admin to do so. --Eastmain 01:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. In what areas do you feel you are in most need of improvement? The Transhumanist   20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. What's your biggest peeve on Wikipedia? That is, what bothers you the most about Wikipedia (or anything on it)? And what do you think should be done about it? The Transhumanist   20:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RHB

RHB (talk • contribs) I've been registered here since February last year but wasn't editing frequently until October, and have notched up a few thousand edits on RHB and another few thousand on RHB(AWB) (talk • contribs), an semi-automated account using AWB. I would like to get more involved in interesting areas slightly peripheral to the actual writing of an encylopedia, such as DYK's, Editor Review, RFA's and Adoptions, but which still help Wikipedia. I'd like some views of my contributions so far, especially suggestions as to how my editing has improved. Thanks, RHB Talk - Edits 01:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

You're doing everything right! You use edit summaries, you insert references and copyedit content, and you evaluate articles for WikiProjects. That's all wonderful.

I encourage you to "go for it" to raise Downing Street memo to Featured Article status. Regarding the areas you mentioned in the statement above, I recommend the following:

  • Did You Know (DYK) I know nothing about it, but User:Nishkid64 is active there, and he might be able to give you a good introduction.
  • Editor Review It takes a few minutes, but you just need to take advantage of the information you have. Look at the fellow's user page, user talk page, and a few contributions from the Edit Counter list, especially the articles with the most edits to them. Look for the quality of the user's edits, the civility of his interaction with other users, and the degree to which he focuses on the encyclopedia as opposed to other things. (Don't follow my example on the last point!) User:delldot has experience with Editor Reviews.
  • RFA It's pretty hard to mess up voting for RFA. Just read the nomination statement and the answers, and express your gut feeling. You could take a more critical approach, but for starters you shouldn't bother with that. Keep in mind that the candidate's promotion to adminship does not rest solely on your vote, so the pressure's off, and don't waste too much time on it.
  • Adoptions Once again I know nothing, so I'll send you to delldot, who has adopted a few users.

I wish you good luck. YechielMan 01:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I enjoy most of what I do here, but primarily I'm proudest of List of Dad's Army episodes, now a FL. I want to try and focus on improving article to FA, and have one in my sights at the moment
  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 guess I could say the edits to United Kingdom made by User:Somethingoranother, and then the creation of sockpuppets/using IP's to circumvent the 3RR blocks placed on the main account, but Somethingorother was going against general consensus and edits were reverted by me and a few others.
  3. What's your opinion of the recent Essjay fiasco, and what do you believe should be done to avoid something like that from happening in the future? The Transhumanist   20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    I think very little can be done to prevent a situation like this occuring again, and have no problem with editors using false names on Wikipedia. The only problem comes when an editor uses their position/exploits real or fake crendentials to either represent themselves as staff of Wikipedia or to gain the upper hand in a discussion, as in the Essay situation.
  4. What pages in Wikipedia's help system (including pages in the Help and Wikipedia namespaces) have you found the most helpful? The Transhumanist   20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    I've found Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace most useful, listing every possible talk page message centrally, with perhaps the central WikiProject listing next.
  5. Which help pages have you found the most confusing, unhelpful, and in most need of help? The Transhumanist   20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TheronJ

TheronJ (talk • contribs) I'm curious what people think. TheronJ 23:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

I'm not really sure what to say here. You're doing fine. You've created a lot of new content, you fight vandalism, and you have a broad perspective about the project. With your edits to Wikipedia namespace pages, you might be considered a m:metapedian.

I would advise you to focus on jobs that you're good at and that other people aren't doing. For example, when I'm bored I sometimes do New Pages patrol (or occasionally RC Patrol), but really it's not necessary because so many others are doing it anyway. However, for Editor Review and WP:DEAD, there are pages just sitting there for weeks waiting for attention, and my contribution there is more valuable. So I would say the same to you. Your work as a mediator is extremely valuable. Wikipedia has a shortage of mediators, and people like me are reluctant to do it for a number of reasons. Your work as an article writer is also valuable because you work more diligently on style and referencing than most other editors. If you prioritize areas where you are most "needed" (of course we don't really need anyone, but that's another discussion), you will maximize your contribution to Wikipedia.

I wish you good luck. YechielMan 17:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Introduction: Generally, I think my contributions are characterized by two factors. First, I am a big fan of Wikipedia, but can't resist going to the next plate on the buffet, so I tend to do a little bit of a lot of things. Second, I generally like projects that I can pick up and finish, so I (unfortunately) don't have any featured articles to my name. With that said
    Articles: I think I'm best as a sourcing gnome, and try to add info where I can. (Cleaning up uncategorized pages is a great way to find these). Examples include: Sarah McClendon (diff); Survivor (Octavia Butler novel) (started and primarily written by me so far); Séraphine Louis (diff); and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (these three diffs).
    AFD: I like when I can contribute something new to AFD, either when I'm the first person to suggest a rationale that ends up carrying the day, or when I can make enough edits to correct the problem. For example, in response to an AFD nomination for St. Clements University, I tracked down and added some references that improved the article and caused the nominator to withdraw the nomination. (Here and here). I added similar references in response to the House of Dolls AFD, (diff), although that one was a lot easier.
    Wikipedia space: My policy and Wikipedia points of pride are somewhat trivial, but I like them. I'm proud of this edit to WP:SPADE, mostly because I like the idea of collaboratively editing essays to reach some consensus. I like these edits to WP:!VOTE, for the same reason, and because I think that the discussion led to a good finished product.
    Dispute resolution: I enjoy trying to assist in dispute resolution, and have done a bunch of advocacies and informal mediations. I'm probably proud of somewhat more than half of them.
  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'm a member of the harmonious editing club and try to stick by its principles. Generally, I'm a strong believer that: (1) it doesn't cost much to be polite even to people you think are jerks, and often helps; (2) even today's jerks could be tomorrow's good editors, and should be given the chance; and (3) most problems can be resolved without calling someone a jerk (although sometimes the resolution is banning the jerk, calling him or her one doesn't normally help). Once in a while, especially in policy debates, I realize that I have become outraged that the other side just doesn't get how obviously right I am. When I notice that I have allowed Wikipedia to actually make me mad, I try my best to pack up my tiger and take a Wikibreak.
    Good examples: (1) I had been strongly opposed to WP:!VOTE, and spent a while arguing on the talk page. As mentioned above, I ended up taking up the main proponent's invitation to suggest revisions, and tried to write something that captured both the proponents' viewpoint (polling is often useless and sometimes affirmatively harmful, especially in policy debates) with mine (polling is used from time to time, especially in articles debates, and is sometimes helpful). The two ideas overlapped, and I think the guideline is better for having both. (2) Similarly, when a new change patroller prodded a stub of mine for deletion[25], I talked to him about it, edited the article to attempt to address his concerns, (diff), and then discussed those edits with the prodd-er.(diff).
    Less good example: I'm still a little ashamed of one conflict. Shortly before the 2006 US Congressional elections, I noticed that an anonymous editor had deleted almost all negative information about one candidate, Clint Curtis,[26] and inserted unsourced negative information regarding Curtis' opponent, Tom Feeney.[27]. I gave the anon a couple vandalism warnings with the standard templates, (see User talk:131.94.55.64) and ultimately reported him for vandalism. (Here). Sam Blanning responded the way I probably should have, suggesting ways the anon could present his opinion, and suggesting that the anon use edit summaries to explain why he was deleting sections of text.[28] At that point, I tried to engage the anon on the talk page, and IMHO, we actually identified some good improvements by explaining our opinions and evaluating sources.[29]. Unfortunately, although I thought we made good progress, the anon eventually decompensated, registering for an account and going on an anti-TheronJ rampage. See Special:Contributions/Rememberkigali. (After the election, of course, he lost interest). His complaints were rejected, but I have always wondered - if I had been a little nicer about those first couple warnings, could we have reached some equilibrium? Probably not, but I'll never know. In any event, my lesson from that one is that except in cases of obvious vandalism, I plan to add at least a little sugarcoating to my warnings, especially if I'm involved in a content dispute with the vandal.
  3. What do you think about Larry Sanger, his role in the history of Wikipedia, and Jimbo's position with respect to LS's claims concerning Wikipedia? The Transhumanist   21:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    You ask great questions, Transhumanist. I hadn't really thought about Sanger before, although I am interested in the expert editor critique of Wikipedia. Let me think about it a little bit and get back to you. TheronJ 21:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, TheronJ 00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AstroHurricane001

AstroHurricane001 (talk • contribs)

Hi. I am a user who registered about 5 months ago. I have about 1000 edits, and I think it's about time that I was given suggestions and comments. I've never gone on a review before, so I hope I qualify. I'm quite experienced with wikipedia, but now I'm looking for suggestions. I've seen that this site is very up-to-date and info is very easy to find. In some cases, it takes years to find info through a search engine,but only minutes to find an article on the wiki. Events are updated, in some cases, less than a minute after it happens. That's what I like about wikipedia, and that's why I came here. So, that's a summary. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 23:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • There's nothing much for me to critique. You've been civil, you've contributed to a lot of articles, and overall you've been a great editor. Keep up the good work.--TBCΦtalk? 07:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent work on MOTD, excellent edit summary usage, good mainspace edit count percentage. All I suggest is focusing on mainspace edits. Keep up the good work,  ~Steptrip 21:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I have created several articles. I created articles for all meteor showers that are labelled "strong". I also created several comet articles, and it looks like I was the first user to create an article regarding Comet McNaught, which turned out tobe the brightest in decades. I also created articles for all the red links on the animals new to science page. Please see my page for details. Suggestions are welcome, hope I qualify. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 23:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  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?
    Well, not very often, but there probably were a few instances. My userpages were vandalized by 3 users, one a newcomer at the time whose only edit was to my userpage, one an anon who mayor may not know me in real life, one one a user who created a multiple number of nonnotable articles and might be the same person as the anon. My page was later semiprotected, but the first request was denied. I have had disscussions where people dissaggreed with me, but that didn't really cause stress. When I was a newcomer, someone notifed me politely that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that I was making too many talkpage edits, but since it was polite, it didn't cause stress. However, like some people, that user almost never responds to my messages, although I don't really mind. Nomerous times, I have read disscussions where the outcome of the consensus was, in my opinion, totally unjustified, although I usually didn't get involved. Also, I do not like database lockdowns. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 23:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. What in your opinion are Wikipedia's strengths? The Transhumanist   21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    Well, wikipedia is one of the most up-to-date sites on the internet. It could take months, or even years to find some key statistic or fact on the internet by search engine, but once you search on wikipedia, you will find up-to-date info in minutes, even seconds. This makes wiki one of the most priceless featuresof the internet. If you're in doubt about the info you're seeing, you could check the references or history. You could disscuss articles to improve them. All this and more, where you would probably never dream of finding elsewhere on the internet, make the wikis one of the best places to find info on the web, it only takes seconds, because usually you have all the info in one article. This is a lot faster than going on a search engine, compiling easily forgettable info, searching tens of sites. If there's a topic that's not on wikipedia, you could write it, or request that someone else write it for you. There's also the reference desk, where you could ask questions and help others with questions, and the village pump, where you could do the same with topics about wikipedia. This is, in my opinion, why I decided to become a contributor. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 21:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. What do you believe are Wikipedia's main weaknesses? The Transhumanist   21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    Since wikipedia is easily editable, it is often targeted by spammers, vandals, and terrorists. If someone gained knowledge about wikipedia, they could then try to destroy it, which is why we might need more admins. If someone suddenly mass-abused wikipedia, it could suffer major difficulties for hours. Another problem I heard about is the blocking of wiki in mainland China. Just like wikipedia blocking a country is not a good idea, as it did to Qatar for a few hours, blocking of wikipedia from a whole country for months is not a good idea either, as this whould temporarily separate about 20% of the world from this truly valuable resource, although another site has solved this problem. Wikipedia is a global community, but different laws in different countries could create problems. Copyright, for example, limits the avalibility of images. Too many copyright and other legal problems could get the foundation sued. Another major problem, is quite unforseen, but could possibly bring wikipedia to an end in the next few decades. The problem is, wikipedia's servers, foundations, and wikipedia itself, it located in the greater Tampa area in Florida. Sure, it has servers in Seoul and Amsterdam, but its heart lies in florida. Any major hurricane, tornado, or sea level rise, could destroy the foundation and servers. The other two servers could be threatened by major storms and see level rise as well. People have donated over a millin dollars to the wikimedia foundation, but that stll might not be enough to sustain the massively growing population of wikipedians. Also, the deletions are taking over the community, as community-based editor-encouraging parts of the site are slowly dissapearing. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 21:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MJCdetroit

MJCdetroit (talk • contribs) It has been brought to my attention that I should try to become an administrator. Therefore, before attempting to gain admin status, I figured it would be a good idea to be reviewed by my peers before proceeding with a RfA. MJCdetroit 17:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

Without doing a "proper" review of your editing pattern, I'll comment on your prospects for adminship. First, a lot of second-time applicants are successful if they have improved in the meanwhile, as you have. Second, you have strong credentials with contributions for more than a year, in various namespaces.

In your RFA, if you decide to do it, you need to be more clear and assertive than you were in the last RFA, or in your first two answers here. RFA voters like me are looking for someone who has demonstrated expertise in multiple fields. You have done this - but you haven't clearly articulated it. In the "contributions I'm pleased with" question, you should mention your work on various templates and your article contributions. The edit counter says you have 69 edits to Detroit. Did you add content or images? Did you fix spelling mistakes or revert vandalism? Have you done similar work for other articles? We want to know. In the "sysop tools" question, mention your work in TFD, and suggest that you would close TFDs and maybe CAT:CSDs (which include some templates), in addition to the other backlogs you mentioned. I wish you good luck. YechielMan 19:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
  • In an RfA, the user might wish to mention template protection-unprotection in what he would do with admin tools. Savvy RfA participants like hearing someone use specifics beyond the usual "admin backlog" answer. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Lately, I'd probably have to say {{Infobox City}} and the edits associated with it. In order to implement an automatic unit conversion feature in the template, all articles using that template had to first be prepared so that there would not be any expression errors. It was a lot of work, but the result was a smooth transition and a more uniformed look and function to the template and pages that use it.
  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?
    User:Tasc, but then again...who hasn't a conflict with him? He is now blocked indefinitely for his conflicts. I dealt with him the way that anyone should deal with such a situation —through mediation.
  3. Optional question from youngamerican: In terms of either content or technical issues, in what areas of Wikipedia do you feel that you have developed a certain level of expertise?
    Wouldn't say I'm an expert but I have become very familar with the workings of infoboxes and templates. Also copy editing articles to manual of styles section on measurements.
  4. Optional question from riana_dzasta: What sysop tools would you find the most useful, and what activities would you use them for?
    There always seems to be admin backlogs and I wouldn't mind helping out where I can in areas such as Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, 3RR, and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.
  5. Optional question from riana_dzasta: Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
    If I am even considering it then they must have done something very distrubing to even get to that point. I would hope that blocking would be used as either a last resort (they won't respond to me or continue their wrong doing) or perhaps as a way to force them to take a step back from a heated exchange (with personal attacks) or an edit war (3RR). I've been around a while, I know how I am expected to conduct myself and so should other established users.
  6. Optional question from riana_dzasta: Your first RfA did not pass due to your lack of interaction in the project space. Currently, approximately 3% of your edits are to the project space. How important do you feel it is for an administrator to be involved in WP:space, and how do you intend to use sysop tools given that you do not appear to take part in very many XfDs, RfAs, and other so-called 'admin hotspots'? (No accusations here! Basically just a rehashing of my first optional question.)
    I have proposed many templates for deletion. Many of the country articles used their own infoboxes, all looking different from one another until I put all of them up for deletion and standardized all the country infoboxes to {{Infobox Country}}. I tend to be an inclusionist when it comes to articles. As for RfAs, I tend to vote for editors that I have had interactions with in the past. Also, I was one of the first editors to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes and I have been involved with WikiProject:Countries and WikiProject:Cities. In fact when I am done here I plan to review the Madrid article as requested in the project talk page.
  7. Optional Question from riana_dzasta: Under what circumstances should a page be protected? Are there other methods to avoid protection?
    This question just recently came up at Template:Infobox City because that template is used on over 3,000 pages. One change to that template could affect all the other pages that use it. I said that I would be in favor of protecting it even though it would be harder of me to edit to it; but that's what a sandbox and the talk page is for. Semi-protection has worked well in the past on pages like United States and George W. Bush.
  8. Optional Question from riana_dzasta: In your opinion, what attributes make someone a good admin?
    Some admins I am sure do more work than others and are more involved than others, but I wouldn't necessarily say that that makes them "good". I think that it is easier to define a "good" admin by first defining a bad admin. Anyone who rushes to judgement, anyone who can not be fair or impartial, anyone who does anything that maybe viewed as administrator abuse would certainly be classified as bad. As long as the administrator does not fit that mold, then I consider them to be good.
  9. Optional Question from riana_dzasta: In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    I think that administrators hold a slight technical advantage over regular editors, but it's not that big of a deal. It's just an extra tool in the toolbelt. It's like being on a construction sight and the the foreman entrusts a certain worker with the keys to the toolbox to help all the other workers. The foreman can just as easily give the keys to someone else, just like the ArbCom can take away the admin's powers if needed. As far as a political position, I feel that administrators shouldn't view their position as political. Thinking that this position has some type of political advantage could lead to clouding someone's views on a certain issue.
  10. Lucky bonus question from riana_dzasta ;) : Three parts; a) If successful, will you consider the admin recall category? b) Take a look at Category:Rouge admins - would you see yourself there? c) What is WP:IAR and what situations do you feel its application is warranted?s
    a) If it's just an extra tool in the toolbelt then being open to having it taken away more easily than ArbCom would be a way to show my intensions and that I could be trusted with said tools.
    b) Sound like fun.
    c)WP:IAR is not a blank check to do whatever you want. I remember someone tried to used this when they wanted to totally rewrite the WP:MOSNUM. One person against, well everyone didn't work out too well—even with the "Ignore all rules" concept. The community will still decide what is acceptable. As for when is it warrented...I couldn't think of a situation...sorry.

[edit] Kzrulzuall

Kzrulzuall (talk • contribs) I am thinking of going for RFA in a month's time and I want to know how I am doing. KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 06:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews


Comments

  • Comment/Question - I have qualms regarding your method of Patrolling, based on one warning you've made, to my talk page here. It was a very quick response, under 3 minutes from the articles creation - but even a cursory glance in Related changes or User Contribs would have told you I'm the sole contributor to the Chopin Études and have thus far made quality efforts expanding each article. Why did you feel, even if only in that one case, to pass judgment so quickly? ALTON .ıl 03:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if what I said came out as a warning, but it was meant to be a notice. The music piece in question had hardly any context on it, and I was waiting for you to determine the importance of the article. Again, I'm deeply sorry for my haste. I seemed to have passed judgement dependant on some other new articles, in which the creator didn't bother expanding and was later SDed.--KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 03:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Well put. I was just wondering and happened to pass by your name here. Good luck in RFA. ALTON .ıl 04:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, short articles doesn't mean it's not notable. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 09:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, short articles doesn't mean its not notable, but there was never a notability issue. The fact is, the article contained no context before I asked Alton to expand it. It is covered under CSD A1. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 09:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that:
You shouldn't have put the message that way
It was a little obvious that it was a work-in-progress with a template and infobox. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 09:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The only reason that I placed a message on Alton's talk page is to make certain that it is a work-in-progress. Certainty is always better than assumptions. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 05:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I recently made an edit (logged off) to Gobbledok, this page had apparently been and still is plagued by vandlism, you reverted this quickly and without reason. You should check if an IP edit is vandalism before reverting. - Quolnok 02:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I noticed the high amount of vandalism from ip addresses, to that article and thought yours was one too... --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 05:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Kzrulzuall, seeing that you have just restored libelous content by an impersonator/harasser of User:Stirling Newberry, to hand you tools allowing you to recreate deleted content presents the very real possibility that you will damage living people and/or the project. Such actions are completely unacceptable. I invite you to reflect on how you would feel if someone had placed your image and a portion of your name on a page with hobbies including "cruising for sex" and "gloryholes" and were unable to get it deleted because a clueless admin kept restoring it. This is a minimal prerequisite, I should think, for your successful RfA.Proabivouac 23:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The incident with that user happened due to my inability to recognise a connection between User Stirling Newberry and Carlton Newberry Lopez. I thought they were different users, and was unable to find a resemblance between the images displayed on the userpages. As for the "sex" articles, many genuine users have similar things posted on their userpage, and I didn't suspect much in the way of libel. I am extremely sorry for the incident, and I can assure you that I would not make such a foolish decision if I was granted adminship. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I would say my favorite contributions will be the ones towards novel articles and the ones regarding WP:TENNIS. I'm also pretty proud of my numerous vandalism reverts and my work towards warning vandals.
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 haven't been given a vast amount of stress although I did get imitated many times. I merely placed a SSP tag on his userpage, and reported it. However, I did get in some nasty AFD discussions, namely this one and I just warned the user making personal attacks. I did, however, get considerably harsh when the user didn't stop his personal attacks and started vandalizing other people's userpages.
3. What are your strongest wiki-skills? The Transhumanist   22:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say my strongest wiki skills will be judging vandalism from good faith edits and getting into AFD discussions. I am also pretty good at citing sources for articles and template creations. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 05:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
4. What are your weakest wiki-skills, and the ones you wish to improve upon the most? The Transhumanist   22:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
My weakest wiki skills would probably be the improvement and maintenance of articles, and the creation of categories and new articles. I am currently seeking to improve my article contribution count to a satisfactory level. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 05:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tabun1015

Tabun1015 (talk • contribs) I just wanted an opinion or two as to my edits, and ideas for different tasks to do that I may not have considered. Although I have had an account for a long time, I only casually edit on Wikipedia, and have no intention of becoming an administrator. Please focus on my most recent edits. My earliest ones were a ways back when I was new to Wikipedia and rather dorky Tabun1015 00:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Just briefly, its useful to editos reviewing edits if you use the this is a minor edit button if it is a small edit. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking at the article you created on Medieval ships I'd suggest alternating the images left and right to prevent the huge white spaces. Have you checked out Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Review - You have a useful knack of starting stubs that clearly fill a need, like Opus Majus & Medieval ships (the fashion too, though that was a clear gap). I think you should aim to take them further yourself - as you have done with the ships - I know with the fashion you didn't get much chance!. For example Morion has no references, and also is not covered or linked to at helmet (an article it would be easy to improve on the historical side). When I start an article I typically add text & links (where relevant & appropriate) to about 5 other articles, tying it in to them. Apart from anything else it means your article will be read more. There must be loads of scope for this at medieval shipping (my mistake - but eg this should also be a redirect).
One thing I don't think you have done, which I think it would be a good idea to develop your editing skills, is to take a reasonably long & old ,but weak (in parts), article with on a subject that interests you, with some editors involved & to try to really improve it where it's weak - actually helmet could be an example. The reaction of other editors is an essential part of WP, though of course very unpredictable. There are tons of articles on WP that are really patchy, and existing editors are often used to this, or unaware of it.
You are now doing more on a regular basis, which is great. In general I think you are doing a very good job & are probably pretty well aware of where you can develop your skills. Edit summaries are good. It's a good idea to look around WP:AfD, WP:CfD & policy stuff a little - AfD in particular. They all broaden the view of WP. Keep it up & enjoy yourself! Johnbod 18:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I recently started the articles Medieval ships and 1300-1400 in fashion, which I must say I'm fairly proud of, along with other articles that I've recently created (the older ones that I created I'm only lukewarm to). The article Opus Majus, which I started, was recently featured in the Did You Know section.
  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 have had no stress or conflicts with other editors that are worth mentioning. I only edit casually in my free time, so I try to be as low stress as I can.
  3. What are the most administrator-like duties which you perform now? The Transhumanist   21:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    Generally spelling and grammar correction, and putting in templates from Wikipedia:Template messages where appropriate. I may start doing Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol (as I said before, I have no intention of becoming an administrator, at least for the foreseeable future)
  4. What wiki-skills would you like to acquire? The Transhumanist   04:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    The most advanced editing skills that I can get, and a thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policy (especially copyright issues, such as how to determine "fair use" material.)
  5. What areas do you feel you need the most improvement? The Transhumanist   04:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    In depth researching of information for articles and knowing what non-text materials can be added to Wikipedia, such as images and other media (this goes hand in hand with learning more about copyright)
  6. As an editor, what are your goals on Wikipedia. When all is said and done, what will you want to have contributed to Wikipedia? The Transhumanist   04:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    In short, anything I can. Like I said, I'm just a casual editor, so I just want to contribute whatever I can to this project.

[edit] Selket

Selket (talk • contribs) I've been around since 2003 but editing actively and consistently for a little over a month. I just wanted to see how some other people thought I was doing. Selket Talk 22:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • You're very solid, in fact, I'd think that you'd make a pretty good admin. You really don't have anything to correct, but you may want to expand out of AFD's and move to other Wikipedian functions: WP:RFA, WP:RFC, or one of the other XfD's. A marvelous job you've done. I'll be keeping an eye on you. :) bibliomaniac15 00:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I like what I started with Vestibule. It's nowhere near finished, but was a disambiguation page with a sentence when I started. I'm proud of my contributions to the merge backlog, and the clickable maps on Ear
  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?
    My first major conflict was Larry Darby. The other big one was an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rhode_Island_Route_11) that came out of my article merge backlog work.
  3. I'm familiar with popups. But what do the other scripts in your monobook.js do? The Transhumanist   21:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    There are three other scripts in my monobook.js:
    • User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js makes it easy to add javascript functions to links in your toolbox (left side of screen). It is used by the other two scripts.
    • User:Gimmetrow/fixRefs.js moves footnotes outside of punctuation per WP:REF
    • User:Selket/quikSummary.js inserts a pretyped edit summary with one click. This is useful if you are making lots of repetitive edits. You can use copy/paste for text you want to add and then just click the "Quik Summary" link to add a canned edit summary. I used this recently when I was migrating some pages from {{drugbox}} to {{drugbox-mab}} (e.g., here). It's not really ready for public consumption, but if you want help setting it up on account, leave a note on my talk page and I'll help you get it working.
  4. How did you go about selecting the scripts that you placed on your monobook page? The Transhumanist   21:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    The first two were suggested to me by Gimmetrow after I proposed a bot to make these footnote fixes. I began using the script, and I also added the functionality to AWB with the help of Mets501 when it applies general fixes. I had the idea for the third while making lots of repetitive edits, so I wrote it.
  5. What other tools (including internal and external) do you utilize in working with/on Wikipedia? The Transhumanist   21:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    I use AWB when there is something specific I need to do with it like fixing double redirects or links to a disambiguation page. I also run SelketBot which is written in Python using pywikipedia.
  6. What determines what articles you work on? (How do you decide, find, look them up, etc.?) The Transhumanist   21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    There are several ways I choose which articles to contribute to:
    1. What interests me -- There are topics that I am interested in that I enjoy contributing to. Go (board game), drug pages, neuroanatomy pages (like Vestibule of the ear), for example.
    2. Problems I find -- Usually stuff I run across, either error, which I fix, or conflicts, which I tend to stick my foot in like Larry Darby, Royal Rife, or DBFS. I have had differing degrees of success in helping to cool the situation.
    3. Backlogs -- For some reason, I really enjoy clearing backlogs. Old merge requests have been my most recent past-time.
  7. What advice would you give to a user who would like to start writing scripts, but who has no programming experience? -- TT
  8. What resources would you recommend to a user who would like to start writing scripts, but who has no programming experience? -- TT
  9. What is your wiki-philosophy? -- TT
  10. What are your wiki-aspirations? -- TT
  11. Do you want to become an admin? -- TT
  12. In what areas do you believe you need the most improvement? -- TT
  13. What is your analysis of the Editor Review department? Is it lacking something, and if so, what should be done about it? -- TT

[edit] Dar-Ape

Dar-Ape (talk • contribs) Hello. I've been an active contributor here for about 9 months and have over 5500 edits. I mostly revert vandalism and help out in other various areas. I had an unsuccessful RfA in December which I withdrew because many people felt I was not experienced enough. I would like to try again soon. I would appreciate any and all suggestions anyone has for me, even if they are only minor nitpicks. Thanks! Dar-Ape 19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

I reviewed your user and user talk pages, some of your articles, and your previous RFA. I really don't see anything wrong with the way you're contributing to Wikipedia and communicating with users. In particular, I am impressed by the way you help users who ask questions at the Reference Desk or on your talk page. I would encourage you to apply for adminship again soon, and I would be willing to support you (or even nominate you).

To that end, it might be a good idea to try two new things:

  1. Get more active in XFD discussions. This was a sticking point with the oppose votes last time. You don't have to scan the 100+ articles on AFD every day (though I sometimes do that); you can specialize in AFDs within your field of interest, such as music-related deletions.
  2. Try to take your best articles to the next level. "Treasure Island" and "William A. Hammond" might be within reach of achieving Good Article status.

I wish you good luck. YechielMan 19:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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 creations Treasure Island (1934 film), Outrage! (game) (DYK), William Alexander Hammond (DYK), and The Kite Runner (film). Specifically, I am pleased with the first two because little information about them is available elsewhere on the internet, and I am pleased with William Alexander Hammond because it was surprising to realize such an important and famous man did not have an article until I wrote it.
  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 have had disagreements, but none have caused me stress, and I have never been engaged in an edit war or a large, extended conflict. I think one of the reasons I'm rarely engaged in any kind of serious conflict is because I work to prevent them the same way I have and will always deal with them: staying calm and laid back, assuming good faith, being polite, and never forgetting policies. Examples:
    • User talk:Meteoroid/Archive 2#Image:Edit Summary-2.png is largeley self-explanatory. After Meteoroid never replied, I removed the warning in question myself.
    • See my RfA for more examples.
  3. What areas do you think you need the most improvement in? The Transhumanist   04:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    I could probably contribute more to XFD discussions, which have not been a principal focus of mine, but I would say this would be a mostly quantity based improvement as opposed to a quality based one. As for quality, I'm not really sure... :-/
  4. What are your greatest strengths as a Wikipedian? The Transhumanist   04:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    One of my greatest strengths is my centeredness and levelheadedness; I am typically calm and courteous even if another user I'm discussing something with is not. I also take pride in the variety of the articles I contribute to and the tasks I take part in.

[edit] Retiono Virginian

Retiono Virginian (talk • contribs) I'm a user who has been on wikipeida for a month, making about 1000 edits, making succesfull AFD debates, and generally being excellent on newpage patrol and Recent changes patrol; whilst doing general things that are needed to be done such as tagging long backlogged socks, and creating categories. I have created 3 short articles on wikipedia and generally got on well with other editors. Retiono Virginian 15:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

Comments

  • As your adopter on Wikipedia I believe you have come along way and are now an excellent user, however there are a few things I would just like to point out above, that is you have put and generally being excellent on newpage patrol and recent changes patrol, well with respect to you, some users may find this is a little bit of - well: bragging (I don't mean to sound nasty and/or uncivil, I am just pointing it out) and on your user page you say having an IQ of 134 (I think!) and saying that makes you professional genius, well its OK with that being on and putting your IQ up but once again some users may find this bragging and I would suggest removing the bit about that but not the actual IQ userbox, except for the above though you are a very active and excellent User and I strongly believe you'll become a sysop in the future months - 160x.Regards - Tellyaddict 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    The speed I catch and revert vandalism on the recent changes by first checking character change, the page then the user, a good match of a well famous thing, a rapid character drop, and an anon user gives it away to me that the act is vandalism. Hence, I revert and warn them. Retiono Virginian 15:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  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 have been involved in one particular conflict in the past week with a polish editor called User:LUCPOL and some other editors, they told me he was disruptive and a sockpuppeteer, however being true or not, the other editor involved was little better, and were engaging in userpage edit wars and such. I naively started up an arbcom case which failed, I furiously had to revert all the edits in the war, it turned out the war came across due to his lack of understanding of English. With a Polish translator, we were able to see his point and the conflict came to a rest. Retiono Virginian 15:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. If you had complete control and authority over Wikipedia, how would you change it? The Transhumanist   04:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Have you read all of the policies? The Transhumanist   04:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Please describe your participation in policy discussions (at WP:VPP, on policy talk pages, etc.). The Transhumanist   04:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zazzer

Zazzer (talk • contribs) I just want an editor review... Zazzer 00:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

The administrators who explained why your RFA failed ([30]) gave you good advice. I have only a few things to add:

  • You don't yet have a good sense of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The article you cited in your answer to #1 has been deleted, and the article Alternate blasters (Artemis Fowl), which you created and edited, was redirected, with the content presumably deleted. You can learn what not to write about by reading WP:NFT, WP:NOT, and pages in the "see also" section of those two. I recommend that you start skimming "Today's Featured Article" on the Main Page to get a sense of how an excellent article should look, including the references.
  • Wikipedia is not a social networking site. You have almost 500 edits to your user and user talk pages, and only 100 edits in the article namespace. You should quit tinkering with your userpage (it's fine the way it is), and keep discussions with your "friends" on Wikipedia to relevant issues. I suggest you use your Wikiproject as a guide for writing articles on worthwhile subjects - and if you need help finding a reference for your ideas, ask someone!

I wish you good luck. YechielMan 03:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I think that the article that I am most pleased about would have to be The Serpent's Egg Trilogy. I am most pleased with this article because I wrote it with, what I believe, to be great aplomb. I started it the moment that I finished reading the series and I realized that it was great enough to have a Wikipedia article, and when I saw that there wasn't one, well I just had to create it.
  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 have had a few minor scirmishes with some other editors, but for the most part no. I always tried to maintain a pleasant demeanor and I am sure that I always thouroughly wrote everything out, and I will continue to do so.
  3. Optional question from Vassyana: Have you considered participating in WP:AFD and/or WP:RFA? If not, why not? If so, why have you declined to become involved?
    Well, yes I have considered it, but the reason I have not participated, was that I thought that others might have a firmer grasp on the topics. I also believed, at the time, that I was not ready to help. According to your recommendations, I believe I will participate more in the afore mentioned topics.

[edit] Martijn Hoekstra

Martijn Hoekstra (talk • contribs) To become a better Wikipedian, I would like some imput from my peers. There is almost allways something to improve, so I look forward to constructive critisism Martijn Hoekstra 23:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hmmm a difficult review because you do not have a large number of edits to judge you by. Anyway here we go. Although I am not a great fan of massive userpages it may help to put a little more detail about yourself on yours that others may find useful e.g. languages you speak or areas you are expert in. You always seem to use the edit summary for major and mino edits so that it is great. The way you handled yourself over at Talk:Zagreb is good, did not get dragged into being uncivil or upset etc... Cool heads are always good. You seem to be more of a clean up editor, fixing little things that go unnoticed by others, always valuable. I am at a loss for what else to say - you do a good job and have level head, keep up the good work and maybe get more involved if you have time. If you wish me or others to look at a specific issue then please say. Cheers Lethaniol 14:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    My work for zagreb where a long running conflict on how a the page should look was ended, and a solution where everyone was happy with could be found. There was some admin help involved, but still.
  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?
    The sex related pages get a lot of vandalism. I quite recently removed one from my watchlist, and should delete another too, as there are plenty of wikipedians to keep them promptly clean.
  3. Which pages listed at Help:Contents/Getting started have you not read? The Transhumanist   04:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Which pages listed at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia have you not read? The Transhumanist   04:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. What subject area do you like the best? The Transhumanist   04:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. What is your appraisal of the encyclopedia's coverage of that subject area? The Transhumanist   04:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. What needs to be done to improve that section of Wikipedia? The Transhumanist   04:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. What essential features, in your opinion, is Wikipedia missing? The Transhumanist   04:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smcafirst

Smcafirst (talk • contribs) I have been here at Wikipedia for about 6 months, active for 4. Although the length of time sounded short, I made sure I know everything in Wikipedia. In fact, during the last 2 months, I had been editing on Wikipedia on almost everyday. As a local resident in the Golden Horseshoe, I also started a Wikiproject named WP:GHR, in order to improve road stubs in the Golden Horseshoe area. In total, I am involved in 4 Wikiproject (WP:FILM, WP:GHR; WP:EiC; Wikipedia:WikiProject Ontario Highways, and in one of which I am the creator and editor, editting my members' work, and wikify the articles if needed be. Frequently do I mark stubs on articles that I think are short and lack of information. In many ways, I co-operate with others, and prevent vandalizing. During my spare time, I often patrol around in Wikipedia to monitor vandalizing, just like an administrator. In these past months, I made positive changes to Wikipedia. I am a Wikipediholic that made over 2000 edits in just 4 months, over 200 categories and articles in just 3 months. Most important of all, I marked stubs and wikify notices on articles for almost 500 times. Some of which are Steeles Avenue, and Simcoe County Road 8. I often drive 500 km, just to take a picture for Wikipedia, and often research until middle of the night, to write an article of something. Other than EN wikipedia, I also have another account at ZH wikipedia, which I made several articles and edits. I have been taking HTML Writing Class, Proofreading Class, and Chinese Typing Class, so that I could write bots, proofread others' work in a better degree, and contribute more to the Chinese Wikipedia community. I am also ready to start a Wikiproject in EN wikipedia and ZH wikipedia about bus routes in various cities. I am deeply in need of admin tools, such as protecting various pages, as some of the articles under WP:GHR are vandalized, and are in need of clean-up. I am also a frequent contributor of AfD and a frequent reporter at AIV. I am a frequent user of edit summary. I am also the best Wikipediholic, scoring about 26000.Check My Edit Summary Usage.  Smcafirst | Chit-Chat  posted at 22:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • One thing I want to ask you, my dear editor, is it possible to be an administrator with 3000 edits?


Reviews

Hello Smcafirst, this is PrestonH! But, if you want to be an admin I recommend admin coaching. Overall, you are a great user in Wikipedia in encyclopedia-building. But I would not recommend adminship at this time. Here are the reasons why...

  • You say you are in deeply needed of the tools. Adminship is not a goal, it is a responsibility.
  • I think you should go to A/M/TFD a little more common. Deleting things that don't belong to Wikipedia is the main thing that admins do.
  • Vandal fighting is important because admins block troublesome user and you need the experience of this to know the procedure. I think you should vandal fight more often and submit more reports to WP:AIV.
  • To my opinion your Wikipedia namespace isn't balanced out, as you only made 314 Wikispace edits, and admin nominees need 800+ Wikispace edits.
  • I might recommend you visit WP:RFPP more often as admins un/protect articles in a face of vandalism or dispute (this is optional but it might boost your chances of succeding your RfA.

These are the things that people might oppose you of. Remember this, adminship is no big deal (It is possible that admin nominees pass with >3000 edits). As an editor, you did a faboulous job on encyclopedia writing. I might not cover everything in my review. Keep up the good work and happy editing!--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 05:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Smcafirst, I have noticed your work on road articles (I live in Toronto) and it is fantastic. You are obviously dedicated so I guess all you need is more time and experience as PrestonH said. I am not involved with the RfA process, so I can't give you any specific advice on that, but I would recommend waiting a bit longer, until you are very comfortable with all the policies and guidelines, before trying again.

This edit is questionable, as you replaced links to articles that were about to get deleted, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodbine Avenue, with ones in your user subpages. Also, please be aware that WP:USER states you should not have your user pages under categories used for mainspace Wikipedia articles. Good luck, –Pomte 00:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, you should not claim to be a frequent contributor at AfD and AIV when your edit history says otherwise. "Frequent" is a subjective term but I doubt the people at RfA would be lenient about that. –Pomte 01:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am particular pleased with List of York Regional Roads. It is an article packed with information, and currently a Featured List Candidate. These articles I had put a lot of efforts into it, and provide a lot of details. Particularly the lists of York Regional Roads and Simcoe County Roads, they are detail oriented and took me 3 hours to create those pages. The articles is equipped with every single information, and I believe that these lists are the best I had ever created. WP:GHR is also a good page that i had created, despite it is a WikiProject.
  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 have been in a conflict of editing in the past with another administrator, RaccoonFox. I had created some categories, so that roads in the Golden Horseshoe could fit into their municipal categories. However, as an administrator, RaccoonFox reverted my edits into what I think were misleading names. We finally talked together on a talk page, and compromised. He admitted the names are difficult to understand at times, and he let me to rename all of the categories into their proper names again. In the future, I will do the same thing, because I believe talking on a talk page, discussing conflicts, and compromise is a better way of editing than reverting each other's edits over and over again.
  3. What methods do you use to navigate around in Wikipedia? The Transhumanist   05:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. What is your critique of Wikipedia's category system? The Transhumanist   05:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Do you find it difficult or cumbersome to work with categories? If so, in what way? The Transhumanist   05:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Approval I think you'd make a good operator/administrator. You are neutral, non-biased, and level-headed. You have my vote of support. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 02:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Granpire Viking Man

Granpire Viking Man (talk • contribs) Hi, I'm a bit new here. I just want to know how I am doing. I have not been very active lately because I have been busy. I'll start soon again though. I'm also sort of a grammatical perfectionist. I make a lot of minor edits. Granpire Viking Man 19:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Here is my review. I am not quite sure what you want me to check, so I will simply go over what I see. I note that your edit count is somewhat low. Note: this is not necessarily bad; I am just reviewing. I think perhaps to improve, you should talk less about major edits and do them more. Also, the protectiveness is common in admins. (They have to deal with a lot of vandals and other bad people every day so they might get a bit angry if they misinterpret your edits.) If you want do not want admins angry at you, I will give some suggestions to help them not think of you as bad. You should write edit summaries so the admin knows what you did to the article. Also, make sure you always cooperate with the admin and do what they say. (I'm saying you didn't; I'm just giving suggestions.) To avoid making mistakes, ask questions if you are not sure. That way you won't accidentaly break some kind of rule and cause a problem. There you go. Some suggestions. Captain panda In vino veritas 21:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Review by delldot:

  • Hi Granpire! I assume that above, Captain panda means "I'm not saying you didn't..." I don't know that I agree that you should always do what an admin says, if you disagree with someone, admin or otherwise, I think the best course is to discuss it calmly with them on a talk page. You can of course preempt some hostility by explaining yourself in advance or asking if you're unsure an edit is appropriate.
  • You can learn more than you ever wanted to about tables at m:table and userboxes at Wikipedia:userbox. Also, if you ever have questions about anything wikipedia, do not hesitate for even a second to ask me on my talk page, I'm always glad to help out.
  • I've had the same problem you've had with the help and policy pages: you go to look something up and you get 50 other pages of crap you have to wade through. I think part of the problem is that wikipedia's not easy to navigate for newcomers because most contributors (especially in the wikipedia namespace) aren't themselves new. So you, as a relative newcomer who knows about the pages, are in a position to be quite useful by explaining parts that were hard to understand or user-unfriendly on the talk pages of the problematic pages. You also mentioned not enough simple English; I agree that's a problem and encourage you to be bold and rewrite sentences where you find that (Large rewrites may require a note on the talk page if they're potentially controversial, just say something quick like "hey I did this, let me know if there's a problem").
  • I had a look at your talk page and didn't find anything I thought was inappropriate in terms of your behavior, you seem civil and friendly. I agree Wknight's comments sounded a little curt, it may have been unintentional though. Remember that since it's just words on a page, stuff can come across as more hostile than it's intended to, so make sure to give folks the benefit of the doubt. You can always ask for clarification if you need it.

Anyway, keep up the good work! Glad to have you helping out on the project. Let me know if you need anything. delldot talk 22:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I make a lot of minor edits, so there's nothing very big to feel too good about. I debate with other users about major edits more than doing them. I'll probably do bigger ones as I go along.
  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 have not been in any editing conflicts. I was a bit suprised by Wknight94's straitforwardness and protectiveness. He seemed a bit rude at first, but can be a very talented and friendly Administrator and Wikipedian. I did not have any trouble with any users, but if I did I think it is very important to bring other users into a conflict to work things out together.
  3. Is there anything in particular you've been having trouble with? The Transhumanist   05:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    "Trouble? Well, not really."
  4. Is there anything you've been wondering about? The Transhumanist   05:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    "Just mostly tables and userboxes, stuff like that. I'm not in a hurry to learn though."
  5. Is there anything about Wikipedia that has been annoying you? The Transhumanist   05:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    "Definitely the carelessness in the articles, and improper spelling and grammar that"
  6. About what proportion of your Wikipedia-time do you spend reading help pages? The Transhumanist   05:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    "I usually edit articles, and read and learn while doing that."
  7. Is Wikipedia's help system well-designed? The Transhumanist   05:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    "I usually prefer to get help directly from users, because the help pages are a bit too hard to understand, and find myself on endless links."
  8. Is there anything about it that you think should be improved? If so, what? The Transhumanist   05:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    "The system could be improved by adding more simple english and explainations. It should be more oriented towards beginers."
  9. What is your favorite subject? The Transhumanist   05:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    "Computers and PDAs."
  10. Please take a look at the "See also" sections of the articles belonging to that subject area. How well do the see also sections link that subject together? The Transhumanist   05:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    "Pretty good."
  11. Did you notice any problems? If so, what? The Transhumanist   05:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    "About "see also", no, except there is a bit too many fansites, and irrelevent stuff."
  12. What needs to be done to improve the connectivity of your favorite subject area? The Transhumanist   05:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    "By connectivity, I'm assuming you mean overall quality. I think the only problem is simple language. If this is fixed, you could have very good articles."
  13. How many editors do you think it would take to complete the task within a reasonable time frame? The Transhumanist   05:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. "I don't really know, does it really matter?"

[edit] Yuanchosaan

Yuanchosaan (talk • contribs) Hi, I'm Yuanchosaan and I am a Wikiholic. I would like an editor review because it would allow me to:

  • a)Explore my flaws and strengths
  • b)Improve those areas that need improvement
  • and c) Recieve advice from more experienced editors from which I could benefit.
    It is my hope that I will benefit from constructive comments in this review and will thus become a better editor, helping to make Wikipedia a better place.
    YuanchosaanSalutations! 10:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • First off let me say that I was very impressed by your answers to the below questions. It looks like you have a really good grasp on what Wikipedia is about, and you are very good at communicating that idea. After reading the answers to the questions, I was a bit surprised by your edit count, because it was a bit lower than I expected. I am, however, a strong believer that edit counts do not necessarily reflect the value of one's contributions to Wikipedia. Your edits are certainly meaningful - even though many of them are on user spaces and talk spaces, your userbox hobby and insightful comments on talk pages are impressive. From your edit count breakdown it also looks like you are becoming a much more active editor, and I am confident in saying that I think it will very much be to the benefit of Wikipedia. My only suggestion would be to explore more mainspace edits. Keep up the good work. Verkhovensky 17:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Most of my edits are minor(I aspire to be a WikiGnome) but I do enjoy creating userboxes for many users and consider this a useful pursuit. Another pursuit of mine is to be kind to every user in this community and hope to guide and teach others though I am but a junior Wikipedian.
  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 have never really felt that I have been part of a conflict. For this I am sincerely grateful. Though a very small minority of users have irritated me, I respect their right to contribute to Wikipedia and hope that I remain civil to them. Generally I try to act calmly and kindly to everyone and retain good relations. Being fairly passive I will usually try to incorporate any changes so that they will work better for Wikipedia as a whole.
  3. How many barnstars have you given out? The Transhumanist   05:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    Only 1, to User:Woohookitty for his/her work in fighting vandalism.
  4. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Barnstar. Are there any essential barnstars missing from Wikipedia's collection of barnstars? The Transhumanist   05:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    I'd like to see a barnstar for those people who make templates, those who contribute regularly and thoughtfully to discussions and one for those who, with conscientious effort, try to create ideas, compromises or policies that benefit Wikipedia, especially in times of stress eg the Essjay controversy.
  5. What's your favorite wikignome activity? The Transhumanist   05:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    I enjoy copyediting and adding infoboxes to articles. I also believe that reverting vandalism is also of the utmost importance(even though that really isn't a Wikignome activity). When I'm really stressed, I work on Wikipedia to calm myself down
  6. What other Wikignome activities have you learned about? The Transhumanist   05:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    I sometimes fix broken links, wikify pages and create redirects. I have not yet found the oppurtunity to merge a page(the tag was removed). I'd like to try my hand at citing and adding links sometime soon.
  7. What's your favorite thing in or about or of Wikipedia so far? The Transhumanist   05:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    This is a very hard question. I love WIkipedia in general but if I had to choose two things I would say the sheer amount of information so easily accessible and also the friendly atmosphere of this community. I find the freedom here, to say what you think and have other people listen, one of the most wonderful things about Wikipedia. Though there are still some people who degrade Wikipedia, the spirit of trust and growth remains. I think Wikipedia is the closest thing to a utopia(if there is one) because it is a sanctuary for so many people all around the globe, no matter what age or race.
  8. First thanks for your excellent and constructive suggestion on the Wiki Hall meeting. Your activism impressed me. Congratulations. I would like to ask you where do you see yourself, say two years from now vis a vis your work in Wikipedia? Finally are you planning to be active on the main namespace or are you inclined to be more active in other areas? Dr.K. 01:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    I'd like to be more active in the mainspace area, particularly in reverting vandalism and creating new articles. However, I would also like to expand to include making templates see my first(other than simple userboxes), helping with categories and increase edits in the Wikipedia space. I've just started to expand to AfDs and XfDs so I will increase activity there. I think I will also focus on helping new Wikipedians in the future (eg at the help desk, welcoming, teaching etc) when I become more experienced, as they hold Wikipedia's future. As an aside I will probably try to increase Commons input which can then be transferred to Wikipedia. Most probably I will try to expand to all areas of Wikipedia but mainly focus on copyediting and vandalism watch, with welcoming new users as a secondary.
    Two years from now? That's a long way away but of course Wikipedia will still be here! By then I will probably be far more experienced and able to help in many different areas. I would really like to help out new users and create templates, possibly try my hand at mediating. Perhaps even one day I could be the one writing Editor Reviews ^-^! I don't think I could be an admin(maybe a few years after that, but now I'm too busy. Anyway, you never know), but I hope that I can still help out with Wikipedia in general. Wikipedia will probably have some 5 million articles and be rather more efficient but there will always be plenty of jobs and plenty of hard working contributors, of whom I would like to join the ranks of. By then, I may and hope to have achieved all the goals stated above and perhaps more(anything for Wikipedia). And maybe, just maybe, I too could inspire new Wikipedians the way other senior editors (and Jimbo) have inspired me too, to help out in a growing community.

[edit] Redskunk

Redskunk (talk • contribs) Interested in how I can help Wikipedia, and adminship in the far future. RedSkunktalk 04:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

I reviewed your user page, talk page, and some edits from the Edit Counter tool. Here's what I found:

  • On your user page, you are a WikiGnome, not a Wikiknome. :)
  • You have more edits to user and user talk pages than to articles. Since you're still learning how this forum works, that's okay, but in the long run you should be looking to change that. Tinker less with your userpage, signature and so forth, and devote more of your efforts to improving articles.
  • On the other side of that coin, your interactions with other users, especially Shining Spirit, have been positive. Wikipedia is more than an online community, but it is not less than that.
  • You have a link to the edit counter on your user page, and you once remarked, "I passed 250 edits!" Beware of editcountitis.
  • On my user page, I have a list of articles I've created or significantly improved based on my own knowledge (as opposed to cleanup of other people's work, which is also valuable). Consider making such a list for yourself, to encourage you to make nontrivial additions to the encyclopedia.
  • Good administrator candidates tend to have experience doing a lot of different things: vandal fighting, deletion debates, article writing and editing, dispute resolution, etc. With your RC patrolling, you're on the way, but see what else you can do to help Wikipedia.

I wish you good luck. YechielMan 16:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am especially proud of my contributions to WP:AIR in general, especially to aero-specs tags. However I haven't made many factual contributions but am trying to ease myself into them.
  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 have not been in many stressful situations. I have been involved in a couple of AFD disputes, but none of them have escalated. Mostly I try to shrug of comments from vandals and consider problems from other users, such as my using a template for my signature, which has been resolved.
  3. What should Wikipedia be when it grows up? (Please be detailed in your answer). The Transhumanist   05:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr.Z-man

Mr.Z-man (talk • contribs) I've been planning to do this for a while. I mainly want to see how helpful other users find my editing job to be (if that makes any sense). I have been registered for around a year, but only became very active this past January. Since then, I have started a few articles, made some templates, and joined in XfD discussions. I am now beginning to get involved in policy discussions here, here, and until recently here. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

I reviewed your user page, talk page, and some of your edits. I found that you are an asset to the project in many different ways. You participate in discussions at the village pump, you answer questions at the help desk, you report vandalism to AIV, and you evaluate submissions at Articles for Creation. A lot of your work involves helping with inexperienced users, so the rule of Assume Good Faith should always guide your interactions with them.

I noticed that you requested admin coaching, which indicates to me that you wish to become an administrator someday. (Join the club!) You need to spend more time, building your credentials and starting new articles and templates, before you can expect to get the 75% support at WP:RFA. I would support you right now, but the fact is that standards are very high there, and you need to be prepared. You can compare it to the declined FA nomination for "Geography Cup." At the same time, you can consider listing the article at WP:GA, and/or fixing whatever deficiencies were cited. The other thing I would advise is to spend a little more time with XFDs, such as AFD and TFD. You closed a speedy keep, but didn't do it correctly, according to your talk page (I've made the same mistake). A little more experience will cure that, and will reinforce the inclusion criteria you learned on the notability discussions and in AFC.

You may be interested to know that an elaborate proposal was drafted regarding speedy deletion of unsourced articles. Look for it in centralized discussions. It hasn't gained consensus, but it shows that others recognize the problem that you cited in the supplementary section of your answers. I wish you good luck. YechielMan 01:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Also, in response to your comment on my talk page, its a little too late for that (I've already got about 40 edits to the discussion around Jimbo's credential proposal). I did list Geography Cup at GA and I'm already working on another potential FA candidate. I just recently got involved with AFC, as a way to help contribute more to the enyclopedic aspect. Again, thank you for your thoughts. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am quite happy with the Geography Cup article. I am the original author and main contributor. It is the first article I have taken past stub status. I nominated it for FAC here. It is last in the candidates list and will probably be denied soon due to no consensus, but I am happy that it was even able to get some support. I also am pleased with the Template:Infobox Non-profit. I got the idea from Requested Templates. It started as a copy of Infobox:Company with some parameters changed for non-profits, but it has since taken on a life of its own. It is now in use on some important articles.
  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?
    Of course there have been some, but nothing major. I was involved in a minor dispute over the Nepassa article see log. One user made the article, I tagged it for speedy, it was deleted. The same user reposted it with a lot more information. Another user tagged it, but the author contested it and I was dragged back in. The author claimed it was a real religion, but with no sources, it was deleted after a quick AfD. I was also involved in the recent Timothy Noah AfD. I have recently joined the Mediation Cabal, but have not mediated any disputes yet. I try to deal with tension by countering it with lighter material. A good example of this is this.
  3. You removed a link that I placed here: Toby Crabel. The link shows Toby Crabel's price patterns in action being used by traders in day to day trading. It shows the current values for the trading day and links to how those price patterns are calculated. This sort of information is normally useful to people researching these price patterns by providing real world examples of their calculation and use.
    I reverted it because it looked like spam. Toby's name was not in the url and you did not leave an edit summary saying why it should be there. After reviewing it further, I'll put it back in. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    I apologise for not entering an edit summary - I will do this in the future - thanks for your help and guidelines in making entries/edits.
  4. In what way do you feel that Wikipedia is the most lacking? The Transhumanist   05:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is most lacking in a way to enforce WP:ATT. We say "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source" in the edit window, but there is really no way to enforce this (as of yet). Information that is obviously wrong (George Washington died in 1947) is deleted right away, but everything else usually stays. People don't want to just remove it as that could cause a content dispute (if the info is correct) and we can't just remove all unsourced information. I'm not really sure how many articles are in Category:All articles lacking sources, but its alphabetical table of contents has a scroll bar. Finding sources for almost every article will take a lot of work but Wikipedia would seem a lot more credible if it were done. Unfortunately, I can't really think of a way to "enforce" ATT, as this would really mean checking every edit for a source, which means that for each editor adding info, we would have to have one checking it.Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 18:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. What needs to be done about it? And how would you go about bring the resources to bear to fix it? The Transhumanist   05:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    As I said above, there is really little that we can do besides marking things as "unsourced." I thought about proposing a new CSD criteria to allow new articles without sources to be speedily deleted but decided agianst proposing it as it would have a tendency to be misconstrued and abused in other situations and also beacuse it would seem more bitey than the other CSD criteria. And also, to be honest, I would rather have 1.6 million articles where only 600,000 have sources than have only 600,000 articles where they all have sources.Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 18:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. What do you think Wikipedia will be like in 5 years time? The Transhumanist   05:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    5 years from now, I see 3 possible futures for Wikipedia (arranged in order from most to least likely):
    1. It could be exactly as it is now with a few minor changes. We would have 2.5 to 3 million articles and some policies would be slightly different. We would still be a a massive font of knowledge but not a true encyclopedia.
    2. We become a true encyclopedia. Someone manages to come up with a compromise between "everyone can edit" and "all information must be attributable to a reliable source", possibly somthing like the "stable/live versions" and Wikipedia become the best research tool ever.
    3. Something goes horribly wrong. Vandals outnumber good editors, a bad policy change or a major scandal drives away the editors in droves, a lawsuit cripples the Foundation, or (gasp!) something better comes along and Wikipedia becomes a wasteland of vandalism. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 18:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. I noticed that you gave a very nice practical example to an enquiry at the credential verification talk page. Are you an expert, or planning to become one, on Wikipedia policies and guidelines? What proportion of your editing activities would you devote to policy matters? Thanks. Dr.K. 02:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    I wouldn't say I'm an expert (I happened to go to the Deletion Process page earler that day). I do spend a lot of time at WP:HD, WP:VPR, and WP:VPP though, so I learn a lot there. I also participate in AFD's, so I'm quite familiar with some core policies and guidelines (WP:N, WP:ATT, WP:NOT) as they come up often in deletion discussions. Every contributor should have some knowledge of core content policy like NPOV and ATT. Editors who participate in policy/guideline related discussions and deletion discussions should have quite a bit more knowledge. As for how much time should be devoted to policy matters, we are trying to create an encyclopedia here, content is first and foremost, I would say maybe 10-20% would be ideal. I may spend a little more, I've been trying to cut back and spend more time working on articles. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jaypenguin150

Jaypenguin150 (talk • contribs) I am a Junior in High School, and am very excited about being part of Wikipedia. Although homework takes up a great deal of my time, I still try to edit pages that need attention from different WikiProjects. I mostly try to work on Disney related pages, as that is an area where I have a lot of expertise. I have joined WikiProject Disney, Walt Disney World, and Disneyland. I would like to be reveiwed to see what I can do better/different and what else I can do on Wikipedia........jw ........jw 06:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

I reviewed a few of your contributions, and I checked the edit counting tool. I found that you are making a few mistakes that are typical for new users, and easily corrected.

  1. For some reason, you have marked every edit as "minor". Generally, you should only mark an edit as minor if you're fixing a spelling mistake or correcting a run-on sentence or similar problems. If you're adding or deleting a whole sentence, the "minor edit" box should not be checked.
  2. When you delete a comment more than a few minutes after you originally wrote it, you should use the "strikeout" feature, <str>like this</str>. You could have done that here.
  3. You created a WikiProject for MythBusters, but so far nobody else has joined. Have you advertised it on Talk:MythBusters? Have other editors expressed their interest in it? If you are an expert on the TV show, you don't need help to edit articles on that subject (though of course you should welcome help when it comes). Just go ahead and add the information - with references. Don't be shy; be bold.
  4. Don't get too caught up with your userpage. It's good enough the way it is.
  5. Please come back! You've only made two edits this month, and it would be a shame for the project to lose your knowledge and talent. I wish you good luck. YechielMan 04:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am very pleased about doing some of the 'dirty work' for the Disney pages, such as converting templates and toolboxes. I think that this is a necessary evil that makes a big difference in the end.
  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 have a lot of ideas. Some people have expressed disapproval of my ideas. I am glad to know that there are people that care as much as I do when it comes to editing, formatting, and refurbishing articles.

[edit] Logical2u

Logical2u (talk • contribs) :I've been around since about March 06 (Earlier, if you look at Logical2u2, which is a 2nd account I used for maybe 3 edits), with, maybe, about 1500 edits. It shows 1500 on Wannabe Kate, and 1300 + 200 deleted on "Edit Count", if you're interested.

I basically entered Wikipedia during a "bad" time. Throughout the entirety of my stay I have been primarily a vandal-fighter, though I refuse to say so on my userpage. I participated in what was, essentially, a slow edit/revert war on Moon for sale as some of my first edits. This basically taught me a crash course in Wikipedia editing, from RFCU to AN/I, from {{Subst}} to popups.

Two of my created pages, which may not have survived in today's wiki world (and its abundance of eager taggers), continue to garner the occasional edit, and my 3rd created page was of much better quality than the first two. I have since then used popups to do recent changes patrolling, visited AFC from time to time, checked out New Pages to request speedy deletions (How I've done most of the 200 deleted edits. However, some come from articles).

However, I have also bee consistently avoiding certain areas, particular AFD, simply because most deletions end up being prime examples of the snowball clause. I've been guilty of at least 2 incidents of newbie biting. (Insert Bishizilla Joke here?). I've done my best since then to avoid using my own wordings on various warnings (particularly Copyvios), simply because when it's the 15th such page of randomness you've DB'ed, you end up being quite sharp with the tongue.

At times, I have avoided Wikipedia. This is because, at times, the actions of others, even longstanding community members (Admins, even), continued soapboxing (IE: Admin Abuse essays[Clarification: the long sprawling essays ticked off users post on WP:ANI as "Proof" of the admin's guilt]), and the overuse of bureaucracy in pages like WP:AN have eroded my patience. These, combined with real world stuff, is particularly hard on editors. Wikibreaks are good for the soul at times, as is adding 0 wikipedia.org to your hosts file.

I have my own Subst:nn-warn template, and a series of essays on my views on wikipedia, most of which are OR and not of a NPOV, but hopefully they don't bite the newbies (I still feel bad about that, I really overreacted on those people). I've contributed to WP:FUCK, which is much more NPOV now that more editors are involved.

So, I guess, review me. Anything, anything at all. Contribute to more AFDs, whatever. I'd say treat me as if this was an RFA, but it's not, so be as harsh as you want. I'd say pretend it was, but if I do even decide to run, it'll be later, not sooner. Logical2uTalk 23:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • No Portal talk edits at all, most disappointing. Your edit summary usage doesn't end in a "3", that's no good. Don't even think about adminship until you have brought at least seven articles up to B-class standard but no higher. Also, your signature is nowhere near long enough, and your userpage has no divisive or inflammatory userboxes. Your block log is empty, which shows a lack of healthy name-calling in discussion and bold editing of important articles, both of which are crucial. I see no evidence of participating in CfDs, which as any fool will tell you is not only the best indicator of policy knowledge but absolutely essential if you want to spend any time protecting and unprotecting templates. You have never conclusively demonstrated that you are not a sockpuppet of Jimbo Wales and/or one or more members of the Arbitration Committee; obviously that needs to be resolved as quickly as possible. You admit yourself to newbie biting – this is not on; the policy clearly states that newcomers are to be swallowed whole. Your accusations of admin abuse are unacceptable, not because they are incorrect but because the cabal told me to say so. And you use IRC, so anything you do can't be trusted because it's bound to be part of a fake 'consensus' thrown together by those scheming bastards who want to take over Wikipedia. All in all, a promising user but these serious concerns need to be addressed urgently. Thanks – Qxz 23:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Wisdom gleaned: Participate in more articles, something about CfD, and don't use IRC? Logical2uReview me! 23:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Not really; it was a lame attempt at humour. Rather, ignore all of the above unless you want to be an administrator, in which case – judging by recent RfA nominations – the standards are just as high and almost as rediculous. Thanks – Qxz 01:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Review by delldot:

  • I think Qxz was joking around in the above review, I interpret it as "I see nothing wrong in any of your edits, you're doing a fine job." I largely agree with that assessment. Some points:
  • You helped write WP:FUCK? I love that page. Great philosophy, not giving a fuck has gotten me far in life ;)
  • Just curious, why the name changes?
  • Solid answers to the optional questions. You're right that xfd's aren't votes.
  • Looks like there's been a sharp spike in your participation lately. Mwahaha, you're hooked now!
  • I see you've been helping out at WP:AFC. Thankyouthankyouthankyou! Help is desperately needed there what with the nasty ugly backlog and thankless work.
  • I agree with Qxz that you should not try for adminship yet, but it's certainly a possibility in your future if you want it. Most Rfa !voters look for a higher edit count in various namespaces (not that this is right, but I'm reporting the facts as I see them).
  • You say in Q1, "I'm always pleased when an article garners attention, and avoids speedy deletion." Surely the aim should be for none of your articles to be speedied? Have you read and understood the deletion and speedy deletion policies? Have pages you've created recently been deleted? If so, I'd recommend familiarizing yourself with wikipedia's standards for inclusion of articles, and I'd be glad to help with this by answering questions and so on. A thousand pardons if I've misunderstood you here. Looking back on this I probably am misinterpreting you here, feel free to correct me/clarify.
  • About this edit, You should not add {{sprotected}} to pages unless they have actually been semi-protected (which only admins can do). (I see that this dif is old, you probably know that now. In fact, from a closer look at your talk page you definitely do understand it, so never mind). I also thought you could have been more gentle with that user, thuough I see you've repented about the newbie biting thing ;)
  • I was very impressed by this post. It was very diplomatic, explained your stance well while insisting on good sources. I admired the calm friendly attitude you used. I wasn't as impressed with some of the other posts you made to that page, as I mentined above, but I won't dwell on that since you've mentioned you were sorry about that.
  • I was likewise impressed by this post, in which you gently remind a user to be more civil (I didn't see the edit you were talking about, so I can't speak to the substance of the post). I was impressed by how diplomatic you were, plus it's not always easy to approach others when you have a problem with something they did and it looks like you were able to avoid conflict yet stick to your principles.
  • I noticed you make some spelling errors in some of your talk posts (which I'm sure I do all the time too) e.g. "alot" for "a lot". So you may want to watch out for that and maybe run spellcheck if you're making big contributions to articles (I didn't look at as many of your article contributions, so I didn't notice any where this was a problem).
  • This seemed a little abrupt to me, I'd preface it with some kind of greeting. It's especially nice if you can find something they've done right to compliment them on or thank them for. Not that it was harsh enough to constitute biting IMO.
  • Looks like you do good work rv-ing v and appropriately warning folks.

All in all I think you're doing fine work. I didn't get a chance to look at your major article contributions because they were hard to find in amongst all the vandal reverts and other minor edits (usually the case for anyone). But aside from the biting problems you are obviously aware of, I didn't see any civility issues and you seem to be a friendly editor who works well with others. Keep it up! delldot talk 03:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

??? When the reference desk asks for information (Operating system name) so as to help answer a question and the user supplies this information (used as grounds by Logical2u to revert and complain then you know this bot is illogical, unitelligent and goes too far. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.3.92 (talk • contribs).

  • Diff for reversion is here.... Clearly I am not a bot, and the somehow added in ten day old templates, which I reverted. I am not aware of removing any data, but that is a consequence of rapid reversions. However, the user's posts are still on the page, not including the ten day old stuff he dragged up. Logical2uReview me! 19:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I'm always pleased when an article garners attention, and avoids speedy deletion. In my case, Newton's Wake: A Space Opera, Adiamante, and Melnikov are all very pleasing to me, and their final versions being radically different from my original one is even better. As well, I'm pleased with the various attack pages and nonsense I've removed, simply because it helps keep Wikipedia safe for people to cite. And finally, I'm very pleased with WP:FUCK, simply because it has become, in my opinion, one of the funnier, and more accurate, essays out there since my early contribution. Logical2uTalk
  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 was involved in an edit war, as I mentioned earlier, and two at least two cases of newbie editing. The main users that cause me stress are the ones that start soapboxing on various pages, particularly my own. (Example Here ) I find soapboxing only encourages me to avoid/delete it. Especially when it's done in a sarcastic point of view. I was pleased, however, with the "No diatribes" rule on WP:AN. So far, I've dealt with this sort of stuff through IRC, AIV, prepared templates, and court comments (Which may be in violation WP:BITE). Occasionally I've taken Wikibreaks to avoid stress in the real world. In the future I will avoid using court comments (Simply because I end up ranting), and attempt to avoid multiple edits on things like copyvios. Logical2uTalk 17:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Optional questions from Dfrg.msc

  1. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
    A: Username violations, continuous vandalism from a username, creation of vandal accounts, or trolling other users that I am not involved with would be the simplest ones. Everything else is not so simple, in the eyes of Wikipedia, and would be better brought up on WP:ANI, talkpages, and AIV. (Example: I found a few non-obvious sockpuppets. Indefinitely blocking them would be out of process until further review had been taken.) ArbCom deals with disputes, and if you're in a dispute, blocking someone is again, out of process, and most, if not all, of the Arb Com members are admins anyways, so they would likely be doing any blocking they order. Logical2uReview me!
  2. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    A:It's a bit of both, now. Admins are needed to repair more serious vandalism, and prevent it from occurring again, which is technically technical. At times admins appear to be politically appointed, and more involved with political concerns then one would like. Admins should probably be more technical than political, though, as that deals with the aspects of Wikipedia that are impossible for standard users to do, like Page Deletion. The reason there are talk pages is so that everyone can debate the policies, not just admins. Logical2uReview me!
  3. What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Have you tried to overcome these and would adminship make life any easier for you?
    A: At times I'm frustrated with the backlogs we see, which include the one on Editor Review. I do my best to keep cool, but at this point you realize that if you can't do something, you can't do something, and you just have to be patient. Admins gain more tools that permit rapid response and reaction, which satisfies the need for instant gratification. Logical2uReview me!
  4. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain comments / discussions 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: AfDs are notorious like this, huh? But, AfD (or something, might be RfA I'm thinking of), isn't a vote, it's more of a discussion (Exp: CfD = categories for discussion). Before closing I'd review the arguments if there is split consensus. The age of the accounts shouldn't matter (unless they are soliciting support on other forums), as even new users (Which appear to be meatpuppets at times) can have good arguments. Logical2uReview me!
    Non-wordy answer: Keep if the arguments by the new users are sound, and the established users' points are refuted. Delete if the new users simply vote "Keep plz!". About the same for the no-consensus one. Logical2uReview me!

[edit] Diez2

Diez2 (talk • contribs) Previous review:Wikipedia:Editor review/Diez2 I am pretty much a WikiGnome and do a lot of maintainance work here on Wikipedia. I do some Afd work, WP:ACID work, WP:WPNN/CAT:NN work, and lots of work on Special:recentchanges and Special:newpages, which explains why I have such a high User Talk edit count. I just started doing work for WP:MEDCAB as well. I have also created several templates and edited others, all of which proved to be quite useful to the intended audience. I do not do much article editing, though, which is a drawback. Diez2 02:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

I looked at your most recent talk page and the distribution of your edits using the tool. The maximum number of edits to any one article is 8, and some of those were trivial. I think article writing is important for appreciating the maintenance work you do on Wikipedia. For example, you have participated on WP:ACID and WP:GAR. You will be much better able to evaluate and assist in creating good articles if you've tried to do it yourself with a subject you know. Pick a subject you know well, search the web or the local library for references, and incorporate new material with the references. This will give you a better feel for what a good article should look like, and will help you evaluate other contributors' work.

It will also imbue you with a greater optimism about the whole project. I do a lot of new pages patrolling and deletion work, and sometimes it just gets depressing to see how much crap there is to deal with. You were criticized not long ago for proposing deletion of chemical compounds. I didn't see the examples, but as a rule of thumb, if a chemical compound verifiably exists (i.e. a Google search for it turns up more than 100 results), AFD is the most appropriate forum for discussing deletion. I assume that your thinking was, "These are short articles, just like all those silly autobiographies and nonsense pages I see on New Pages Patrol, so let's just get rid of it." It's useful to learn that deleting half an article may be better than deleting all of it.

One more point: on New Pages Patrol, I sometimes tag pages with {{unref}}, {{cleanup}} etc. or stub/categorize them. You can do the same there, or with articles on the WP:DEAD list. I wish you good luck YechielMan 04:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    As I said above, I do not do much article editing. I have a little over 800 mainspace edits, mostly from anti-vandal reverting. I should have a lot more from all of the db tags I have placed on new articles, but those edits get erased when the article is deleted. So, I really should have about 1800 mainspace edits. I am planning to work on BZFlag, though, to get that out of the rut that it's in.
  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, I have had my share of conflicts with other users. I deal with these conflicts by tossing (not throwing) Wikipedia policy at them. If worst comes to worse, I would seek mediation. (It has never come to that). Also, if the other person is indeed right, then I just back away and let him have the joy.

[edit] Danbarnesdavies II

Danbarnesdavies (talk • contribs) I'm an experienced editor, usually working in the remit of WP:BRoy and several television dramas. I found my last review useful and want to know what's thought about my progress – DBD 19:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

I reviewed parts of your talk page, and I glanced at some pages you've worked on, and I read your previous Editor Review. My impression is that you are doing very well: you've contributed consistently for many months to your chosen field, and you get along well with other users. I admire the reserved tone you expressed while arguing with a troll last November. Since you edit many high-profile articles, maintaining civility is a constant challenge, where you must always remain vigilant.

I noticed that Elizabeth II was a declined Featured Article candidate. I would encourage you to gather the resources of your Wikiproject and give it another shot. If you really know and love the British royalty as much as it seems, you should be aiming to produce articles of the highest quality about them. I wish you good luck. YechielMan 03:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
  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 don't believe the answers to either of these to have changed since my first review

Dan was very gracious when I proposed quite strongly that WP:BRoy join forces with WP:WPBIO, and together we got the job done quickly and without fuss. --kingboyk 14:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simply south

Simply south (talk • contribs) I have on Wikipedia for nearly a year. I have contributed to a lot of geographical, travel and transportation articles as well as numerous projects. I would just like to see how i am doing. Simply south 16:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

You seem to be editing very well. You have many, many edits that are well spread out and diversified. Your edits seem to be good. The one thing that caught my eye was the 600 word association edits, which is fine, as long as you're having fun, but do not get them mixed up in you total edit count. Other than that, you seem to be editing very well. Happy Editing, Tcpekin 04:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC).


Review by Delldot:

  • Nice contributions to railway related articles.
  • You turned down an RfA nom? That shows patience.
  • Looking back through one of your talk page archives, I see a bunch of messages from other editors asking for clarification on messages of yours, which page you're referring to, etc. Someone asked for clarification of this question, too. Maybe you should look over a post before you save it to make sure you've included all pertinent info and links/diffs that may be useful for readers. I looked at a lot of your user talk edits and didn't know what they were about because they lacked context, but this could be because I was never involved in the discussions, so they may have been clear enough for the recipient.
  • You sometimes forget to use the show preview button (e.g. [31], which I noticed you quickly corrected). Don't worry, we all do it. I try to remember to when I'm editing articles, since it would be a shame if that was messed up when someone loaded it, but in the wp space it's not as big of a deal.
  • A look at your talk page shows that you are friendly and respond well to suggestions that others have for you, such as archiving your talk page. All of your edits to talk and user talk pages that I looked at are civil. You appear to cooperate well with other users. I liked your answer to Q2. If you want to provide links to difs in the conflict you mentioned, I can evaluate how I think you handled yourself in it (drop me a note if I don't notice the links here).

Overall, you've been doing good work, keep it up! delldot talk 23:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am pleased that i have contributed to the many articles. Of note, i helped the Docklands Light Railway become a Good Article, although i was not the only editor who did this. I have also started heading up the Scottish Transport Project and hope to possibly start one on Hertfordshire. However, i am proud of most other contributions i have made and have been interactive.
  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 have to be honest and yes i have been in a few in the past. However, i always have tried to be civil which i maintain. I have also learnt from these which has helped me improve. These have generally been cleared up. In answer to the second part of the question, no these have not generally caused me stress and hopefully i will not have many conflicts. I will as usual try to be civil and maintain NPOV in articles. If i need advice, i will ask other users.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/i/Wikipedia%7EEditor_review_ddf5.html"