Wikipedia:Editor review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of experienced editors.

Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
WP:ER redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Expert retention.

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

Editor review is a way that users can have their contributions 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 reviewing another editor.
Purge page cache if reviews haven't updated.

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 by rote) 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.

Click here for the backlog of unreviewed requests.

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. Please note, you must change "USERNAME" TO YOUR OWN USERNAME
  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. Optional: you can put the {{Editor review}} template or the {{Editor review sticker}} template on your user page to advertise the review page.
  8. Optional: Please add your editor review page to the archive before you are reviewed. You will still be reviewed, but doing this makes it easier for us.

Archives

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

Contents

Current Requests

Erik the Red 2*

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

Reviews


Comments

Questions

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

Kennedy*

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

Reviews


Comments

Questions

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

Red Phoenix*

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

Reviews


Comments

Questions

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

CultureDrone*

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

Reviews


Comments

Questions

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

Wikipedia:Editor review/Jacob696*

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

Reviews


Comments

Questions

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

Law Lord*

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

Reviews


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I think my "important" contributions have probably been creating articles about important topics that were totally missing from Wikipedia. Most recently The Blekinge Street Gang but also stuff that I have corrected from being totally false like this edit in connections with this one.
  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 been in plenty of conflicts. I feel that many administrators that I have had interactions with have been extremely rude and condescending in both their communications and actions. More recently I have tried dealing with this by emailing the more normal administrators privately asking for help and advice and ignoring those editors and administrators whom I see as guilty of harrassment against me. I ask for the right to add to this answer if need be.

Geekamalloy*

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

Reviews

  • review by Dlohcierekim Clinton Kelly (minister)-- not bad editing for a beginner. In the cite, you should put more compete info--- [URL History of the Pacific Northwest: Oregon and Washington. Portland, Oregon. North Pacific History Company, 1889. on Ancestry.com. Online. Date accessed.] Unfortunately, there does not appear to be an assertion of notability. Please review WP:N and WP:BIO. It would be good to set your preferences so the software will require you to complete the edit summary. Communication is important. When reverting vandalism, it is important to warn vandals. There are templated warnings that make this easier at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Hope this helps, cheers. Dlohcierekim 03:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


Comments

Questions

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

EclipseSSD

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

Reviews

Review from Dlohcierekim

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

Areas needing attention--
Overall appraisal and advice-

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

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



Comments

Questions

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

Limetolime

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

Reviews

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

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am most pleased with the article Superman (film series). I am the top contribuotr to the article and brung it to FA status. I am also plase with the articles Chocolate, Titanic (1997 film), Jurassic Park (franchise), and The Muppets' Wizard of Oz, all of which I was a top/main contribtor and helped bring to GA status. Here is a complete, up-to-date list:
Articles with major edits by Limetolime
  • Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
I have had my fair share of arguments since I first started Wikipedia, and I have dealt with them all through discussion. I intend to do the same in the future, whether it be for deleting an article or blocking a user. I have listed my conflicts here:

The dark lord trombonator*

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

Reviews


Comments

Questions

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

Milk's Favorite Cookie 3*

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

Reviews

  • Writes far too many featured lists on football coaches. Should be writing more on milk and cookies if you ask me. Al Tally talk 23:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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

Questions


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

Leonard^Bloom*

Leonard^Bloom (talk · contribs) Although pretty new to Wikipedia and having a relatively low edit count, I would love to get some feedback on my current work. I know I need to use more edit summaries, but feel free to harp on me for that; I could certainly use the repetition and reminder. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Taking a focus on article-writing (and the subject you enjoy covering!) would help broaden your experience on Wikipedia and make it more rewarding. New stubs can become Did You Know candidates, and if you're game enough, go for a featured article. Keep up on your vandal-patrolling, though! - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I'm pretty pleased with my anti-vandal work, and my work on the cancer dictionary, and although most articles I made for the dictionary were stubs, I like to think to tell myself that it's better than nothing (denial :D ). The anti-vandal work is pretty solid though.
  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 haven't been in any conflicts, though I see them all the time. Honestly, I've done very little communication on talk pages and such. As for how I would deal them, it would probably be an effort to maintain a civil disposition and a sense of empathy.

Voyaging*

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

Reviews

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

Comments

Questions

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

Seddon

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

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

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

Reviews

  • Review from Mitch32 - Seddon, you are one of my best friends on Wiki, and I've decided to take the time to review you today. You're making great contributions all around and are certainly useful in mediating. Other than the hopeful future adminship, I would love to see you be on the Mediation Commitee at some point. There's really not much more to say but good luck man! You're great, and we know it well. Cya later.Mitch32contribs 21:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Review from Juliancolton (talk · contribs) — Hey Seddon. I know you well, so I'll give a quick review. First, as Mitch said, your work for MedCab is great, and it'd be good to see you on MedCom someday. The Henriette article you worked hard on is looking great! It's good to see that you have around 100% edit summary useage, and you should try to keep that up. The vandal fighting work you do is good, as well. The only thing I can think of is you should try to make more mainspace edits and less userspace edits, but it's fine as it is. I think adminship is right arount the corner, mate! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review JC and Mitch. I just thought id pick up on the comment you raised with the amount of userspace edits i have. The one thing i tend to do is do a lot of sandbox work before posting into mainspace. This is especially true when it comes to template work/creation. Something that can be seen from interiot's tool when you look at where those edits are, 200 coming from 2 sandboxes. Seddσn talk 21:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, but when you move a sandbox article to mainspace, all the edits change to mainspace as well. ;)In any event, that's fine. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

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

Britishrailclass91

Britishrailclass91 (talk · contribs)


Reviews

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

Questions

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

Comments

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

Wikipedia:Editor review/Ziggy Sawdust

Avruch*

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

Reviews


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I'm pretty happy with my contribs to Norman Finkelstein, J Michael Bailey and A Moral Reckoning (the three GA articles I've worked on). Also Daniel Goldhagen, Daniel Pipes, The Man Who Would Be Queen, Hitler's Willing Executioners, Abraham Foxman, Roger Stone and a few others. I also started the poll at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/RfB bar (originally it was on WT:RFA) that led to changing the passing percentage for bureaucrats. Aside from these, I've cleaned up a number of articles, added references in many cases, and generally I hope made thoughtful comments in some difficult discussions at the various administrator noticeboards.
  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 some minor content conflicts in the past, and I've commented or been peripherally involved in a number of conflicts at AN/I and one or two that were at arbitration. I think I've dealt with it fairly well - I have a tendency to be sarcastic, which I think I've kept reined in most of the time. My approach has generally been to not say anything that many people are saying, or anything that would increase the temperature without adding a significantly different or new point of view. In my opinion almost all conflicts on Wikipedia get blown out of proportion to their actual importance, and its important to keep that in mind. Wikipedia is a neat project, and Wikimedia is a very interesting foundation that has and can do a lot of good in the world - but, in the end, it is not my job and it is not life or death for me or anyone else. Some examples of controversial situations I've been involved in... Disputes at Norman Finkelstein, Giovanni di Stefano, Warren National University, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex, Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, The Man Who Would Be Queen and related J Michael Bailey to name a few off the top of my head. All of these disputes are pretty quiet at the moment, luckily, but they are all in perennially controversial subject areas so its not unlikely they will flare up again.
  3. Why in the world aren't you an admin?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Lankiveil*

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

Reviews


Comments

Questions

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

Meojive*

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

Reviews


Comments

Questions

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


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

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

2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

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

Fribbler

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

Reviews

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

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

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    My new, DYK qualifying articles, Polish minority in Ireland and Transition Towns. I also contribute daily to the reference desk.
  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 had a serious conflict with another editor yet. Though I have seen such conflicts. I think I could defuse such situations, as I am quite diplomatic.

J.delanoy

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

Reviews

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

Comments

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

  • I won't fully review, but I think that the next step for you on Wikipedia is to start expanding articles. The interests you have on your userpage would be a good place to start expansion. :) One other suggestion is to participate in 2-3 XFD's per day to get even more experience there. Malinaccier (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I really don't know how to answer this question without sounding like I am lauding myself, so I guess I'll just plow right in and hopefully it won't seem too self-appreciating...
    Undoubtedly my best contributions to Wikipedia are in the area of vandal-fighting. It is what I have done almost since I started actively editing, and it remains (and likely will remain) my area of expertise. I have also done some article writing which I am proud of. Despite the fact that it will not pass its GAN, as I stated above, I am still pleased with my additions to John Rutledge. I also wrote a fairly short article about Thomas Boone, who was the Royal Governor of South Carolina when Rutledge came on the scene.

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

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

Willisis2

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


Reviews

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

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

Comments

Questions

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

Pelotas*

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

Reviews

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

Comments

Questions

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

ilikepie2221*

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

Reviews


Comments

Questions

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

Justpassin

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

Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

Questions

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

Tyw7

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

Reviews


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I have made many edits so I consider all my work good contribution to Wikipedia.
  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?
    So far I did not encounter any edit conflicts with another user. If I ever encounter one, I would consider both sides and solve the conflict calmly. I would consider the information that user wishes to add to Wikipedia.

Bob the Wikipedian

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

Reviews

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

Comments

Questions

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

Lunakeet

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

Reviews

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

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    My answer? OK. The page E♯ has lasted a long time for one of my pages. I also promoted DS9 to good article status.
  2. -->
  3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    No, and yes. Vandals are particulary stressful, so whenever I encounter too many I take a short wikibreak to feed my parakeet a carrot or something, or maybe just listen to the local classic rock station. That's how I'll continue to handle it.

Tkgd2007

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

Reviews

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

Comments

Questions

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

Maxim*

Maxim (talk · contribs) See my userpage for a comprehensive listing of my contributions. Maxim(talk) 01:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Reviews


Comments

Tinkleheimer*

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

Reviews

  • I'll not remove the asterisk because this is a fairly short review. Just wanted to say your judgment is usually fairly sound; haven't really run into you much other than in RFA though, so can't say much. Cheers, · AndonicO Engage. 19:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

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

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

Comment

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

JeanLatore

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

Reviews

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

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

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

Comments

Questions

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

davidwr*

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

Reviews


Comments

  • Thanks. The dispute itself is over, but I'm still interested in whether my behavior was reasonable. I'd forgotten about RFC, that would have been useful on Saturday. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In that case I'll take a look when possible. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 21:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    N/A, this is a limited purpose review. However, I am particularly pleased about my attempts to maintain civility during my tenure. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  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 either continue to press the issue - politely - or let it go depending on how important it is for the project and what impact it is having on my off-Wiki life. If warranted, I get input from others, which is what I am doing here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Xp54321*

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

Reviews


Comments

Questions

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

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

Comments by Realist2

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

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

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

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

Comment by Excirial

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

However, i also notice that there is to big a focus on two things: Editcount and Adminship. As said before, it is not the amount of edits that count, it is the quality of those edits. I sometimes notice a pretty large amount of edits for a pretty low amount of improvement (Par ratio that is). An example is [1]. This is a diff of 7 edits, showing only marginal difference. Try to prevent saving for every word, but make a large contribution at once if possible. I have seen this happening several times, and i am pretty sure that during a new RFA people will point at this as being an attempt to increase edit count fast. Again, its not the amount of edits, its the quality of the edits that count.

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

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

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

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Freewayguy*

Freewayguy (talk · contribs) Hi; again I'm from South Orange County; high school of 2009 and 17year-old and 7 month. Due to previous evaluation. I did make some imporvement. I learnt to talk to people in more respective manners, and I did make alot of contribs (over 3700). From what happen on Commons; I seem to grow-up a littlebit. As Keiryn wants me to fix my habit of two changes for sign I did it!! I also learnt The sockpuppetof Artisol2345 is right. Just because Yorkabes and Al2tb is said to be sister or cousin doesnt mean its true. Also the obvious proof must be the dates left off, and I think they act the same. People why they make sockpuppets is becasue they think admins too stupid to find out (but they are not). Admins like Rschen7754 have ways to find it out we don't know. Actually all of Artisol2345's socks acts the same and Rschen7754 forgot Aristol2345 is Artisol2345's sock, thats very obvious, he even said accusations of Rschen 7754.--Freewayguy T C 02:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • For any comments about my evaluation post comment on this page.--Freewayguy TL C 00:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What did you say? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I say this page is an new editor review, you can put comment here to see how I'm doing so far and see if I made any imporvement so far, I seem to have made some imporvemnet from last review, and I did learn something, and know more materials.--Freewayguy T C 02:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You need to work on your English skills badly. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Other than this I've been doing pretty good, learning to assume faith, and I've been polite talking to people, and made some corrections like avoiding 2 changes to sign. Sometimes when people make sockpuppet, is to mention on user page is their brother or sister mostly to trick people like yorkabes.--Freewayguy T C 02:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Your editor review wasn't formatted properly, so you couldn't comment on it from the main Wikipedia:Editor review page. While you no longer take two edits to sign your posts, I still see you making pointless edits to change your signature. Two to three weeks is not enough time for us to see any improvement since your last editor review. You still have a loooong way to go before you're ready for adminship, or whatever else it is you hope to achieve by being reviewed here. -- Kéiryn (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I want to start a new ER. You mean I still know too little things to become an admin. Don't admins have to know how to make highway sign themself becasue I still ask somebody to do them when I can't do it on thier own.--Freewayguy T C 02:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Now, I,m not tolerating harassments on my talkpage. People have been posting message about their own junks when I don't care, like getting block and accusations of sockpuppets. People remove those non-sense message if its about their sockpuppets, if they dont stop block them.--Freewayguy Discussions Show all changes 20:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

OZOO*

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

Reviews


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I recently created all the templates in Category:Doctor Who serials navbox templates. I also feel myself to have assisted in the fight against vandals.
  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 a minor conflict on Doctor Who story chronology with another editor with WP:OWN issues. This however, was not major. In future, I, like I feel everyone should, will try and deal with the situation calmly

Bluegoblin7*

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

Reviews


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I think it was probably starting WikiProject Derbyshire - it has helped the people of Derbyshire, and it is really well used!
  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, and I regret that. Most of them were very stupid, and I hope they don't happen again. In most circumstances (or maybe all) I overreacted, and I am sorry.

Save the humans

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

Reviews

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

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

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

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

Comments

Questions

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

Jclemens*

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

Reviews


Comments

Questions

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

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

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

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

What you added:

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

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

Gary King

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

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

Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Moonriddengirl

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by DGG

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

Comments by Dlohcierekim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions

Comments

Questions

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

Comments by Pascal.Tesson

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

Comments by Judgesurreal777

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

Have this

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

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

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

Comments by Warren

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

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

I think I better close this Editor Review, as it seems that most of the more recent reviews here are just people who encountered a few of my earlier edits and aren't interested in looking at my more recent ones? Gary King (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

l337p4wn*

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

Reviews


Comments

Questions

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

Electricbassguy*

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

Reviews


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    My edits to the Baseball Mogul page and my creation of pages for obscure baseball players.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    Not really, though I have re-created a couple of speedily deleted pages that I thought were unfairly deleted, and that was frowned upon. I also used to (more than a year ago) use sarcasm on my edit summaries.

CopaceticThought*

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

Reviews


Comments

Questions

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

2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? Yes. My insistence on following through with vandalism and POV issues have led to me getting into a few user conflicts, which is why I am requesting this.

UBeR*

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

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

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

Reviews


Comments

Questions

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

Amillion*

Amillion (talk · contribs) I have been an editor since August of 2006 (probably even earlier, since I didn't have an account at first), but I've only recently become a particularly active one. I'm not terribly technologically literate, and I had no idea what I was doing when I first arrived, so it's been a steep learning curve. I'd like to know what other editors think about the progress I've made thus far, and what I might do to further improve the quality of my contributions. As far as my level of civility goes, I would like to point you in the direction of heated debates in which I have participated so that you may judge for yourselves: [2], [3], [4] and [5], [6]).Amillion (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Reviews


Comments

Questions

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

Gears of War

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

Reviews

  • Seems like you do a lot of edits on video game articles and the Grey Griffins (series). While those are great edits, you should involve yourself more in AfD's, FLC's, FAC's, and GAN's, being involved in these discussions will help you become a better user, and you can learn the basis of good articles. Also I noticed your edit count, you need to use your Edit Summary more often, as it is helpful to read about your edit. Regards.--~SRS~ 03:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the reverts and deletions of your contributions, I believe they are simply part of the steep learning curve on Wikipedia. Even though anybody can edit Wikipedia and is encouraged to do so, actually editing here is not the easiest thing to do. I believe your heart is in the right place; you want to improve Wikipedia. But you simply lack the experience and knowledge of common practices and policies. In your defense, there are a good number of them, many of which can be complicated and confusing. I know I didn't have a good grasp of them when I first started out, and I'm still in the dark about some things.
Truco's suggestion to involve yourself in various types of discussions is a good one that'll give you a broader view of what is required to successfully edit on Wikipedia. You'll see which policies are applied to what circumstances and develop a better sense of what type of edits articles require to climb the quality scale. Another avenue to pursue is Peer review. They are less formal than WP:GAN and WP:FAC, but operate in a similar way by reviewing an article and providing suggestions to improve it.
If you are unsure about whether an edit will be constructive or not, you can also start a discussion on the article's talk page and get feedback from other edits. This way you can modify your edit before it is even made. Leaving a note on the talk page is also good practice because it involves like-minded editors and is a polite way to initiate collaboration. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
  • I haven't personally dealt with this editor a lot, until now. He had an outburst, due to this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Stuff_for_my_homework_.28everyone_please_help_out.29,he attacked the project, as well as KieferSkunk due to the discussion being closed. He also went ahead and made this: User:Gears_of_War/Anti-WPVG. I personally feel he needs to read up on policies, and relax at times... instead of going into full-attack mode when a discussion is closed. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Quick comment: This particular incident has been resolved to my satisfaction, and I believe GoW is ready and willing to move on from this incident with some lessons learned. More in my own review. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Gears of War is, in my opinion, a spirited young editor who has overall a good command of the WP editing tools and many of the article-based guidelines. He is relatively new to the Video Games project, and as such started off as many editors do (including myself): By adding a number of new articles, making significant edits to existing ones, and making lots of suggestions and requests in WT:VG (some of which may be off-topic). This is not a problem, per se - it's to be expected, and it is something that I think more experienced (more "seasoned") regular editors should be mindful and tolerant of, perhaps more so than we tend to be sometimes. (I am including myself in this statement.)
I've reviewed a number of GoW's edits and think that the general quality of his work is good, but maybe a little misdirected. Moreover, though, the incident that RobJ1981 referred to is an example of how I think GoW may tend to take things too personally at times, such as criticisms of his edits or being told that he's stepping outside the bounds of WP policy. After he took some time to calm down, GoW apologized for the outburst and agreed to work constructively with me and other VGProj members, and the situation has been resolved to my satisfaction. I think that the resolution of this issue shows that GoW is definitely willing to learn how the community works - this is refreshing to see. Additionally, I've asked GoW to trust me to the extent that if/when I criticize something he does, I am criticizing the behavior, and not him personally. In other words, I will always mean "This action is not constructive / misguided / against policy or consensus / etc.", not "You are a bad person", and I will try to include suggestions on how to improve or avoid the action in the future. He has agreed to this.
Following up on an off-wiki suggestion by another editor, I've recommended that GoW seek out a mentor in the VGProj, as this person could work more closely with him to "show him the ropes", as it were. I respectfully declined the role myself because I don't have the time or energy to devote to this at the moment.
In closing, I think GoW is a good editor with a lot of potential, and I fully believe that (except in situations like the aforementioned incident) he edits in good faith. With time, I think he'll develop a thicker skin for criticism. I know that one of GoW's aspirations is to become an administrator, and I don't believe this is out of the question by any means. I do think it will take some time, and that GoW has much to learn, but I've encouraged him to not let the above incident get him down. Once he has shown that he can handle stressful situations gracefully and not let people get under his skin, nothing more will need to be said about it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

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

Unisouth*

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

Reviews


Comments

Questions

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

Scetoaux

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

Reviews

  • You might want to shoot for creating new articles and nominating them for DYK?, or expand them to GA or FA status. Otger than that, you're doing a good job. Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 11:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for your suggestions. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

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

Danielaustinhall12

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

Reviews

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

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

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


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am particularly pleased with my creation of Thrust Air 2000 because it is a page that I made completely by myself.
  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 really been in a major edit conflict before.

Sceptre*

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

Reviews


Comments

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

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    See User:Sceptre/contribs. I'm particularly pleased with my contributions to Featured articleM62 motorway (first article I've ever edited, promoted to GA in November 2007, and Featured articlePartners in Crime (Doctor Who), which went from stub to FA in fifteen days (which I think is a record - it went from stub to FA in 62 hours).
  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 an editor of Wikipedia for three years, so it's an inevitability that I've been being in conflicts in the past. I'm not exactly the nicest of people in conflicts, but I'm not going to be a dick like I have done on several events in the past.
    Additionally, I'm going to disengage from seeking drama. I might comment on ANI now and again, but other than that I'll mostly Wikignome. Drama-whoring doesn't go well with illness. Sceptre (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Languages