Wikipedia talk:Editor review/Archives

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following all need categorising

Contents

[edit] User:Mostly Rainy

Mostly Rainy (talk · contribs) I've been here for over six months and need some feedback. Though I have just 300 edits I need to know if there are areas in need of improvement. I intend to become a sysop some day, but I know I need at least 1500-2000 edits. In the meantime, have your say. Mostly Rainy 04:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • I notice that you have a relatively huge number of Wikipedia space edits (very nearly a third of your total), and that's quite outstanding for as new a user as yourself - it'll help a lot if/when you run for admin privs. However, most people place considerable emphasis on two other areas of experience: content edits to the Article space, and vandal-fighting. For the former, you may wish you join an existing WikiProject that piques your interest and work on wikifying/expanding/copyediting articles that fall under that Project's scope. For the latter, I suggest you take a look at Recent Change Patrolling, as it's an excellent way to quickly get into the meat of administrators' normal workload. You're a promising editor, and I'd certainly like to see more of you around in the future. RandyWang (raves/rants) 09:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I've been creating pages by puting articles where red links appear. Here is a sample of my contrubitions:
  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 once tried to update team sites with their current win-loss records each day but a user advised me not to, I disagreed but when other users supported his idea I agreed to stop and haven't had any issues since.

[edit] User:NOVO-REI

NOVO-REI (talk · contribs) Hi, I haven't editted for this site for much time, but after reviewing a former user today, and haaving to oppose a rather hasty RfA this particularly person pulled up - I feel that I may have had some type of faults (incivil behavior) within Wikipedia. Please review my contributions, reactions with other users and my translation ability and give me feedback. I want it to be known that I have tried to edit to the best of my ability, and will continue to do so for however long it will take me to finish my time with the project.

Although I don't plan on staying permanently, me doing so is truly a possibility from what I have already done. I don't have so many edits, so any practical review won't wear anyone out. Thanks NOVO-REI 21:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Without commenting on anything else, I'd first suggest making a userpage, even if it's just a redirect to your talk page. A red name looks sort of unprofessional, and anyone doing RC patrol or looking at a watchlist will generally trust people with userpages over people without and anons. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
True, I just held back on making one because I don't consider myself - as crazy as this sounds - an "important" user yet, and I think making one with haste would be a little arrogant. But seeing that it is not, I will definitely make one in the near future. Thanks. NOVO-REI 21:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I made one! Now I am going to sleep! Oh, it's kinda ugly, so any decors can do there magic :-) And thanks for the kind comment FW. NOVO-REI 03:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You have a particularly impressive track record for a new user. Military history of Brazil and Pernambucan Revolt are some good articles from you. And good work on getting two DYKs in such a short time! The only dissapointing part was your remark in your edit here where you say you would leave after the 1000th edit. Why so, may I ask? -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK

14:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I said 10,000 - and this was first edit here. You should note that I haven't conformed to it "tic for tac" so I doubt I will leave then. I guess I don't want to spend too much time here - but if I say so myself, this place is very addictive. 16:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, definitely. See how much you score on Wikipediholic Test test. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK09:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    AnswerNone now, NOVO-REI 21:42, 7 July 2006 (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?
    AnswerNone now, NOVO-REI 21:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:TheJC

TheJC (talk · contribs) I've been editing Wikipedia for a bit over 3 months and just wanted to get an insight as to what other editors think of me, and my contributions — and what needs improvement. I like variety as I get bored doing the same thing constantly which is why my edit history probably look like I go through periods of editing different namespaces — I sometimes wikify articles, look for vandalism in recent changes, sometimes look through the *fD's, welcome new users, and other activities. I'm also not a very active editor — outside problems are having an impact at present — although I am still doing some minor edits. Possibly the biggest problem I have is thinking too much over things (maybe because I try to think of myself as a perfectionist and always click show preview several times before finally hitting the save page button). —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 00:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Answer I've not really done any major edits, so I would probably say the first article I expanded, SpyAxe, which still needs some work; and the first article I wikified, Nameplate. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 00:14, 7 July 2006 (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?
    Answer I wouldn't say I've been in any conflicts, more difference of opinions. I prefer compromise over anything else as you would probably see from this TfD discussion, understanding where others are coming from, or simply discussing and resolving my own errors. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 00:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:RN

RN (talk · contribs) Hi, Ryan here. I am a former administrator and have recently blown past the 8000 (last I checked, anyway) edit mark. I'm requesting review on anything you can think of, including user conduct, understanding of policies, article reviews etc. :).RN 08:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


Reviews

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Well, I've had quite a few... I'd have to say Microsoft since that is what got me editing Wikipedia in the first place last year :). Basically, I was rather upset at the speculative and POV nature of what the article originally was, and since then have poured in like 300+ edits to get it to featured status and then some. I'm also mostly pleased with my contributions to featured article candidates.
  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 sure :). Someone recently said "it really annoys me when people can't even review articles properly" in reference to myself, so I'm no stranger to criticism... (much much worse has been said, actually...). Maybe I could probably deal with it better, however, as my usual response is just to avoid the situation.

[edit] User:Sunholm

Sunholm (talk · contribs) I have been an editor since 11 February 2006 (see talkpage for notice). I would like some constructive feedback on how to make myself a better editor so I can re-apply for RfA. My last one failed; however, please see notices on my talk page for why. Feedback is appreciated. --Sunholm(talk) 12:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


Reviews


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I have been expanding place-name and car-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 had a slight conflict with Morven and Jayjg over using shared IPs; however this is resolved

[edit] User:Jasrocks

Jasrocks (talk · contribs)I have been around for 5 months now, and have surpassed 700 edits. I have made two Wikiprojects. I would like to know how I can improve my contributions to Wikipedia, especially the pages that I create.

Reviews

  • Hello Jasrocks. you bring a lot of enthusiasm and energy to the project which is great, as well as being friendly. Your articles do a good job in WP:NPOV, much better than most stuff I checked on the AFL project. This edit to Ken McGregor has a few examples of what could be [1] tightened up a bit. Don't user contractions like "wasn't" in the encyclopedia and use formal language, rather than "stats" and "footy". As long as you avoid hyperbole like "star-studded midfield", "exquisite skills", etc you should be fine, and I understand that in football, it isn't as statistically rigid as in cricket and swimming, where I write, but if you include what are considered to be "widely accepted judgments", then you should probably source them to an article written by an analyst - eg, see Yuvraj Singh. If you want to diversify a bit more, then you can go to WP:AWNB for the general Aussie stuff and also maybe have a look at WP:ACOTF. An easy way to get stuck in if you aren't interested in politics, history or those kinds of things is to write up an article about your suburb, and those surrounding it. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 06:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC).

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am pleased with quite a few of the articles that I have created, especially in Footy. I think the best article I have made so far on a footy player is a page I created today on Che Cockatoo-Collins. I am also proud of my Brett Maher 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?
    A couple of weeks ago, I was blocked from editing because I used Internode. I was really pissed at first on this, but then found out that it was an autoblock, not just a block on me.

[edit] User:CheNuevara

CheNuevara (talk · contribs) I've been a registered Wikipedian for about fourteen months now, but have only recently decided to become a more active member. As I'm nearing my 1000th edit, I decided to see what other Wikipedians think of my wiki-past and future. I've recently begun patrolling for vandalism, I joined the meta-wiki circles at Esperanza and WC, and I'm a German-English translator. I'm not looking for an RfA in the immediate future, but it might be in my long-term goals if things work out that way.

Reviews

  • Your stats look good, and I think with a little time you'll be a good RfA candidate. However, you do need to use more edit summaries, and you should warn the vandals you revert. Good luck! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • You have the honour of being the first user to test out my new user statistics script. Here's your report. I hope you find some use in it. Icey 21:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you do that for mine too? It looks interesting. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Certainly, I've added it to your editor review. Icey 23:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the only advice I could give would be to use the EditSummary bar more. If you ever did consider standing for RfA, then this figure would come under scrutiny. Otherwise you seem like a decent, fair, cool-headed editor. Well done, and keep it up! Abcdefghijklm 20:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I started WikiProject Buffyverse which has flowered into a large sub-community. A couple of pages, for instance Walk to Canossa and Lessons (Buffy episode) are largely my creation after major rewrites / destubbing.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    I've never been in any major conflicts before. Of course, I've rubbed elbows with a couple of Wikipedians (User:Paxomen comes to mind, when we had a brief disagreement which ended in compliments), as have we all, but it always works out for the best. When the situation heats up, I do my best to try and understand where the other person is coming from; it is my belief that heated disagreement benefits nothing on Wikipedia. I consider myself level-headed and reasonable.

[edit] User:Abcdefghijklm

Abcdefghijklm (talk · contribs) Hi, I am looking to recieve a review on my current performance, so that I can see how other people think I am doing, and so that I can take on board advice on how I can improve my contribution. Although it might appear that I have little experience at the moment, I have been here for over 12 months as an IP. I got a username so I could commit more time to the fight against vandalism. I have no desire to become a sysop at the current time, but I have not ruled out this possibility for the future. Thanks for taking the time to look at my performance.

Reviews

  • The user needs more experience to learn how to use templates. For example, I had to help the user do this (which I have no problem with), and I think the username is too long. Computerjoe's talk 18:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help in setting this up, much appreciated, and I understand how to use the template now.Abcdefghijklm 20:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • User name is too long? It's only two more characters than yours. —BorgHunter (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am pleased with my edits on the page Chester City Council some of these were done when I was editing as an IP. It involved me going through old council minutes and looking at the Council's website (www.chester.gov.uk). I built most of the election tables, and information on the cabinet and shadow cabinet.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    I have been involved in a dispute over peerages. Details of this dispute can be found on my talk page, but in short, I was not involved as an editor, but had noticed on a recent edits patrol that there had been debate over the issue of using first names, and that the 3RR rule had been broken. I advised the users to reach a peaceful solution using the artice talk page. This advice was not taken, and the discussion spread on to my talk page. I felt I handled it well, and as far as I am aware, a compromise has been reached.

[edit] User:Evan_Robidoux

Evan_Robidoux (talk · contribs) Hi, I'm Evan Robidoux. I am a rather new Wikipedian who's account is about 5 or 6 months old, but I have over 900 edits. I would like to know what I may be doing wrong, where I can improve, etc.. And don't just give compliments. I need some of the harshest constructive criticism that I have ever gotten.

There are a few things that I would like you to keep in mind as you search through my contributions:

  1. I'm worried about the incident with User:68.96.23.7. I have a feeling it may affect my "WikiFuture." Of course, if you think it was a mistake you would expect new users to fall for, please tell me.
  2. There is a huge gap between the number of article edits and user talk edits, with article edits being the lowest of the two. I need suggestions as to how to bring the # of article edits up.
  3. Depending on my edit count, I may try to go for an RfA in February 2007. Give me a few suggestions as to what I should do before then.

Thanks! --Evan Robidoux 15:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


Reviews

  • You do not have to worry about this as this user is a known vandal. You were right to warn this user. --Siva1979Talk to me 21:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You really are a good-faith editor Evan, just try to kick up your edit count a bit before thinking about a nomination for adminship. I usually dont support a user who has a total edit count of at least 2,500-3,000 edits. Stats also says you average 1.95 edits a day, I'd try to pick that percentage up. Specifically, try to be more involved with process by contributing to the Wikipedia namespace more. The time factor for adminship shouldn't apply here since you've been here way over my requirements, but recently others have been hoping users have been here for a year before gaining adminship (but thats not my requirement). Hope this helps Evan. :p Cheers! — The King of Kings 23:29 June 25 '06
  • You are a kind user and the only const. critism I can help you with is to just edit more times per days and a bit more on articles than talk pages... but there's really not much bad to say bout you. See ya 'round, Domthedude001 00:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I see great future in you, dear Evan, and you're taking the right steps. You are polite, kind, thoughtful and you request for help and assistence often when you are not sure how to proceed. All these qualities speak highly of your actions and your intentions. My humble advice matches those given to you already; many people may see your contribution levels to be somewhat low. This is perfectly ok if you feel comfortable with it; but the community expect higher levels of involvement in potential administrators. Get more involved in Wikipedia process, like XFD, and visit RFA as many times as you can - observing what everyone expects in those applying is a good way to learn where to improve. If you need further information or guidance on any aspects of the process, you are most welcome to ask me. Good luck, dear Evan! :) Phædriel ♥ tell me - 16:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

As of 18:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Username Evan Robidoux
  • Total edits 906
  • Distinct pages edited 473
  • Average edits/page 1.915
  • First edit 00:35, 18 January 2006
  • (main) 251
  • Talk 27
  • User 141
  • User talk 331
  • Image 6
  • Image talk 2
  • Template 24
  • Category 4
  • Wikipedia 98
  • Wikipedia talk 22

Questions

  1. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Answer: No, not really. I haven't made any "good" edits. Of course, I probably will be buying a few books over the summer and I may use information from them to improve articles (as long as I can cite them correctly :P )
  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?
    Answer: I never have been in an edit conflict. I like to stop conflicts before they happen, though. If I find a statement that looked like it wasn't true, I would probably post a message on the talk page about what to do with it or ask the user who wrote it if I could change it.

[edit] User:Wisden17

Wisden17 (talk · contribs) I'd like to hear what people think about my activites on Wikipedia. I was recently nominated for RfA by ComputerJoe, but declined the nomination as I feel I would like to get my main space edits up, and hopefully get an article, Royal Grammar School Worcester to FA status.

Reviews

  • You seem to be a fine editor. Work a bit on mainspace & wikipedia-space & you'll easily get through an RFA. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 19:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Royal Grammar School Worcester as I have managed to get this article up to GA standard, and will hopefully get it to FA standard in the not too distant future.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    No, although in my role as a member of the Mediation Committee I have seen the results of edit conflicts, and tried to help resolve them. Also a an advocate I have been invovled in edit conflicts (although indirectly) as I am helping people who are actually having the problems. --Wisden17 18:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tango

Tango (talk · contribs) I think I'm getting close to being ready to apply for adminship, and would like to know what others think. Please feel free to be as brutal as you like - positive comments, while nice, are of little use to me. Thanks. --Tango 22:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Oops, I'd forgotton that was there. I think I added before I'd really read all the userbox contraversy. I'll go and remove it. Thanks! --Tango 11:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I think most of my good work has been of the kind that isn't meant to be seen. (Behind the scenes stuff, cleanup stuff, vandalism reverting, etc) Of the stuff that can be seen, I'm quite proud of my work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate. I've got two Stargate Awards (barnstars) for it, so at least 2 people agree. I'm working on getting Stargate (device) featured. --Tango
  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 get in arguements from time to time - I like to stand up for my opinions, and that generally means arguing. However, I can't think of any time (excluding vandals) when either side has been incivil, really. If I've been incivil anywhere and not noticed (entirely possible), please let me know. --Tango

[edit] User:False_Prophet

False_Prophet (talk · contribs) I have been here for I think 6 months and I am looking at rfa sometime in the future. I am expanding my areas of editing, and am trying to participate in as many wikiprojects as I can. I don't know what my edit count is, and I don't believe it matters as I have had several cases of typos and broken links, forcing me to go back and fix them. I have recently created my first Article, 2002 Minnesota Twins, and once I am finnished with my plan for that article, I am going to create 1965 Minnesota Twins. I have done substancial work on the NFL Draft article and consider myself to be the author as the page is dramaticly different since I have began editing it.

Reviews

  • Looking through your contributions, my first suggestion would be to make sure you always use an edit summary, it makes keeping track of changes on a page's history much easier.
  • Concentrate on building the encyclopedia - currently only 15% of your edits are to the main article space. On a similar note, try to cut down on the frequency with which you modify your userpage - you've edited that way more than anything else.
  • Don't worry about adminship yet, wait until you've got more experience. You can do the vast majority of tasks without being an admin. Oldelpaso 18:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You're heading up the same road as me... more user space edits than main. GangstaEB (talk • contribs • count • ice slides) 01:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

For what it's worth here's your contribution summary as given by Interiot's javascript:

  • Username False Prophet
    • Total edits 462
    • Distinct pages edited 106
    • Average edits/page 4.358
    • First edit 16:17, 24 March 2006
    • (main) 69
    • Talk 94
    • User 117
    • User talk 30
    • Template 1
    • Wikipedia 147
    • Wikipedia talk 4

Questions

  1. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Answer Not yet. I am working on adding Citations to NFL Draft and then working more on the peer reviews it's had and try and get it to FA status. Once that is done, I will be proud of it.
  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?
    Answer No, I haven't had any conflicts yet.

False Prophet 01:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:GangstaEB

GangstaEB (talk '· contribs) I've been around since April 29, 2006 and have made 100 mainspace edits. I have made many stupid moves. I am nearing the 1500 over the 1600 mark over the 1800 mark, over the 1900 mark with most of those (522) in the article namespace, and user talk being it's closed competition (472) and want plenty of feedback from my peers.

Reviews

  • Gain more edits to the main space. Build the encyclopedia. The WP is an encyclopedia first, then a community! Computerjoe's talk 06:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Start building an encyclopedia. You have only 6.8% of main namespace edit and more than 50% of User namespace edits. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the opposite should be happening. Read WP:USER and become aware of what you should not do with your userpage. Afonso Silva 10:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You are a good user! Gain more edits to the main space. FellowWikipedian 20:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've seen you on a lot of user talk pages, but I agree with the others above, you need more mainspace edits. Also wondering about your answer to the second question—you say you're a bit attackish, and ask other users to stay away for a while; but what do you do when other people attack you? Regards, — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 06:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Using Interiot's back-up tool:

  • Username GangstaEB
    • Total edits 1901
    • Distinct pages edited 759
    • Average edits/page 2.505
    • First edit 17:43, 29 April 2006
    • (main) 522
      • Talk 60
    • User 316
      • User talk 472
    • Image 41
      • Image talk 4
    • Template 112
      • Template talk 18
    • Category 9
    • Wikipedia 275
      • Wikipedia talk 67
    • Portal 4
      • Portal talk 1

Questions

  1. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Answer (new answer) My creation of the Did You Know (and almost GA) article CornerShot. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 23:28, 21 July 2006 (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?
    Answer I've been a bit attackish, but I try to stay cool. If I am attackish, give me about 30 hours, and you'll hear an apology. GangstaEB EA

[edit] User:Anonymous anonymous

Anonymous anonymous (talk · contribs) Hello! I need people's opinions about my contributions so far to wikipedia Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day_Crusher of Hopes and Dreams 09:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I've been greeting and welcoming a lot of new users for a while. I think that its important to welcome new members so they'll be able to contribute to wikipedia well. I have also reverted some vandalism using AmiDaniel's vandal proof.
  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?
    Probaby on the CFD. A user has nominated the category Wikipedians by mental condition for deletion. I felt really strong about this. It's not major. I had conflicts with several IP users. I've dealt with it by remaining civil and by remaining patient and friendly. 1

[edit] User:Goldom

Goldom (talk · contribs) Hi there. I've been working on Wikipedia for a couple years now, though only highly active for the last several months. I'm considering an RfA some time in the future (I think I'd probably fail if I tried now due to lack of project page experience), and would appreciate any comments to improve my editing. Thanks. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Great user, 5 stars :) I just noticed that you have reverted vandalism on my user page - thanks! If you want more project experience, I suggest joining up to a Wikiproject(s) on a topic(s) that interests you, doing the rounds at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates etc. You could also help with cleaning up articles, completing merge requests etc. (More tasks can be found at Wikipedia:Community Portal). You seem to already be doing RC patrol as well as the much-neglected task of fixing typos in articles, so well done. I reckon you have a bright wiki-future ahead. Brisvegas 11:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I haven't made all that many major edits - the majority of my contributions are cleanup/wikify sorts of tasks (for example, I fixed ~100 pages which were linking to M*A*S*H, a disambig. page, linking them to the proper destinations), as well as reverting vandalism and marking nonsense pages for deletion. Some examples of articles I have done more on are PEG Link Mode, Physics card, and The Unvanquished, all of which I created, even if they are pretty small. I also created the template Template:The Beatles Singles, which was quite an undertaking, with having to figure out all the appropriate pages to include (as most were in the wrong categories to begin with), and editing all the pages necessary.
  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 only been a couple times I've had large disagreements over Wikipedia (and those even pretty small compared to some fights I see here). In those cases, I try not to take conflict personally. That's not something I'm great at in real life, but I feel I have done pretty well online, and on Wikipedia. I feel I have been WP:CIVIL in all cases, and refuted arguments I disagreed with, rather than attacking other members.

[edit] User:GTBacchus

GTBacchus (talk · contribs) I've been a Wikipedian since January 2003, a particularly active one since last October, and an admin since December 21. Any suggestions on how I can do a better job are welcome.

Reviews

  • I've run into you someplace, now where was it? Oh yeah, that userbox thing.... ;) I think it will take several more months before we know if the conflict is really over, but I think you have had some success at moving the mess forward. And I didn't see anyone who really blew their top at you, so your contribution was definitely valuable. Other than that, I generally avoid controversies, so I've only encountered your janitorial edits. Wikipedia needs more good janitors, but the skills of defusing conflicts are harder to find so I endorse your decision to focus on that. GRBerry 03:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I'm not really a long article writer most of the time, but I'm proud of my small edits. I do a lot of stub sorting, and try to improve every article I encounter while doing that in some small way, even if it's just adding a category and some minor formatting. I'm also proud of the few occasions when I've been able to cool edit wars down by talking to the people involved, or just by editing the article to some compromise version that ends a tug-of-war between two non-NPOV versions. There's also informal mentoring, which I'll say more about in the next question.
  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?
    Stress? Me? Never! No, I've certainly dealt with conflict here. I seem to have a habit of trying to mentor "problem editors". This can lead to... interesting situations, which usually don't blow up in my face. I've been in some content disputes of my own, but none of those have really turned ugly. The biggest conflict I've been a part of is the whole userbox affair, in which I've been trying to stop people calling it a "war" and acting like it's a war, and trying to explain and articulate the case against boxen. How successful I've been at reducing the tension of the affair, I don't know, but I keep trying.
    As far as future conflicts, I guess I'll see what happens. I really believe that WP:AGF is a magic carpet that will fly you over the thorniest of confrontations. If you can make it clear to someone that you see and appreciate their good-faith contributions, then you already have some common ground from which to build, and any problems that arise are probably just misunderstandings over some detail.

[edit] User:GeorgeMoney

GeorgeMoney (talk · contribs) I know I have done one before, but there is no rule that says you can't do it again. And, I want to be reviewed.

Reviews

  • George is very like General Eisenhower (talk · contribs), acting out of good faith for the benefit of the community - but not always in the best ways. Couple of things I'd love to see: Answers to the below question. Wait, that's only one! Computerjoe's talk 15:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    How do I act like him? GeorgeMoney T·C 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Very helpful, always on top of things, great overall editor. I can't think of a single suggestion. Which doesn't make this review too helpful... Steveo2 11:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Great user! FellowWikipedian 21:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

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

[edit] User:Nookdog

Nookdog (talk · contribs) Think this is what I'm looking for not RfA

Reviews

Comments

Questions

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

[edit] User:Lurker

Lurker (talk · contribs) Having been a minor contributor to Wikipedia for a couple of years, I've now been bitten by the bug and seem to be making more and more edits. I've also got involved in such things as creating new articles, patrolling new pages, participating in AfD etc. Since I am now editing more articles, it'd be a good idea to find out what I am doing right and wrong.

Reviews

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I've recently begun to create new articles, which I love doing. and I have taken part in things like AfD. My best contribution has been succeeding in getting a Fascism portal established, though someone more experinced than me had to do the actual work, as I din't know how to, at the time. Still, it came as a result of my suiggestion, and I have been able to contribute
  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?
    Non-logged in editors who make changes I disagree with cause me stress, but I deal with it. I fnd the best way to avoid conflict is to talk about the issues with courtesy. If I am about to make a controversial edit, I say so on the talk page first, and wait a couple of days before making the edit.

Wikipedia:Editor Review/The prophet wizard of the crayon cake

Wikipedia:Editor Reivew/The Gerg

[edit] User:Omegatron

Omegatron (talk · contribs) I've been an admin for almost two years. Lately I've found myself in a lot of tense disputes, and I hate it. I checked my edit count the other day and was dismayed to see that several of my top-edited articles are only due to these disputes; not because I'm especially interested in those topics. Then yesterday I typed in ALL CAPS in an edit summary (something I absolutely despise when others do it), and am therefore checking myself into rehab. I don't think I'm being uncivil or breaking rules, but I'm not sure I'm contributing to an idyllic, cooperative atmosphere, either.

I am looking for feedback on the way I've been handling myself lately (don't just criticize; give me concrete examples of things I could have done better), and advice on how to lower my blood pressure while still saving the world.  ;-) — Omegatron 02:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Come-on. You got a bunch of wiki-scars. That's all. Keep-up the good work. Take off some stuff from your watchlist and enjoy some beautiful things. --Ligulem 23:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • But if I take stressful things off my watchlist, the barbarians will take over and the world will end! — Omegatron 23:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
  • A quick look, not a review, shows that you are a good editor. However, I compare you a little bit to pschemp (in case you have not worked with her, she is an admin also). I got into a slight dispute with her a bit back, and I became bitter. But the other day I've found myself defending her practices. I told an upset user that "Her methods may be unorthdox and may be unliked by many, but she is a very good editor and administrator and contributes greatly to Wikipedia." This seems to describe you as well. I think it may be wise to cool down a little, but it is not necessary. I find that you seem to be a good contributor already and should keep up your good work. Cbrown1023 03:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • P.S. I find the fact that you are doing this in the first place to be a big plus and it seems that you are at least aware of your faults, if any. It shows you have taken an initiative to do better, which is a very good adminly (is that even word?) thing to do. Cbrown1023 03:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What little direct contact I have had with Omegatron has been in a most professional, helpful, and courteous manner. Indirectly, I seem to see Omegatron everywhere reverting vandals, fixing markups, bringing common sense and wisdom to discussion pages and doing exactly what an admin is supposed to do. While it is indeed forthright to submit oneself to this process, I don't really see a need for it. Omegatron you are an inspiration to new editors such as myself. Keep up the great work. L0b0t 15:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Hmmm...
    • I once met a girl who had found Wikipedia very helpful in writing a research paper, who was amazed when she found out I had written much of the Thermoelectric effect article she had been using. The best feeling is hearing coworkers read off articles to each other without knowing I've contributed to them, or seeing articles used in online debates.
    • There was an old newsgroup posting of dubious authority that was passed around and around about the different colors of noise. I converted it into an article, which has since become infinitely superior, with references, up-to-date facts, sound clips, and images.
    • Articles that are mostly my work (because they are too technical or obscure for others to contribute much): SICI, Gyrator
    • I've also done site-fixing things like making the loudspeaker icon clickable for inline audio links (info), rewriting the {{Listen}} templates for accessibility, and adding the icon after PDF links (in some browsers, at least...)
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress?
    Absolutely. That's the focus of this review. Recent disputish concerns:

[edit] User:EricV89

Reviews


Comments

[edit] User:Atlantis Hawk

Atlantis Hawk (talk · contribs) Well I've been a part of Wikipedia for a fair while now, I guess I haven't been making as many edits as a few others but I still believe in the best for Wikipedia and I believe being admin could only help. Atlantis Hawk 06:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hi. You currently have virtually no chances of becoming an administrator, you need a lot more experience and you need to exponentially increase your flow of contributions. I would not risk an RfA until you have at least +3000 edits, of which +1000 on the mainspace and a few hundreds on the WP space. You need to get involved in administrative-oriented tasks, such as countervandalism or XfD. And a good knowledge of the policies. And no conflicts. Your edit summary usage is too low, please always add an edit summary to your edits. You have a long way to go but I wish you good luck. Regards.--Húsönd 23:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi there, while I wouldn't have put it quite that way, it's true that you are extremely unlikely to become an administrator at this point in time. Húsönd covered pretty much everything, but let me add that the more you contribute to articles, people will learn your strengths and weaknesses and come to recognise you. As I've said several times today, having the trust of the community is an integral part of being an administrator, and the only way to gain that trust is through increased participation in Wikipedia, with a consistent record of good judgement and civility, even during times of conflict. Or rather, especially during times of conflict. I wish you well. --Kyoko 00:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, now that I read my review again, I do seem to sound a little bit harsh. Sorry Atlantis, it was not my intention to sound like that, the review was meant to read as with a friendly, advisory tone. But, well, when you're reading something there's no way to know if the person who wrote it had a smile on their face or a Hitler-like expression. :-) I hope that you didn't find me harsh. Regards.--Húsönd 00:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello there, Atlantis Hawk. It seems I am late for the party :-)
    • First of all, I notice you have started using edit summaries since you entered this review. That is very good, you are listening to people here! 75% for major edits and 92% for minor ones is still on the low side (both should be at 95% or above, usually), but I guess it is much better than the one you had in the past.
    • You have been working pretty hard in November, however note that it is not enough to contribute one month in order to have a successful nomination. One of the requisites for being an administrator is experience, which is usually obtained by both time in Wikipedia and edit contributions. I suggest you to contribute for three or four months at least in order to be eligible as one.
    • Reviewing some of your contributions, I see this summary a bit misleading, because AFDs are not votations, but discussions, and you don't vote, you give an opinion. Also, in such discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enrico Pallazzo, you chose to delete instead of redirect (maybe following the lead of the ones who had given their opinion before you). Remember that redirects are cheap, so if an article can be contained by another, it is better to merge and redirect or just redirect. A new user may create the article again, and if that can be prevented with a redirect, much better.
    • I also notice you have started two wikiprojects (one of which merged with an existing one), and joined several others. That should give you even more interaction with other users.
    • I have problems with Image:Kahuna Icon.jpg, because you are saying This picture is actually copyrighted, but I have permission to use it. You may have permission, but you are not demonstrating it in the page. Either take the picture yourself, get written permission from the owner of the image to release it under GFDL, or request an administrator to delete it. Same goes for Image:Kookaburra Beast.jpg. As for Image:Koh kood map.gif, you need to specify if you had created the image, or picked it from somewhere else. Regarding Template:User WP Sex, you may consider asking WikiProject Sexuality to use it as their own, if a template is used only by one user, it may be better to move the template into your own namespace. Finally, regarding Image:NW tway map.jpg, where in the site states it is a public document? Try to be more specific when giving sources (in example, providing a link to the image and to the page from where you picked it).
    You are off to a great start! As stated above, I would recommend not trying to nominate yourself for a couple of months more, at least until you are more familiar with the different manual of style recommendations. Since you seem to know a lot about Australia, I recommend you to pick an article and try to make it a good article. This will prove others in your future nomination that you know how to edit. Also, consider that AFDs are not votations where a side "wins". Finally, try to be a bit more specific when uploading images. The ones I mentioned could be sent to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, as their source and claim of permission are not clear in the image summaries. Remember, it is better to have an article without images than images with non-clear free statements. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 18:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

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


Questions 1. There is a contribution that I am particulary pleased with and it's one of my fairly recent ones. They're the edits I made to the Morristown West High School page, which were more a cleanup than anything. I stumbled across this page when skimming through the articles for deletion pages when I realised this page did not deserve to be deleted. It's the subject of a possible copyright infringement now and I don't know exactly why.

2. Well I haven't had any major and I mean very major conflicts but there is a dispute between Phanatical and me over what should be in the Girraween High School page. The dispute is relatively minor, but I don't think Phanatical understands that a lot has changed since he left, well before me. So now it's more a concern with the awful truth versus watered-down propaganda. I don't dislike Phanatical but I think he should give a little way to other editors. The dealing with this problem still hasn't quite subsided but it's a working progress. Should this happen again however (with anyone), it will be more a debate over talk pages until a common idea is reached. Whether that be good or bad, it won't really be that harmful.

[edit] User:ScienceApologist

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) I am reposting this editor review for more input. ScienceApologist 12:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

[edit] Review by Jcam

Hello, ScienceApologist. I am Jcam and here is my review:

  • Wow. You certainly have enough edits. It's not likely anyone could oppose a nomination on the grounds of lack of quantity of edits. Nor could anyone say you have a lack of quality edits, since you have not one, but two articles you brought to FA status. I feel somewhat inadequate in reviewing you as I have a mere 1000 edits.
  • I do have a lot of experience voting in Rfa's so I know what they are like. And sometimes people can be against you for reasons they don't really state in the Rfa. In your case, I could see a lot of voters going against you because of your strongly held opinions and beliefs. And being controversial, although you may be right, never helps an Rfa. I think there are two things which most Rfa voters look at: (1) the editor aspects (2) the interpersonal aspects. You pass the first test with flying colors. The second test- well, it appears you need more work. Here's some suggestions:
    • Decide if being an administrator is all that important to you. The "mop" is the symbol because it can often be a dirty, thankless job. As an editor sans the mop, you have a lot more leeway in the things you do. With the mop, you become almost a "target" subject to personal attacks, ones you must keep your cool about since you, to many people, represent the project. So just a thought...
    • I've seen the areas which you have been editing in... they are controversial ones. Get away from them for a little bit. Make it your goal to just simply browse wikipedia for an entire session which you normally would spend doing heavy editing. Sure, log in, and fix any small problems you may see (spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc), but you're main goal is to find areas of Wikipedia, topics which you haven't ventured into. Perhaps you may find some other area of interest far away from science/psuedo-science topics which interest you. And then do your contributing there for a while, quietly and efficiently.
    • As an administrator, you will be called upon to be unbiased. Because of your history of edits, you may have to go the extra mile to prove you can be NPOV (which, granted, from your standpoint, you are because you stick to what scientific observation tells you). Start patrolling articles you normally would not touch. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, these are all articles which are heavily vandalised. Add them to your watch list and revert people who mess with these articles. It would be a good way to show the community that even though you have opinions, you would protect those articles as diligently as any of the ones you have contributed to.
    • Stick to the 1RR. Don't get into arguments with people over edits. Simply have a discussion on the talk page and have faith that eventually things will sort themselves out. Getting into revert wars and getting all bent out of shape does not get things sorted out any quicker.

I hope this was helpful. Any questions, feel free to contact me. Jcam 03:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review by Dar-Ape

  • Well, Jcam has stated some of my thoughts as well. Working well with other editors is an integral part of improving articles as well as being an administrator. You should certainly always strive to act friendly and helpful, but no one is perfect. If you do run into another not-so-nice dispute, I would suggest that after smoothing things over with an editor(s) involved, you may want to consider doing some "good karma" actions-- try helping out users on the Help Desk, the Science Reference Desk, or any other positively oriented actions such as these. It is sometimes easy to forget that while many users uphold the highest ideals in thought, their actions often seem bad simply because of newness or unintentional mistakes; yet as an administrator, you must be a model of good faith, helpfulness, and patience. Of course, though, helping in these venues is only a suggestion, and all choice ultimately belongs to you. Cheers, Dar-Ape 00:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Review by ReyBrujo

  • Hello there, ScienceApologist. Here is my review, I hope it is useful for you.
    • I see you always use summaries and they are pretty descriptive ones. Keep it up!
    • Good working making improving those articles to featured status. That is probably one thing I would not be able to achieve in a long time to come, thus I really admire people who is able to do it.
    • Most of the opposing votes for your prior nomination was because of a very short statement. I hope next time you will try to give more information about why you want the tools. As I say, someone needs to demonstrate that a need for the tools exists, and short statements are usually not welcomed. Just to point out, you just used 12 words for this review statement.
    • Talking about becoming an administrator, I would like to hear why you need the administrator tools. You don't appear to do enough vandalism revert to require a rollback function, nor have reports to the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page. There are no requests to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and just 50 edits in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and 2 in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion back in June. You have participation in requests for comments and arbitration, however you do not need to become an administrator to join the Committee. I usually say that I believe there are two kind of administrators, those who are article-oriented and those who are user-oriented. Article-oriented ones answer calls at Requests for page protection, close different XFD discussions, are in charge of the different categories for deletion (speedy deletions, orphaned images, etc), etc. User-oriented administrators prefer to answer calls to Administrator intervention against vandalism, reverting and warning users, track down users who may be using sockpuppets, and answering the different administrator noticeboards.
    You are an excellent editor, and you would make a good administrator, but you need to demonstrate a real need for the tools. While it is possible your RFA would be successful, personally I don't see a reason to support you unless you need the tools. Some more interaction with other users, especially while fighting vandalism, could be helpful for those checking you. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 16:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Did you not look at my contributions? I have asked for page protection on numerous occasions! I have also nominated dozens of articles for deletion (back when it was VfD and not AfD). Have you looked carefully through my contributions? Without the admin tools, I find that it means that I don't have the time to go through the ridiculous typing required to do simple tasks, so I tend to avoid pages where I don't have the tools. This is a Catch-22 situation. I'm not going to spend time on AfD when I don't have the mop and bucket. I'm not going to get the mop and bucket unless I spend more time on AfD. That's some really poor reasoning, if you ask me. --ScienceApologist 21:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
When reviewing, I look at the last 5,000 edits. From what I see, you edited at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection three times ([2] [3] and [4]). As I said, I have only looked at your last 5,000 edits, which cover since the second week of May 2006 until now, almost 6 months of editing. Consider this: in 6 months, you have three edits at page protection request and 50 edits at articles for deletion. There is no need for participating in AFDs if you don't like them and/or won't be closing AFDs. However, I did not see any reason for you to require these tools. Why don't you answer my question and tell me why you need the tools? What would you do with them? If you think my 5,000 edit perspective, covering 6 months, is misleading, think that most times people will check your last contributions, not those done a year ago. -- ReyBrujo 22:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review by User:Opabinia regalis

I'm not really a big fan of editor reviews. But I thought I should say something here, since I intended to support your last RfA and then it was delisted by the time I got home from work. (And I'd likely support you again.) It goes without saying that you're one of our best physics editors, and take a hard line against crankish nonsense. Which is great, but it's gotten you into a lot of entanglements (how many ArbCom cases now?) - at minimum I'd suggest waiting till the pseudoscience one settles out (I can't imagine Asmodeus' has any traction, but I don't know the whole context). More general comments:

  • You're on a website where people argue for months over a minor redesign of the sidebar. People like to discuss everything, a lot. For better or worse, people read brief and pithy but see curt and dismissive.
  • You don't suffer fools gladly (or at all). That's good; we need more admins who won't put up with foolishness. But you tend to be rather acerbic in an environment where people will bend over backwards not to offend even the most persistently obnoxious user. Most people don't know their ass from their elbow about advanced topics in physics (myself included), so when they go to review your contributions, they see you calling a fellow disputant ignorant/incompetent/a crank, and have no way of evaluating the arguments to decide whether or not it's true. It's easy enough to say 'oppose, civility issues' and move on.
  • You'll most likely be asked about NPOV and 'SPOV', whatever that means. Have an answer. Make it more than a sentence long.
  • 'Be efficient' will be read by at least a few people as 'clobber people who are in my way'. Come up with some specifics, ideally with examples from less than 6 months ago. Start by filling up CAT:CSD if you want to help empty it as an admin. I tagged speedies when I didn't have the time/inspiration to do any serious article writing.
  • Not really related to adminship, but good science minds are always great for reviewing other science articles, even if they aren't directly related to your area of expertise. Consider spending more time on peer review or FAC; it would be really useful.

Opabinia regalis 03:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Answer Big Bang and redshift are featured 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?
    Answer In an arbitration over pseudoscience as we speak. Also involved with arbitrations regarding User:Reddi, User:Ed Poor, and other promoters of pseudoscience/fringe science. I am of the opinion that WP:NPOV#Undue wieght, WP:NPOV#Psuedoscience, and WP:FRINGE are clear that minority/pseudoscience/fringe science opinions are to be marginalized in mainstream articles while they are to be explained in their own articles with appropriate criticism from the mainstream community, skeptical organizations, or verifiable and relevant ideas that have scientific consensus.

Optional question from Dar-Ape (talk ·  contribs)

  1. What Administrator tasks are you interested in working on? Dar-Ape 03:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    Please see my previous failed RfAs for this info. --ScienceApologist 12:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:CattleGirl

CattleGirl (talk · contribs) I've been editing Wikipedia for a few months, working mainly with vandal 'fighting' and other things- I contributed to a major sockpuppet case a while ago, and rather than nominating articles for deletion I've been re-writing them. I'd like this editor review to point me in the right direction and hopefully prepare me for a future RFA. CattleGirl talk | e@ 09:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • G'day. You're doing quite well. I've seen you positively contributing to RC patrol where you revert vandalism effectively. Warning users with a WP:VAND tag is always helpful. If you ever want to go for RFA, however, you will need to be able to demonstrate examples of positive article development: adding reliable sources to articles (i.e. from "Category:Articles with unsourced statements"); trying to get editors to provide an equal balance of sources in "Category:NPOV disputes"; or simply just article development how you see fit. Further, getting heavily involved in AFD, FA, RFC, CP or PUI discussions (just to name a few) helps to demonstrate to other users that you have a sound knowledge of all the policies of Wikipedia. You're in the early stages of your career here. Keep your head down and your spirits up gradually getting more involved in the positive article creating community and the policy and administrative functions and you will be seen as a responsible editor who will be a good admin. Cheers and happy editing! Jpe|ob 10:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks, I'll try to get involved in building articles more... and also those comments and links to some 'blue pages' were great. Some of those discussions I hadn't seen before, but after reviewing the policies, etc, of them I'll be sure to be contributing- thanks again for the review! CattleGirl talk | e@ | review me! 09:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


  • Hello there, CattleGirl, how are you doing? Here is my review, I hope you find it useful.
    • First of all, I suggest you removing Image:PanicAtTheDisco promo 2006.jpg from your user page. According to our Fair use criteria, point 9, fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. People is quite sensitive about misusing fair use images, and the faster you correct it, the better.
    • You are using edit summaries pretty well, they are informative and useful, great!
    • I see quite a lot of vandalism fighting, have you considered (if not yet) joining the recent changes patrol? Warnings you had posted appear justified and correctly applied.
    • Oh, someone who prefers to rewrite articles instead of sending them for deletion? That is pretty good! Hopefully you don't spend time while working in articles that do not assert our required notability. I don't see many users doing this (I do not do that, for sure!), so my compliments for your effort in expanding Wikipedia.
    • What I would point out is that you have relatively few edits in the article talk namespace. Discussing with other users in talk article talk pages is important because it indicates you are willing to listen and share your ideas with them in order to improve articles. Maybe you should try to help the WikiProject Star Wars in creating a good or maybe even a featured article? In these collaborations, users do tend to talk quite a lot in order to coordinate efforts, and learn to work in teams instead of individually (which I think you do as you like saving articles that editors usually don't find useful).
    Adminship isn't that far for someone contributing like you, however you need to do a couple of things. Besides participating in recent changes patrol, you may want to check whether the pages that are being vandalized should be protected or not, reporting them to requests for page protection when necessary. Also, if you don't like participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, you should then try to give a hand at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, as usually only a very small amount of users do give their opinion there. Also, I recommend to spend some time at the noticeboard, where users and administrators try to solve some problems, with may give you hints as to how to act in determined situations. Finally, don't forget to warn users if what they did to an article is not useful. Remember that we have four levels of test warnings, and that you can repeat them as much as you consider necessary. In example, if a user adds "egg" to an article that does not need it, it may be a simple test, which you can warn with a {{test}} or not depending whether you think it was a one-time vandalism, or someone who is testing and should be redirected to Wikipedia:Sandbox. If after your warning the user adds "egg" again to another article, there is no need to escalate to a {{test2}}, just give him a test1 even if he has it. The important thing is that the user is redirected to the sandbox when he is doing good faithed edits, and that people who are on vandalism spree know editors are tracking them out. The way you handle these situations will, in the future, be examined by those reviewing candidates at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Oh, and while you gain experience to present yourself in such request, don't forget to continue editing. Administrators are also editors who are expected to know how to write articles. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 23:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Thanks, that was very helpful! I've been wanting to bring a few articles up to good and featured status lately, and the Wikiproject Star Wars should be a good place to start (plus saving the Panic! pages from another afd process, that would be good too!), so thanks for bringing that up. Since you added the comment about warning users, I've been trying to do that for every revert that I do, so thanks again! CattleGirl talk | e@ | review me! 09:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    There aren't many major edits that I am pleased with more than others, because I'm pleased with all of my edits, however I must say the article re-writes I've done have been probably the most satisfying. It's also good to save an article from a potential deletion.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    A while ago I was having a small argument with Topcattheirrefutable, as he had been accused of sockpuppetry and retaliated against the user who put the tag on his page. It was a discussion on following policies and what it means to Wikipedia, and I believed I handled the discussion well. Other than a few angry vandals, there haven't been any other situations like that at all.

[edit] User:Bloodpack

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

Reviews

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

Comments

Questions

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

[edit] User:Karimarie

Karimarie (talk · contribs) I would like my edits to be evaluated so I can improve my own editting style. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • I felt your rapid reversion of my edit of Israel was unjust.
It seems you often revert Israel edits very swiftly and others may feel similarly to me.
Johnbibby 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You don't want to be sticking banners on article talk pages. [5] This was discussed, for instance, at the inception of the Linux WikiProject. It usually incorrectly claims that the article is being actively worked on by the project, and discourages editors who are not part of the project. Some of the best editors on Wikipedia are lone cowboys, and don't like claims being staked all over the place. If policy had allowed me to use rollback on those edits, I would have done. On sight, every time. People waste too much time on bureaucracy these days. Just go and edit articles. Much more satifying. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 01:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello there, Karimarie, how are you doing? Personally, I do not agree with Samsara. As every article in Wikipedia needs to be rated in both importance and status, articles should belong to a WikiProject to get such ratings. However, I am not a member of the WikiProject Linux. Now, for your review, I notice you have very similar statistics: around 700 edits in the article namespace, 150 in the article talk, 350 in the user, 200 in the user talk and 100 in the Wikipedia one. Most of your edits in the article namespace are vandalism reverts, which is pretty good. You could consider joining the Recent changes patrol in order to learn how to patrol and the different tools available for patrolers. However, I am kind of disappointed that you don't warn vandals as often as it should. Remember that we have four level of warnings, thus someone vandalizing an article for the second time should be awarded at least a {{test}}. Also, if you aren't yet, consider checking the contributions of the user you have just warned. While checking for vandals is very welcomed, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where editors should spend some time writing and polishing articles. The fact that you are proud of your vandal fighting indicates several points: that you don't have an expanded edit history while improving articles, that you feel comfortable tracking vandals, and that you may be target of those vandals you keep reverting. I wonder why you did not mention your interaction with Berakhot (Talmud), which seems pretty extensive. With some more effort, and recurring to the manual of style, you should be able to make it a good article. Finally, I find User:Karimarie/Watched/Users somewhat strange. While people have these kind of lists (even I have mine), most times we do clearly state whether they are "good" (in example, "People I respect") or bad (in example, "Spammers"). That you don't make it clear which ones are "good" and which ones are "bad" may bring some shadow for the good users. However, this is a personal feeling, to which you apparently don't agree. Ending, I believe you need to warn users more often and spend some time writing articles (fighting vandals is pretty stressing once they learn to click your signature to arrive to your user page!). If you don't feel comfortable with editing and expanding articles, you can take a break from reverts by checking the different deletion debates. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 04:40, 12 November 2006 (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 many, many reversions of vandalism. That said, revert edits are not much in the way of contributing content 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?
    I have had many conflicts with other editors, although generally with regards to reversion of vandalism they have caused or the occassional content dispute. Some of these users have caused me specific stress due to their repeated attacks against me. I deal with it now and in the future by belief that I have Wikipedia's policies on my side and that if I must defend my actions by gaining consensus that I am able to do so.
  3. What major changes do you think are needed here on Wikipedia?
  4. Optional question from User:Youngamerican. I noticed in a recent CfD that you mentioned WP:SNOW. What are your thoughts on this essay? When should it be applied in the closure of any XfD?

[edit] User:Miller17CU94

Miller17CU94 (talk · contribs) I have contributing to Wikipedia since Memorial Day weekend of 2006 and I am not trying to become an administrator. I just want to do my articles better and I would like a review on how my edits can be better Chris 14:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hello there, Miller17CU94, how are you doing? Here is my review, I hope you find it useful.
    • For someone who has started in May, you have been very active. I see you have increased your participation in this project until October, when you suddenly cut it by half. I hope it does not mean you burned yourself, but instead that you are still trying to find the right amount of edits per month you can do without influencing your life outside Wikipedia.
    • Am I counting right? 13 DYK contributions? Impressive! It not only informs that you have a good number of created articles, but also interesting and pretty long ones! Congratulations!
    • Mathbot indicates you use edit summaries only once every four times for minor edits. You should consider using them more often, There is a check in the Preferences section where you can make Wikipedia ask for an edit summary everytime you write something. It is a good way to remember to use them if you just forget about them.
    • Something curious I noticed: Although you have 5,500 edits in articles, you only have 24 in article talk pages. I think (I may be wrong, of course) that you enjoy editing articles that are, as you say, "long overdue", without active editors, and that may be mostly stubs or new ones. Everyone here is able to choose how to contribute, and I think you prefer editing articles yourself, but consider that Wikipedia is a place where there is a strong sense of community, where users work together in order to build articles. Experience with other users is also needed in order to handle conflicts, which soon or later will arrive. Also, the high edit amount per article indicates you like to spend some more time in articles than most other users, which is understandable since you write them from scratch.
    • The images you have been uploading as of late have been well referenced and sourced, although you may consider adding a fair use rationale for every article the image is being used in.
    You are doing a great job at creating needed articles. I always say that, between a red link and a stub, I prefer the stub, because anonymous editors can contribute to stubs, but can't create articles. You not only create articles, but develop them into reasonable articles. I don't have many suggestions to do, as you seem to know our manual of style perfectly. I may suggest to try to polish some articles into good articles, maybe asking for a peer review in order to get some feedback about how to expand them. Of course, I suggest you to spend some more time in article talk pages, inviting and discussing with others how to continue improving the article. To some users, people sometimes tell them to stop socializing and begin writing. In your case, the opposite may be true: try to gather some help to carry an article to good or even featured article. Our success is not based in our individuality, but in our ability to share the responsabilities with others. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 02:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am pleased on two things. 1) The articles on the individual FIS Nordic World Ski Championships which were sorely needed and overdue. 2) The articles I am working on right now in food science and technology.
  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 main issues I have dealt with previously have been images and the copyright issues, and with capitalization. The eleven images I had first downloaded werre deleted because of my unfamiliarity with the process, but since then I have been able to download without any problems, including two I was able to get permission from the organization officials (Institute of Food Technologists and Phi Tau Sigma). Capitalization has been adjusted on this to where I am not putting it on every single word like I had done previously. My main issue that I am dealing with right now is putting mathematical equations on Wikipedia and I have asked for assistance which I am receiving right now, specifcally on the Thermal death time article.

[edit] Brief review

I have had only very little contact with Miller17CU94 but have found this user extremely diplomatic and easy to work with. --Coppertwig 14:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:SunStar Net

SunStar Net (talk · contribs) Hi, I'm interested in having an editor review to see where my weak areas are, any anything I can improve on. Advice is appreciated. --SunStar Net 16:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hey, there, Sunstar. First of all, even doing an editor review is a good sign, since it allows the community to give you some firm feedback. With that in mind, let's look at some things you have done right:
  1. - You have a total of 649 edits. Of those, a whopping 106 were in the AIV section. That's pretty concience focus on stopping vandalism, which warms my heart. Lots of other vandal fighting stuffs too.
  2. - 15 welcomes! It's good to see someone who's only been here a few days welcoming new people in turn. It really DOES make a difference being nice.
  3. - A good selection in most areas (save one, see below) of activity -- templates, images, name space, wikipedia talk, activism against vandals, etc.

You probably want to improve on the following:

  1. - Only 87 article space edits. You should find some more articles to work on. I'd be more than happy to find stuff to work on you with. It's hard to say exactly what you should do differently when we don't have much to go on.
  2. - In your actual edits of articles, such as with Tim Hamilton (actor), you confuse (I think) POV with what isn't verifiable. Remember to discuss changes.
  3. - I would find a series of articles to improve. Try and see if you can find an article to get to GA or FA status.
  4. - Finally , while being anti-vandalistic is good, some of your activities on AIV replicate efforts. Consider reading up some pages from WP:CVG and getting some tools, like VandalProof.

Thanks for asking me to editor review you, and I hope all this helps. If you want a more broken down detailing of your edit activity, I have one : User:Elaragirl/EditorRevStuff. If you have any further questions, hit me on my talk page. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 20:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Hello there, SunStar Net. A couple of comments, seen that Elaragirl did a very good review. Try to add an explanation at Image:Pca1.jpg about how you got the image. Also, I notice you participate a lot in the Wikipedia namespace, which is very good. But 100 edits in the article namespace, a third of your Wikipedia namespace ones, is questionable. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia before all, and editors (including administrators) are expected to participate in the article namespace. I see you are member of some WikiProjects, I suggest participating in Collaborations of the Week in those projects, and if it does not exist, maybe setting one up so that you get more experience while editing articles you like. Or you can select an article about a topic you like, and try to expand it, discussing in the talk page about resources and wording. Also, check the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Peer review for ideas about how to improve articles. I reviewed some of your deletion participation, and found them all fair enough, although some may have used a better explanation. Remember to always include a link to the policy or guideline you are using in these discussions. Articles for deletions should not only determine if an article should be deleted, but also teach the users who created the articles why their submissions were not accepted. Finally, it is good to see you awarding barnstars around. These small tokens of appreciation are always welcomed, and usually raise the spirit of those receiving them. Try to spend some more time writing articles, and meet users not only during discussions, but also while improving articles. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 21:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • To repeat the above slightly, you should certainly try to look at writing articles a little more. Some people think that having helped with one featured article should be a pre-requisite for adminship - while you don't necessarily have to reach that height (it would have scuppered me, unless you count Sanssouci), it's good to demonstrate that you have the ability to research and write encyclopaedia articles. Even if that's not your main focus, all admins and non-admins-doing-admin-work should understand the writing process. The first question in this review (which matches the second standard question in RfAs) about the contributions you're most proud of is the one where you have the most opportunity to set yourself apart. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Elaragirl covered a lot of the stuff I was going to say. You have made great strides since your ER started to increase your mainspace edits, so that's a good thing. You are a valued vandal-fighter, and you frequently report pages to WP:RFPP. You've been here for about three weeks, yet you have made great progress and continue to improve every day. Continue contributing to AfD discussions and try to narrow down your mainspace contributions to a few particular articles, which you plan to write, expand, and improve. Continue to do what you have been doing on Wikipedia, and you'll become a great user in no time. Take a look at Wikipedia guidelines (WP:CSD, WP:CIVIL, etc.) and keep up the good work. =) P.S. I found pop-ups annoying at first, but I use them all the time now (they really help with my admin chores). If you want a great external vandal-fighting tool, I suggest VandalProof. Nishkid64 01:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

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

[edit] User:Remember

Remember (talk · contribs) I would greatly appreciate hearing from the community about my editing and what I should do in the future to become a better editor. Remember 15:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hello there, Remember. Here is my review, I hope you can find it useful.
    • The first thing I must point out is about the images in your user page. Image:Dean Smith Book cover.JPG, Image:Better tar heel.jpg, Image:Zatopek.jpg and Image:UNC Ramses.jpg are licensed under fair use, and our fair use criteria #9 states fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. In other words, you can link them in your user talk page (just like I linked these here), but not display them in a gallery. Public domain images are fine, thanks for uploading them.
    • Mathbot reports 53% summary usage for major edits. I believe you should increase it, as edit summaries are very useful. Imagine someone has added some information about an event in an article, but someone else removed it. You thought the information was useful and well referenced, and want to add it back. If the one who added the information used a descriptive summary, like adding information about 2004 event where boys were eaten by dinosaur thought to be extint, referencing CNN and BBC articles, you would find it pretty easily. However, if he die not use an edit summary, you would have to guess where the information was added. Both you and other editors will appreciate this in a couple of months.
    • Carolina-Duke rivalry is a pretty impressive piece, with a lot of information. Although some minor modifications could be done (in example, don't duplicate references), overall is very informative. I would suggest checking Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, the article could be tagged with a {{toomuchtrivia}} tag at any moment.
    • I may suggest participating a bit more in talk pages, as it is a useful way to discuss changes and requesting suggestions about how to improve articles. Also, I would recommend getting some ideas about formatting articles at Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and to contact other users through Wikipedia:Peer review and Wikipedia:Requests for feedback to get some ideas about how to improve articles you write.
    There is no magic recipe for becoming a better editor. Every editor has a unique editor pattern. At this time, you are completely focused on articles, and how to improve them. The more time you do this, the more you learn about style guides and formatting. In the future, you may be interested in advising others about how to write articles, either by peer reviews or requests for feedback. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 20:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am proud of setting up the Carolina-Duke rivalry webpage, creating the template for Template:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, uploading various photos from the public domain, and helping get the Dean Smith article closer to good article status.
  1. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    The only stressful conflicts I have had so far is various conflicts with User:Duke53 over the Dean Smith and Roy Williams (coach) articles. I feel I dealt with this situation well. I have found that if you assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks that goes a long way in helping to resolve disputes. I would continue to use this approach in dealing with future conflicts.

[edit] User:no1lakersfan

no1lakersfan (talk · contribs) I am requesting a review so that I may find out what areas of my contributions I need to improve. I hope at some point to be able to become an administrator, and would like some suggestions as to what I need to do. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 23:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Most of your edits seem to be on the Virginia State Highways articles. They look pretty good. I am involved in other highway projects (new hampshire, north carolina) and they look up--to-standard with most other highway articles. Looking at these and other edits, however, it would be nice to see more inline references. I am of the opinion that all assertions of facts should have direct references as to where they are found. I know and understand that sometimes this is hard to do, and I have been known to make lots of writing on articles that I myself have not referenced. Still, I also recognize that it is an inadequacy in articles and something that a "good" article avoids. "Good" articles are heavily referenced. I checked out some of your AfD comments. I am somewhat bothered that a) you act as the closing admin on articles you comment on. Sounds like a conflict of interest and b) you close articles before 5 days and c) you close articles you were not authorized to close. Still, these look like "good faith" mistakes and not maliciousness. Learn the rules and things should continue to go well for you. --Jayron32 03:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello there, no1lakersfan, everything fine?
    • Good edit summary usage, 95% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. However, mathbot had to retrieve 5 times to get enough minor edits. In other words, you haven't been using minor edits lately, have you? :-)
    • Nice edit numbers, although you have a very low amount of article talk edits. These edits demonstrate that you are willing to discuss with others different changes with other users, and you only have just below 2% of your total edits. I suggest spending some more time discussing with other users. Hampton Roads has grown quite a lot, and will someday become a good or maybe even featured article. I also notice many Virginia State Road edits.
    • I see you work quite a lot with Special:BrokenRedirects, although you could take a minute or so to verify that there is no valid article where they could be redirected. I see many of those speedy tags were removed and the redirect changed to the actual article, template or talk page.
    • I count around 20 edits in articles for deletion, all during August. In order to qualify as an administrator willing to work with articles, you should spend time in the different deletion debates, mainly articles, templates, categories and redirects for deletion. As an administrator you will be asked to close deletion discussions, and only through participation you will be able to set create a "standard" for you. For this, you need to learn about the notability guidelines. I also see 5 edits in requests for adminship, all in your own RFA.
    • Also, try to spend time patrolling new pages and new users. You will have opportunities to request for page protections, which will give you experience as to when report a page, and especially when a page should be protected. Finally, it will give you opportunities to edit at administrator intervention against vandalism, where you will learn from other administrators when to block, and for how long.
    • If you need more information, try reading the administrator's reading list, or join the different programs like the Admin school or Admin coaching.
    You have advanced a lot, and have been editing regularly. Only more experience at administrator-related tasks is needed. Try joining the patrol, where you will have plenty of information and will have opportunities to use the different warning templates. Remember that as an active vandal fighter you will likely be the target from vandals, which may stress you. If so, just remember to stay cool, report then when necessary, and take a break when too tired. I won't comment about your early participation in AFDs, because those edits are already too old. Hopefully you will learn from any mistake you may have done, and follow Jayron32's advices. Adminship is not that difficult, but you need to demonstrate that you are interested in those tools, and that you will know how to use them. So far, you still have some time to go. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 23:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I believe that my most pleasing contributions are the ones to pages dealing with Hampton Roads, Virginia. I am from that area, and feel that any information that I can contribute to pages about that area would be great.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    I do not feel that I have caused any edit conflicts. Whenever someone questions my actions I try to explain what I did and work out a solution peacefully.

[edit] User:Arnzy

Arnzy (talk · contribs) I've been editing on wikipedia just under a year (I joined November 13, 2005). I have made about 5126 edits (with 3232 of them in the Wikipedia mainspace) up to the point of requesting this review. I am involved in 3 WikiProjects (WP: Airports, Brisbane & Australia, have created numerous articles (Suburbs, organisations) in relation to the Brisbane Wikiproject, and being a keen Public Transport Gunzel (Buses, Trains, Ferries, the lot!) I have been involved in editing those articles too. Being a person who grew up on the Sunshine Coast in Australia, of course I would create articles which may relate to the Sunshine Coast region (ie Suburbs, Education and so forth).

I am regularly active at AfD, and have participated in Request for Adminiships of various candidates and had been inspired by a few of them. So I'm here because I am interested to know how I am doing, and what areas can be pointed out for me to improve on. I dont intend to run for adminship as yet, but plan to branch out a bit in more subjects. --Arnzy (talk ·  contribs) 15:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Looked at some of the articles you are involved in. They look really good. I mean, they are pleasing to the eye and nice to look at. Well done. The CityTrain article is nice. I would prefer to see more inline references to assertions of fact in these articles. One specific example is the CityTrain article is in the "Extensions" section. The other parts of the article are easy to reference from the "external links" section, but that specific section looks more like it comes from press releases or newspaper articles. It would help if it were more directly referenced. Other articles you have edited, like Nambour and Gympie North railway line, Queensland do this well. Overall, though, your contributions seem to be substancial and useful. Good job. You should be proud of the entire Brisbane project, and the contributions you have made to it. Your AfD comments seem mostly balanced and helpful, however I am concerned about your nomination to DELETE the London Bus Routes article (though it was later withdrawn) and your nomination to KEEP the Sydney Bus Routes article. Not a big deal though. It doesn't look that bad, and on the balance, your contributions there have been helpful for admins to help them make a good decision. --Jayron32 03:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello there, Arnzy, how are you doing? Here is my review, I hope it is useful to you.
    • Since February you have been contributing to Wikipedia with an average of 600 edits per month. It is good to see you have found a number where you feel comfortable, without pushing yourself. Your edit summary usage is well enough, 99% for major edits and 86% for minor edits, although for administrators usually a higher number is requested for minor edits (95% in both is the trend). However, try not to use one letter summaries for deletion debates. It is not harder to write "delete", "keep" or "comment".
    • The fact that you are contributing a lot of edits about your country is extremely useful for Wikipedia. Also, your ability to take pictures from Australia-related topics is very welcomed.
    • While reviewing some images you had uploaded in September and October, I noticed Image:Maroochy.gif and Image:Qantmlogo.gif. Although you have sourced them, I would suggest you to upload PNG versions, and to use a fair use rationale for fair use images.
    • If you are not going to use User:Arnzy/Sandbox/Template:Transperth Trains (it is a redirect right now), you can tag it with {{db-user}} to have it deleted. Also, I notice you do some work in your user namespace before moving it to the main namespace, like User:Arnzy/TransLink Busway Network. Any reason for that? If you start them in the main space, others will be able to find it while browsing different articles.
    • Reviewing your last deletion disputes, I really like the fact that, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elermore Vale, New South Wales, you changed your opinion based in the modification of the article. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PlayStation 2 budget games, you could have given a better opinion than just Delete as pointless cruft. That isn't a useful comment for the article creator or any of their maintainers.
    • Regarding pointing others to "Wikipedia's Good Faith", as TBC put it very clearly at Nightscream's review, "Enforcing" users to assume good faith is, ironically, not assuming good faith. pointing at Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith.
    • Tagging an article as speedy deletion when it provided a link to the actor's works may be brought in a future RFA. Also, calling vandalism to apparently valid is misleading. If the added information is wrong, call it misinformation or factual errors, but not vandalism. Although yes, it is a type of vandalism, try to be more specific in summaries.
    Well, you are a brilliant editor, although there are some small things I already said you may want to correct. You have a pretty good amount of user and article talk pages, although try not to forget to substitute warning templates. For adminship, I recommend joining the recent changes patrol. You have experience with articles, and a little one with redirects for discussion, maybe you can also try category and template discussions as well. Joining the patrol will give you more experience when reporting to administrator intervention against vandalism (although I see 3 reports during October, and as many during August), and requests for page protection. Finally, during your participation during requests for adminship during October, this was the only one where you did not explain your opinion. Even when the candidate is either passing or failing the request, you should explain your opinion, otherwise it would look as if you are just piling on the "winning side". Finally, you may consider working with peer reviews and requests for feedback, where you will be able to share your knowledge about writing articles to others. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 22:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    A: When I first started, I have created stub articles which are related to the South-East Queensland region and Wikipedia:WikiProject Brisbane. But overall, I'll have to say I am pleased with my contributions to the TransLink (South East Queensland) public transport network in South-East Queensland, and their related articles (Buses, Trains, Ferries, and related companies such as CityTrain, Brisbane Transport, Sunbus, Surfside just to name a few). I believe the expansions and groundwork in those articles would provide Wikipedia with a clear, unbiased, accurate and accessible information that they are seeking. I am also pleased with the related templates created to ease navigation among the many PT articles related to TransLink in South East Queensland. An overall list of contributions, which includes pages I created and/or improved/expanded are listed on my user page
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    A: I have been in a few conflicts in the past (with some of them from AfD debates), but in many cases, I felt that I have conducted myself with reason and logic, without resorting to uncivil behaviour to others. I talk to the user either on the talk page concerned, and outline the reason/logic why I disagree with them, and if I felt I am being attacked I kindly point out Wikipedia's Good Faith and Civility and the rule/guideline that they may be violating, which I will continue to do so in future cases. Stress-wise, I have to say that conflicts havent given me that much stress but have on many occasions taken a walk or listen to music before coming back to edit after a conflict.

[edit] User:Curtius

Curtius (talk · contribs) I am a new editor. I have spent a fair bit of time on a couple of pages and am looking for advice on style, level of detail in content, etc. Curtius 06:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Currently, you have almost as many edits to your user page than articles – 67 edits to User:Curtius and 72 total mainspace edits. (See your edit count using the 'Wannabe Kate' tool for the specifics.) Of the 72 mainspace edits, more than half are to Roman Republican coinage. These are not bad things by themselves, but many of your edits come only one or two minutes apart, meaning you could probably be using the 'Show preview' button a little more before you save the page. Frequent saves of small edits – not minor edits, 'cause there's a difference – tend to inflate a user's contributions, and it puts a heavier load on Wikimedia servers. (Have you ever met the "Wikipedia is busy!" page when you've tried to save? If not, you will.) Frequent saves also clutter the recent changes logs for RC patrollers.
Your work on Roman Republican coinage is wonderful – I especially love the photos! A minor, tiny, itty-bitty criticism: the tables you've added are a little crowded and could use some more cell padding for clarity and ease of use. Making the cells bigger will take care of a lot of the white space to the right of your tables. There are lots of HTML gurus here if you need help with it. It's unnecessary to label a sub-heading as "Introduction" – that's more or less a given for a lead paragraph of an article or a section. You've used a reference style in this article with which I'm not familiar, but if that's the style Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics uses, ignore me. ;-) You do have a lot of citations there, but you could always expand the article to more thoroughly cover the subject instead of cutting the number of referenced works.
In my opinion, you're on the right track, and you're a real asset to the encyclopedia. I suggest you keep writing and get to know the Manual of Style, and consider expanding into other areas of Wikipedia by participating at Articles for deletion, Articles for creation, Recent changes patrol, and/or doing some of the maintenance work. Above all, have a good time, 'cause it's not any fun if it's not any fun. :-) Let me know if you have questions or need help, and keep up the good work! - KrakatoaKatie 01:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello there, Curtius, how are you doing? So, you want tips? Here are mine, I hope they are useful. First of all, I notice you have been contributing for a couple of months. It is a very good start. I admit you have as many user as article namespace edit, but I would attribute that to setting up your user page. I will agree with KrakatoaKatie in that your work with the Roman Republican coinage article is an impressive presentation card, one you should be proud of. It is incredible that such a young (in terms of time spent in Wikipedia) is able to contribute to an article, almost until taking it to a good status alone. Good work with the images too. If not for the watermark, I am betting they would be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, from where other Wikipedias would be able to use them. Can you get images without the watermark? If you want to be credited, instead of releasing them under the GFDL, release them under Creative Commons Share Alike (see {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} in example).
    By the way, you should consider adding {{db-user}} to Wikipedia:Editor review/CURTIUS, as it seems you won't be using it. That way an administrator will delete it.
    I repeat KrakatoaKatie's suggestion of reviewing the manual of style, from where you will learn the guidelines for formatting articles. And finally, note that as time passes, your interaction with other users will increase, both through user talk pages (which I state are "personal" or individual communications) and article talk pages (public or group conversations). Remember to always stay civil (not that I think you would not, but it is better to state this earlier so that it is clarified), to never reply attacks with other attacks, and to stay as cool as possible. Try "chatting" with others in article talk pages to discuss how to better expand an article, how to improve and which changes you find good/bad. This is the base for reaching consensus, which is how we editors choose between different alternatives. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 20:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    The article I have done the most work on is Roman Republican coinage. I am pleased by it because I have expanded it substantially, added a number of photos, and greatly increased the verifiability - it seems to have more references than most articles of comparable length; have I overdone it?
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    I am not aware of having been in any conflicts over editing. I have made numerous edits as 64.110.221.122, not appreciating the importance of this. This has led to a revert on my user page.

[edit] User:Laleena

Laleena (talk · contribs) I want to be reviewed to see what I need to work harder at, and I want to become an admin.. Please tell me about anything you think I could improve on. Laleena 13:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Hi -- I thought I'd do this, since you've reposting this. Well, your edits looks good in general, so that tells me that you're doing a good job. Your previous RFA was premature, but it looks like you've learned from that. You also appear to have really gotten into the swing of using good edit summaries -- something I need to improve on. So, in short, keep up the good work! --Haemo 07:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked your recent contribs log and found nothing amiss. You seem to have a good balance of writing and community involvement. I'm not going to look at the ArbCom case unless you specifically ask me to do so: I don't think you have been mentioned by name in the Signpost ArbCom report, so it can't have been too bad. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am particularly pleased with my work on Wikiproject Denmark, which I started.
  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 was involved in the ArbComm case over Commonwealth R/realms, which was rather nasty, in my opinion. It took a while to get it over with, and I bet it's still going on. And currently, I am onto John Foxe (user).

[edit] User:JQF

JQF (talk · contribs) Hello. I'm requesting a Editor review because I what to know what people think of the things I've done on Wikipedia. I think I've contributed a fair amount, but feed back is nice. I ussually do style and format edits, fixing up headers, tables, templates, pictures, etc. JQF 01:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hello there, JQF. Here are some tips, hopefully you will find them useful.
    First of all, User:JQF/Costs is somewhat questionable, but harmless. Remember that Wikipedia is not a webhosting, however as I just said, it is harmless. I thought I would mention it.
    You seem to average around 200-300 edits per month. You apparently are a wikignome, someone who prefers doing small edits than to write full articles. Nothing wrong there, I am one too ;-)
    Now, I have heard about all these reverts in the different CVG templates, and never really understood them. Personally, I tend not to revert if I was reverted, instead preferring to talk. Edit wars are bad, and even more when you are affecting something that is transcluded like a template. I would suggest to request a third opinion, or mediation after the third revert.
    Image:NigthcrawlerMUA2.JPG should not be tagged as game screenshot, but instead as {{web-screenshot}}, and probably as {{software-screenshot}} because you also captured the browser (even though it is not the focus of the image). Now that it has no article linking to it, it should be tagged with {{orfud}} as in {{subst:orfud}}, to have it deleted (fair use images must be used in at least one article per our fair use criteria. The same can be said about Image:NigthcrawlerMUA.JPG. Also, note that when uploading fair use images, they should be as big as necessary. These images are just too big to be considered fair use. Also, Image:JeffSmithLastBone.JPG should be tagged with {{fair use reduce}}, so that its size is reduced. And try to use fair use rationales when you upload images.
    Finally, I would suggest you to check the different methods to resolve disputes if the situation becomes as bad as with the templates. Remember that, in order to reach consensus, every side must give up something. If none is willing to, it is better to leave the things the way they originally were until a new opportunity arises to change again. Your other contributions are appreciated, with good edit summaries and useful cleaning. But as you can imagine, edit wars are never useful. Just see Template:Zelda games and tell me what a new user would think if he is checking the different Zelda articles and finding a different template in every one of them. Note that the 31 latest changes only added very few insignificant changes, there was no need for such war. I can imagine the situation was similar in the other templates. This was not your fault, it was the fault of every other editor who also reverted. So, next time, try to "break the circle" and request a third opinion or a mediation instead of just engaging, as that would be a demonstration of better understanding. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 18:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • One last thing regarding List of Firefly episodes, note that there was/is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists about whether fair use images should be included in lists, as it is stated they are purely decorative. Next time you create a list, I would suggest not to include images unless absolutely necessary. Of course, people can tell you that you should be bold until it is decided that images in lists are "bad", but it depends on opinions, and since this is mine, I tell you what I think :-) -- ReyBrujo 18:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    There are a number of edits I've been particularly pleased with, but of the most recent, I'd have to say it was my formatting of List of Firefly episodes so that it followed the norm of other episode lists.
  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?
    Yeah, I've been in conflict over editing, and yeah, it causes me stress. I deal with it by trying to be reasonable and re-stating the problem if I have to, but that's hard to do when dealing with juvenile users who don't what to be reasonable, and I have slipped a few time. Usually I'll take a break from Wikipedia and then go do something else for a bit, so I can come back with a cool head.

[edit] User:SFGiants

SFGiants (talk · contribs) I've been on Wikipedia over a year, even though I haven't made that many edits over that time period. Most of them are minor typo fixes or reverts of vandalism (as you can probably see by my low edits-per-article total of 1.46), but I've made significant changes to a few articles. I always try to be civil, especially to anons that I have reverted, so that they can contribute positively to the project. I also started and help in maintaining WP:WPBBQ. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 19:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hello SFGiants, how are you doing? Here is my review, hopefully you will find it interesting. First of all, your userpage is pretty interesting and confusing. Kudos for that :-) It seems you have been contributing since over a year, a little every month. The amount of fixes and maintenance edits makes me believe you are what we know as WikGnome, a user who is happy bouncing through articles, fixing headings, wikifications, categories and typos from article to article, staying just long enough to leave his "mark" in the article. I myself am one, so don't feel it is an insult or anything. WikiGnomes are necessary, because they do things other editors (interested more in creating or expanding articles) find boring. I could say wikignomes are a community inside the community, where it is not what one does the important thing, but the sum of all of us. About images: I notice you have uploaded several images. Please, try to upload them in PNG format instead of GIF, as some images look better in that format. Note that you forgot to add the source for Image:KNBR.gif. Also, try to add a fair use rationale for every image you upload. Fair use images need a justification for their use, which is explained through the rationale.
    Now, you have a relatively good amount of edits in user and article talk pages. Not bad for a wikignome!
    In another note, I see you are participating in deletion discussions, specifically article ones. However, I don't feel comfortable with your justifications. In the last AFDs, your motives were per all, per nom, per all, per nom, per above, per above, per nom, per all, per all, per nom, per all and per nom. Deletion discussions aren't votations, thus the side with the most opinions won't win. Thus, it is the "reasoning" for the opinion that will be considered by the closing admin, not the totals. When you give an opinion, try to justify it. If necessary, review the different Notability guidelines and apply them when necessary. Also, the "per all" gives the impression that you are just joining the "winning side" in the discussion. Even if it is obvious the article must be deleted, try to justify your opinion giving valid reasonings. Remember that the article may have been written by a new user, and he needs to understand why his article has been deleted. Imagine if he finds his article is for deletion, the nominator's justification is "Cruft.", and all the ones below say "Delete per nom". Does this new user learn why his article was deleted? Is that discussion useful for him?
    Also, when reverting try to write something more than "rv" or "rvv". New users don't know what they mean. By the way, this is not vandalism at the time of reverting, just a typo or a test.
    As a fellow WikiGnome, I suggest you to learn the different manual of styles, so that you can help articles in even more ways. Also, check the notability guidelines so that you can give a more expanded opinion in deletion discussions. Finally, hopefully you will never have to walk all the way you have described in the second question (good knowledge about how to resolve disputes, by the way!). Usually by talking through talk pages most problems can be solved. Good luck!-- ReyBrujo 17:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I think that the two things I am most proud of are vastly improving List of state leaders in 864, and deperecating Category:Educational institutions established in the 20th century.
  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?
    Suprisingly, considering that I have been a Wikipedian well over a year, the answer to the first question is no. If such a conflict did occur, I would immediately assume good faith, until the conditions made it impossible to do so. If it escalated past that, I would ask for a third opinion, possibly that of an admin. If it went even farther, the admin would probably hand down some blocks, and I might use RfC, but I would only use RfAr as a last resort, when all other steps have failed.

[edit] User:ST47

ST47 (talk · contribs) Well, I was considering an RfA in a week or two, so we'll do this. I've been active since early August, though Guild Wars Nightfall went live last friday so I haven't been greatly active since then. I do the whole RC patrol, VP2, IRC dealie, and I run a bot. It does stuff for cookies. I have 6383 edits, 1924 user talk, most of which are vandalism warnings. Edits by month:

2006/8 2533
2006/9 2548
2006/10 1292 (down because of bot/schoolwork, I would imagine) ST47Talk 19:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hello ST47, how goes? So, you want to have a RFA soon? I am just in time to chime in then :-)
    • First of all, I notice you have had three busy months. It appears that your average per month would be 2500 edits, if October was an exception. That is a pretty high amount, and may stress you if you don't take breaks. Remember, it is not the number, but the quality. And let me tell you, I am kind of impressed with your vandal fighting. Almost 100 edits in AIV is a pretty high number. You have reported plenty of vandals, so that is a good point.
    • Also, I notice you use VP2 to post warnings. Can you configure it? I don't think reversion or warnings should be minor edits.
    • Around 180 edits in AFDs in the last 5000 edits, that is not too bad, but not too excellent for someone wanting to become an administrator. I see you have some experience with categories for discussion as well, but none with redirects nor templates, and insignificant with copyright issues. As for AFDs themselves, it is good to see you can change opinions like in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduism in Azerbaijan. I don't really like comments like another easy delete, just because I had to join in and yeah, seems like vandalism. Remember, you may be closing discussions, deleting articles, and those comments don't really add credibility to a closing statement. Also, remember that some discussions are bound to bring some new users, thus try to make your statements as clear as possible. Something like Strong delete per nn, pn, especially as the first and only opinion, is pretty confusing for such users. And although Wikipedia:Listcruft is just an essay, it can help you understand why Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unsolved problems in Egyptology is not listcruft.
    • Personally, I don't like automated revertions. In example, this is a good faithed edit (user only edit, no warnings in talk page, edit is somewhat constructive if misplaced), however the reversion summary does not inform why his edit was reverted. This may discourage new users. Note that it is not something against you at all, just against these tools that are good for editors but not for those being reverted in determined situations.
    • This edit, considering it is the user's first edit and no warnings in his user talk page, appears to be a simple test. Using {{test2}} appears to be a little too much in this situation.
    • Do you think enough time has passed since your last RFA? Usually people is expected to wait two months or more, although most times that means "three months at least". Also, you did not mention it here, don't forget to mention it in your next one.
    • Finally, there is still one point in your failed RFA you have not addressed. This is an encyclopedia, and editors, including administrators, are expected to expand it. Editing will give you experience about the different manual of styles, and will let you appreciate when an article can be saved by rearranging and fixing some headings. Remember, that an article has a bad layout does not mean it should be deleted, and being able to explain others about this fact with examples.
    I believe you are heading the right way, but need some more experience yet. The fact that you haven't written or expanded an article to say "I am proud of this" may be the point where others will reject your nomination. If I were you, I would wait a couple of months more, spending some time at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, Wikipedia:Requests for feedback or Wikipedia:Peer review. That will give you some insight about how to write articles. Then, you may be able to write or expand an article, maybe taking it to good article status. Just then I would present for a new nomination. Of course, this is just my advice :-) Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 15:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Like I said last time, mostly just the vandal stuff.
  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?
    Nope, if it did I'd probably just get off the computer or go stab some skale.

[edit] User:Jersey Devil

Jersey Devil (talk · contribs) I'm just here to see what other editors think about me and my edits. I previously had an RFA which failed, though most of the oppose votes were because of lack of edit summaries which I have since improved. Anyway, I'm not really here for that, just want to get some feedback. Jersey Devil 18:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • I've noticed Jersey Devil make some very sensible, level headed, and swift descisions to improve the encyclopedia by afd'ing bad categories, pages and other bits and bobs that are not up to scratch. Jersey also expands knowledge on various subjects that are under-represented on wikipedia. For this he should be commended as a highly valued editor, and one that I would trust to approach a problematic issue with a sensible head. I haven't identified any areas for improvement yet! Keep up the good work.--Zleitzen 06:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll state first off that your use of edit summaries is vastly improved, which is the reason I opposed your RfA. Reviewing your edits of late, I only really see two things that give me pause. One is your actions at El País regarding your fair use image being replaced. You added it back in a different place, but probably an article that size does not need two images, especially when a free one is already available. If you decide to go to adminship again, I would recommend that you thoroughly understand fair use. The other thing is your reaction the editors who approached you ([6] and [7]) about moving Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Striver to the main page. No specific policy, but this amounted to a couple people pretty civilly saying "it's bad form" and explaining why, but you still got really defensive about it. That kinda stuff happens every day to admins who delete/protect/block etc., and have to have the ability to go, "Yeah I screwed up, sorry." and carry on smartly. Good luck! --Aguerriero (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello there, Jersey Devil, how are you doing? Here are some thoughts. Considering you have already been nominated, I will believe you are aiming at becoming administrator.
    • Indeed, you have improved your edit summary. I still don't understand why editors prefer "shortcuts" in summaries like rm, rv, rvv, etc, when it takes just an extra second to add a full word, the summary is not 200 characters long, and those are non-friendly with new users, but I would not object a RFA because of that (even though I would suggest using words instead of acronyms).
    • Personally, I don't like when people put massive amounts of external links in their user page. However, in your case this is not much of a problem, as those links appear to be notable on their own.
    • I also notice a you have actively contributed to Wikipedia in the last year, with an average of 500 edits per month. As I said in a previous Editor Review, it is good to see you have found your "magic number" of contributions per month that allows you to spend enough time inside and outside Wikipedia.
    • Your contributions to Peru-related topics are greatly appreciated, and hopefully you will continue working there even if you become an administrator.
    • Good amount of user talk and article talk edits, shows an interest in discussing personally and in group. Also, good amount of Wikipedia namespace edits.
    • Reviewing some reverts, I find this questionable, not because of the revert itself, but because you used a blatant vandalism tag in the user talk page. You indented the tag, which means you considered the previous warning when imposing the new one, although the previous warning was over two months old. This can give the impression to the contributor that warnings are accumulative over time. Also, that was 74.130.38.36's only contribution on the day. I would have used a {{test}} tag instead. While I can't deny the fact that the blatant tag may have made him stop at once, neither I can omit the fact that you may have scared a contributor from Wikipedia. Also, the fact that you called vandalism a relatively harmless edit, although you apologized, together with the fact I can't find enough reverts in the last two months, lead me think your lack of (recent?) experience at reverting may be noted during a future RFA.
    • Now, you have stated you would be more interested in WP:AN/I and XFDs if your RFA is successful, a reason that does not appear to be changed. You don't appear to be a reverter, and I bet you have tagged plenty of pages as speedy deletion (and since I don't find edits where you have added a speedy tag, I believe all those tags have been agreed by the administrator reviewing them).
    • You have uploaded several images. However, reviewing some of them since August, you don't use fair use rationales. I would suggest you to use them, as lack of fair use rationale can be considered a speedy deletion reason, and since you may be involved in deleting those images, you should set the example by using them. As a side note, Image:Princesymbol.png is being misused everywhere. Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace, yet it is being used in talk pages, Wikipedia namespace, even user space. Would you remove the image from those pages considering our fair use criteria, or leave it there?
    • 3 edits at redirects, 8 at categories, 3 at templates, and over 700 at articles for deletion (although only 20 in October). Analyzing the ones from October, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Mess With Football and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Police v City of Newark I must point that there is no need for the nominator to "vote": it is understood that, if you send it to AFD, you believe it should be deleted unless explicitly stated. This may give the impression you consider the deletion process a simple vote where the side with more people wins. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Halden, a more powerful reason (copyright violation) was raised, yet you agreed that notability issues were more important. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjinderpal Sekhon, you quoted "reliable sources", yet you did not reply when asked which reliable sources. This tells me you don't do follow up discussions after you have given your opinion, which may be inappropriate (if clear evidence that contradicts your opinion is raised, I would hope you change it accordingly, although you did not do that in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathias Bröckers when User:Blathnaid presented his research.
    My personal opinion is that, while you have improved your summary usage, there are some questionable edits done in the last month that may be be misleading. Your lack of vandalism warning experience in the last times and the fact that you don't appear to change your opinion in AFDs regardless of new evidence presented after you have made your decision may be raised in your next request. This last point makes me worry, considering you would be a XFD oriented administrator. If you were to demonstrate that your opinions are not set in stone, and that you can change them if new evidence is found, I would think you would have a successful request in the future. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 14:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
  • Comment One of the "issues" in the previous Rfa was a low edit summary use...looking over past 1,000 contributions, this appears to no longer be an issue. Other items such as the now long past Rfc, which was basically a vindictive effort, are of little concern as the "issues" mentioned there are no longer applicable. I can see no reason at this time to not promote this editor to admin.--MONGO 06:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Keep up the good work! Cheers, -Will Beback 09:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Zleitzen above. Looking through your recent contributions, I see work on several topics, vandal fighting, and clean-up stuff. I think what you do organizing related articles is useful, as with Template:PacificaRadio, and the Peru portal. That takes some thought, and it is an area we need more people working on. Tom Harrison Talk 15:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    A: In particular I am pleased with my contributions to the Ollanta Humala article (which has since been listed as a good article), the Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada article, the Cory Booker article (which I've really worked hard to maintain updated), TeleSUR, Open Veins of Latin America, Pacifica Radio, and the Alan García article (though for this one I can only take partial credit as most of my work in that article is in the "The second García administration" section). I have a list of "articles created", "articles contributed to", etc... in my user page which lists more contributions.
    On vandal fighting I always remove it when I see it. I occasionally patrol for new pages and put speedy tags on vandal pages. I've also been active on fighting vandalism on the Democratic Party (United States) article, which seems to be a huge target of vandals (at least once a day it gets vandalized).
    I help maintain the Portal:Peru (adding monthly updates for news, pictures, selected articles, and selected bios) and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Peru.--Jersey Devil 19:03, 29 October 2006 (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?
    A: I was in a "conflict" with User:Striver for some time over his insistance on placing down, what I feel was information from unreliable sources (9/11 truth type blogs and such) in articles in a manner which I felt worked to promote his 9/11 truth POV. Along with that also the creation of articles which I felt were unencyclopedic. Anyway, since administrators have been more keen on the user this has died down and the entire incident is pretty much over. I really don't hold any grudges.--Jersey Devil 19:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    Hi. Can you say a little more about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil? --Guinnog 20:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    A: The RFC was started by the aforementioned user and I think it is pretty clear what the feeling about the RFC was. In the outside view by Pegasus1138 which stated This RFC is a blatant example of not assuming good faith just because someone disagrees with having articles they have worked on AFDed. This is a pointless and hostile RFC. 23 Wikipedians signed on to it. Other statements in that RFC are similar.--Jersey Devil 20:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for that, and I'm glad you don't hold any grudges. What would you say you learned from the affair, and how did it help your growth as a wikipedian? I am not disagreeing with your characterisation of the background to the dispute, I am just more interested in what you took away from it yourself. Thanks again. --Guinnog 11:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    For whatever it's worth, on George McGovern you originally attempted to sanitize an article referencing dirty tricks and Richard Nixon, and claimed a POV that was factually wrong. You eventually, after a second revert, left the reference intact, and eventually added a useful link/image and additional reference, which I left a compliment about, as well as a suggestion you be certain to look at page layouts when adding images as well. I've already made my other thoughts known in the prior discussion. Best wishes. Tvccs 11:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nightscream

Nightscream (talk · contribs) I've been an editor since 3/05 with about 4,000 edits under my belt, and a number of created articles. I've been in some edit conflicts, but I've tried to conduct myself with objectivity, honesty and civility. I'd like the ability to respond to vandalism more decisively, and to set a greater example for other editors, particularly in the promotion and enforcement of the Good Faith and Civility policies, which I see too many people ignoring. Nightscream 11:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Positives
  • Great work on improving, writing, and maintaining articles, especially those dealing with popular culture.
  • Nice job working on images as well. They seem to be correct sourced and tagged.
Suggestions
  • You need a lot more project edits. For example, you could participate in AfD, Peer Review, or the RC Patrol.
  • "Enforcing" users to assume good faith is, ironically, not assuming good faith. See Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith.
  • Hello, Nightscream, how are you doing? Here is my review, hopefully you will find it useful.
    • I would like to point out that your user page is somewhat strange. I see duplicated sections (in example, the Image:ConanAndyCaricature.jpg image appears several times. I think you are transcluding your user page within your user page, see if you find a {{User:Nightscream}} somewhere, which is usually the reason.
    • Now, you did not state you were aiming to become an administrator, so I won't tell you that you need more project edits. Article WikiGnomes like you and me enjoy their time working with articles, doing small modifications until they become good. I can understand that. Your statistics are pretty even through the full year, at around 200-250 edits per month in average. It is obvious you had settled yourself at that pace, and there is no need to ask from you more edits per month, as that may burn you out. As I say, some do an average of 500, others 2000 edits per month. The average should make the editor happy, giving him enough time inside and outside Wikipedia, and it is good to meet an editor who spends in Wikipedia the needed time, no more, no less. I saw what you answered at TBC's comment, but since you did not modify your original request, I am guessing you are not that interested in adminship.
    • Also, remember that Wikipedia is not a web hosting. Try to make every image you upload in Wikipedia count, by using it somewhere. You can upload extra images at Wikimedia Commons.
    • As with others, I ask not to use "rv", as it can't be understood by new users. Instead, try using "reverted" or "reverted vandalism" if necessary.
    • You have not been blocked since your early days around, which implies you have understood the different policies at Wikipedia. The fact that it was a 3RR violation won't affect your future chances of adminship were you interested in them, as it is a "understandable" offense for new users.
    • I notice several uploaded fair use images. Note that images like Image:JoRhodes.jpg, Image:PamLing.jpg, Image:MohammedBilal.jpg, Image:MohammedBilal2.jpg, Image:CoryMurphy.jpg and fair use images of living persons are usually tagged with {{replaceable fair use}} or {{fair use replace}}, as it is possible to obtain free images. You should use a fair use rationale for every fair use image you upload. Note that Image:MohammedBilal.jpg, which you replaced with Image:MohammedBilal2.jpg, should be tagged with {{orfud}} (as in {{subst:orfud}}). Image:HarmonMeadowMap.jpg may have the wrong license (if you take a pic of a map in a book, it it not yours to give away, it continues to be copyrighted by the owner). I suggest either sending it to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, or ask at Wikipedia:Fair use to see if you have tagged it correctly. Also, I have tagged Image:Blood&Water1.jpg and Image:Flash109.jpg with {{fair use reduce}}, you should either tag with that any other image that is too big fair use image (in example, having the "Download high resolution" message). That is because fair use images should be only as big as necessary according to our fair use criteria.
    • Your edit summary usage is good for major, but only 35% for minor edits. By the way, mathbot had to retrieve 3500 edits to get a good amount of minor edits. I found 231 minor edits in almost 4000 edits, but only 2 in October and 3 in September. Try to mark minor edits as, well, minor edits, as some users have set an option in their preferences to not see them.
    • Finally, you have a good enough amount of user talk and article talk edits, showing a good interaction with other users in the last time.
    • A comment: I don't see how these edits could be considered vandalism. However, I don't know about the topic, so I am just pointing out that vandalism is usually associated to blatant vandalism, and if that was misinformation or other kind of vandalism, you should name it appropriately in the edit summary. Finally, consider checking the warning templates, as it will save you some typing time when warning vandalism.
    Closing, I believe you have a advanced quite a lot since your first contributions, learning from our policies and guidelines, and applying them when able. I would agree with TBC that telling others to assume good faith can be misunderstood, especially by new users. Due your behaviour, you could consider joining Esperanza or Concordia, two groups that are focused on making users welcomed, and trying to help others. As for your contributions, they are pretty good. You can consider requesting some more feedback at requests for feedback or peer review to know how to improve the articles even further, possibly to make them good articles. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 02:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I'd say the contributions I've listed on my user page, because they're the ones that either required a lot of hard work, or are on subjects of interest to 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 edit conflicts in the past, but in such cases, I always try to conduct myself with logic and reason, and without responding to uncivil behavior by others with similar behavior on my part (and indeed, I have been attacked thus many times). Even when people accused me of vandalism (as when shortly after I became an editor, a number of other editors disagreed with my edits on Wolverine (comics)), I don't respond in kind. I respond directly to others' statements, and always providing the underlying logic or reason as to why I agree or disagree with their position, and politely point out to them that they're violating WP's rules on Good Faith and Civility. I will continue to deal any such behavior in the future in the same way. I wouldn't say that such conflicts cause me much "stress", since these things are to be expected among the anonymous crowd of the Net, and since I'm fairly dispassionate, and have dealt with many such people over the years, it hardly ever gets to me.

[edit] User:Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas

Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas (talk · contribs) I have been here for over one year. I started with the User Account Doctorbruno and at present editing with this Username and not using the old user name. Please review Contributions from the old Account and point out my mistakes.  Doctor Bruno  21:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Positives
  • Great work on writing and improving Indian related articles.
  • I'm also impressed with your work on Indian AfD's and WikiProjects.
Suggestions
  • I suggest focusing on topics other than India. Doing so can allow you to interact with a larger group of editors, which would defiantly help you if you ever consider requesting for adminship.
  • You also need a lot more project edits. For example, you could participate in Peer Reviews, Esperanza, or RC Patrol.
  • Instead of creating a new account, you should have renamed your old one. See Wikipedia:Changing username.
  • I vocally agreed with TCB on the account renaming note :-). The only place I've really seen you around was at RfA, but you seem to be a very good editor, especially to India-related articles. I'm not sure what TBC is talking about as far as project space edits are concerned. You seem to be a very active participant at both RfA and sometimes AfD. Since you chose to create another account rather than renaming your old one, you will probably have to wait longer to enter an RfA. Still, I think you have the potential to be one of the many Indian aminiatrators we have on Wikipedia. - Mike | Trick or Treat 01:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is concerning however. You'll probably get slammed for that on an RfA ;-). Creating articles about yourself is both against WP:AUTO and WP:VANITY. Probably if you have a consistant track record for a long time, people will be able to forgive you for it, but I can still see a few a oppose votes happening as a result of the incident. - Mike | Trick or Treat 02:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to this. Oh, well that makes it much less serious then. I'm glad to see that you've decided to go back to the old account :-). Be sure to fix your old redirects and redirect this page there. However, your behavior at the AfD was pretty bad, especially the constant shouting (or BIG TEXT the online equivalent). Since this was a relatively recent incident, I would wait several months to a year before an RfA. - Mike | Trick or Treat 02:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Let me clarify, when I said project edits, I meant those not directly related to India (as detailed in one of my suggestions). For example, Esperanza, Peer Review, RC Patrol, the Welcoming Committee or Editor Review.--TBCΦtalk? 03:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello there, Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas. Reviewing the previous comments, I agree with the username change. I would not have removed the petition, it is better to know if it is possible to merge both users into one so that further reviews don't recommend you to do that again. Also, consider that this review will end in November 26 (a month after being published), so it may take a time until then. Now, the review. It is good to see you have improved quite a lot since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas, understanding Wikipedia philosophy and even adopting a username to contribute. I notice you had uploaded 4 images with your old account, including Image:Wikiblock.jpg. You can't license a screenshot from Wikipedia as GFDL, note how Image:Www.wikipedia.org screenshot.png is tagged. If you don't need it anymore, I suggest you to nominate it for deletion (remove the license tag and use {{nld}} (as in {{subst:nld}}). The dual license for Image:TvMCEmblemColourWeb.jpg is strange. Can I take the image, modify it slightly (in example, include a sun behind the image) and then use it as a new magazine logo? If not, then the Creative Commons license should be removed, and the image reduced in size with the {{fair use reduce}} tag. As for your contributions, you have done a lot in Indian related articles. As you can imagine, most of the editors in the English Wikipedia are American or European, thus having people from other nations working in articles about their own places is always welcomed. I see a lot of participation in AFDs as well, however some comments like It is a wonder as to how it was termed as non-notable should not be made, as not everyone knows about Indian topics as you or other Wikipedians. Other than that (and considering your edits from September and October), you have done pretty well, and with your membership in Indian-related WikiProjects you will obtain more experience at writing, plus improving the quality of Indian-related articles. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 23:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


Comments

  • View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
  • View this user's edit count of his OLD ACCOUNT Doctorbruno using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
  • Just a note that at this point since you have made so many contributions with it I think you should stick to the new account. Nice job organizing your archives on your talk page BTW. - Mike | Talk 02:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Nothing Special. I have not contributed significantly to FA. I have made substantial contributions to Articles relating to Tamil Nadu, Cricket.
  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?
    Few Minor conflicts, especially when I try to bring a POV article, I sometimes overstep make it POV at the opposite side !!! Like Sachin Tendulkar or Reservation_in_India. Other than that my concept of Notability and use of Hard Copies as reference have not found agreement with many people. Usually I don't revert the changes without discussion at the talk page. I can say that I have been never involved in 3RR or such. If some one gives stress, I would rather wait for sometime and allow things to settle  Doctor Bruno  21:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zunaid

Zunaid (talk · contribs) I've been editing actively for about a year now. While I started out mostly on AfD pages (I was and still am a deletionist and exclusionist), I've of late taken to editing articles about South Africa and sports cars. I am also an NP and RC patroller, and regularly AfD, PROD or CSD articles. I would like feedback on my South African-related edits (especially POV-wise as these topics are very controversial), my XfD nominations and participation, my User talk conduct towards new users and my reverts of content and vandalism. Comments about my editing style (I subscribe to the bold, revert, discuss philosophy and maybe get over-zealous using it) and other general comments are also appreciated. Note: I do not intend to run for adminship but would nonetheless appreciate comment on what my chances would be should I change my mind. Zunaid 11:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Positives
  • Great work on writing and improving articles, especially those dealing with South Africa and automobiles.
  • I'm also impressed with your numerous AfD contributions and vandalism fighting.
Suggestions
  • There isn't a lot I'm concerned about, though you should give vandals a warning after reverting their edits. See Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings.
  • I do not agree. The editing buddies and / or sock puppets of this editor placed the above comment. This editor, and some of his mates, is ganging together to edit all articles that are exposing the true situation in South Africa. They are clearly vandalising other people’s work, and systematically destroying articles that are of value. Therefore they are of great value to the ANC government in South Africa, but of no value to an encyclopaedia. This editor is creating propaganda. His method is to systematically delete sections on an article that does not support his POV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.155.4.60 (talk • contribs) .
  • Hello there, Zunaid. Here is my review, I hope you find it useful.
    • I should mention that your user talk page layout is pretty strange. It is nothing bad, just thought I would mention it.
    • I personally don't agree with one part of the BRD essay, the one where you discuss personally with one or at least two editors about the change, as you would have to do the same cycle everytime another user reverts your change. However, as long as you discuss in a civil way and don't revert back, it should be ok.
    • Very good work with South African farm attacks and Honda S2000. You could do some minor polishing to the articles applying some style guides like Capitalization, but overall they are pretty well written. Also, when the references has several entries, consider using references-small to minimize the size of the references section, see here for an example. As for Nissan 350Z, you should tag it as belonging to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles so that it gets qualified. And consider sending one of those articles to peer review to get information about how to improve them to good or maybe even featured status.
    • I also notice you have uploaded 3 images in the past, all of them deleted. Hopefully you have learned the different image copyright tags since then :-)
    • Analyzing your edit numbers, you have 10% of article talk edits and other 10% in user talk edits, with 50% in the main namespace. Because of BRD, you are bound to have discussions often, and it is a pity one was big enough to go to ArbCom. However, the fact that you decided to step down and wait until its resolution (something suggested in this essay) implies a good knowledge about human behaviour.
    • Your edit summary usage is very high, and they appear to be pretty long and descriptive. It is good that people still consider them important.
    • A very high participation in AFDs, which is obvious as you consider yourself a deletionist and exclusionist. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parekh, you chose the best option even though it was the last added and nobody had supported it as of that time. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aashiq al-Rasul, however, I would have suggested Userfication instead of deletion, but since I didn't see the original article, it is just a thought. Note that you tagged an article for speedy deletion, but ended userfied. Note that, when you send the article to AFD, you don't usually "vote". It is understood that, when you AFD something, you favour the deletion unless otherwise stated. The other AFD participation I had checked were "common", and I have no comments about them.
    • Also, check the different warnings you have available. As a patroller, you should have knowledge about them, so that you don't need to edit the comments every time. Also, as seen here, it was good that you took your time to write down the warning, but try not to use shortcuts, as new users don't really know about them, see this for an explanation :-)
    • Finally, apparently you maintain a good level of neutrality in your edits. As you can imagine, reviewing every edit you have made is time consuming, so I will trust the small sample I took for this. As long as you provide a reliable reference for conflicting edits, you should be neutral enough.
    Answering your questions, you are pretty neutral regarding South African topics. Your participation in XFDs is good, although you focus mostly in Articles. You can also spend some time with categories, templates and redirects for deletion, where few people actually spend time. Also, the fact you spend time talking with new users, explaining them (although with acronyms) why their edits have been reverted or their articles being deleted. However, you should also consider using the templates that already exist in addition to your explanation, as these are standard ways of warning and informing users in most situations. Finally, please consider sending some of the articles where you edit to peer review, where you will get information about how to continue improving them until reaching good or featured article. And, as always, remain as cool until now. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 23:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog's comment: Gosh, I can't be nearly as comprehensive as ReyBrujo was above. I just wanted to say that I am very impressed with what I have seen of your work. I really appreciate the thought, care, patience and neutrality you put into your edits, sometimes in the face of huge provocation. Please keep up your good work. Best wishes, --Guinnog 14:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am particular pleased with my contributions to South Africa-related articles, in which I've strived to introduce balance by removing or editing unreferenced and strongly POV statements, the best example of which is South African farm attacks (which I boldly rewrote at one point, citing what I thought was well-considered reasoning), which is now as neutral as an inherently POV topic can be. I've also done extensive work on Crime Expo South Africa (rewrite) to remove POV-pushing. I am also pleased with Mazda RX-8 (rewrite), Honda S2000 (rewrite) and Nissan 350Z (edit history), articles which I boldly edited to rewrite for style and/or NPOV at various points. I'm also proud of the article on The Stig (rewrite), which at one point was filled with speculative fancruft, but which I now consider to be one of the best primary source-derived articles on the 'pedia.
  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 MASSIVE edit conflict (history) on Honda S2000 for a few months, with User:SpinyNorman strongly pushing his POV and constantly reverting other editors. I dealt with it by trying to reach a consensus on the talk page first, and then seeked a RfC when that did not help. The issue was eventually settled through the ArbCom, who placed said user on multiple probations. It didn't cause me stress but it was extremely frustrating, to the point that I left the article until the conclusion of the ArbCom case.

[edit] User:Atomic-Super-Suit

Atomic-Super-Suit (talk · contribs) I simply wish to know how I'm doing and which areas I shoud improve. SUIT42 04:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hello there. As promised, here's my review. :-) The first thing I'd like to comment about is the frequency of which you appear to change your signature. You don't just change its colors, you change your nickname as well. Because of that, I've taken you for a new user several times at the Esperanza Coffee Lounge because of your signature revamp. Therefore I could suggest that you establish at least a permanent name so that other users will get used to it and be able to easily recognize you in the future.
    Now, the proper review:
    I believe that you wish to become an administrator one day (as stated in one of your userboxes) so I will analyse your contributions in the perspective of an eventual RfA. And so it appears that if you attempted an RfA at this moment, your chances of succeeding would be very low. I see no recent participation in admin-oriented tasks, especially no participation on WP:XFD (which is corroborated by your low Wikipedia space count). Administrators are given access to a page deletion tool, and they are naturally expected to know under which circumstances should a page be deleted. Participation in XfD discussions would familiarize you with WP's consensus building for deletion, and broaden your knowledge of WP's deletion/speedy deletion policies. I also see only sporadic vandal fight (and in many of those cases you did not warn the vandal). If you wish to become an administrator then I strongly suggest that you really get more involved with countervandalism. Without it and XfD, other users will simply say on your RfA that you don't need the admin tools for the tasks you perform on Wikipedia.
    You're a good editor, I see that you are particularly involved with articles related with DragonBall (you might even be involved with WikiProject Dragon Ball), and that is quite commendable. You're also a social, easygoing user, something I've witnessed many times due to your permanent connection with Esperanza. I, for one, really appreciate that. I believe that it's a strong indicator that a user cherishes contact with other users and is willing to communicate with them.
    Finally, my last suggestion would be increasing your edit summary usage for minor edits.
    I hope this was helpful. Happy editing! Regards.--Húsönd 23:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello there, Atomic-Super-Suit, how are you doing? Since you want a general review, here is mine.
    • First of all, try to improve the amount of minor edit summary usage, which is currently at around 60%. Since some people can't check minor edits (there is an option to disable them from the watchlist), it is almost more important to use summaries in them than in major edits.
    • I see you have uploaded several images, including fair use images like Image:Mace2.jpg and Image:P.Eric.JPG, Image:Ar-iel.JPG, Image:FreeGuard.JPG, Image:Errol.JPG and Image:Flipfort.jpg. Since you upload many, you should consider setting a fair use rationale for each of them, and the new ones you upload, as it will prevent the image from being deleted in the future. Remember to give as much information as possible: from where you picked it, url of the image, url of the page holding the image, if a screenshot, the episode number and title, if a magazine, the number and page, etc, etc.
    • Now, considering your free images like Image:42picman.JPG, Image:Halweenie.JPG, Image:HapWorm.JPG, Image:HGGFlag.JPG and Image:StrongWorm.JPG, I must remind you that Wikipedia is not a file storage areas. Only upload images that are to be used and necessary for Wikipedia.
    • I see you are still new to Wikipedia, you have done around 300 edits in August, 1100 in September and 1700 in October. You don't still have an "average", that is, several months contributing a very similar amount of edits, the amount that gives you enough time inside and outside Wikipedia. Once you find that point, keep it up.
    • Spending time reverting, that is good. I suggest you to use the -n test warnings, in example, {{test1-n}} and {{test2-n}} instead of {{test}} and {{test2}} to remember to pass as parameter the article name. Warnings like this one are misleading, as people is not able to know which articles the user modified to receive those warnings without checking the user's contribution history. I suggest not using "rv" or "rvv" as edit summaries, because they are not understandable for new users. It is not harder to type "reverting nonsense", "reverting vandalism", etc. And don't forget to substitute the warnings, like here, here and here. Also, please consider whether you are reverting a vandalism or a good faithed effort. This does not appear to be vandalism. Nor this, nor this (the user admitted he removed content and was asking for help to correct the page), this (it is just a test), and this (appears to be a good faithed addition).
    • Although your signature is shorter than the previous ones, at 250 or so characters is still too long. Try to keep it below 200 characters. Also, you may consider changing all the references to Suit-n-tie to your current username, so that people don't get directed to your old page by mistake.
    I believe you are doing pretty well. For someone who have recently joined Wikipedia, you have several friends, you are involved in a WikiProject and and Esperanza, revert mistakes and warn vandals. You also seem to be focused on articles about anime and games, so I would suggest you to try to polish one to good article status by adding sources and references for their claims so that it becomes useful for the community. And remember, some edits that may appear as vandalism are either tests or good faithed attempts at improving the article. Be careful when labeling them as vandalism, as that creates unnecessary conflicts. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 21:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Well, I started the Andy Davis article... It's Stub-class, but I'm proud of it nonetheless.
  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 stressed out many times before, as I'm usually being personally attacked in one way or another. It hasn't happened recently, though.

[edit] User:DoomsDay349

DoomsDay349 (talk · contribs) Hello. I'm DoomsDay349. I just felt like knowing what my fellow Wikipedians think of me. I would like to be an admin one day, and it would really help to know what people think about me and my contribs. Thanks to everyone who reviews me! DoomsDay349 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that I would like to get into AFD and other such things, but the amount of material to read is staggering. A condensed review would be very nice. DoomsDay349 02:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Positives
  • Interacts civily with a lot of users in the community through Esperanza and WikiProjects.
  • Has done a lot of work on Dragonlance related page.
Suggestions
  • Needs more project edits. For example, you could participate in Peer Reviews, AfD, or RC Patrol.
  • Also, I suggest focusing on topics other than Dragonlance or Esperanza. Doing so can allow you to interact with a larger group of editors, which would defiantly help you if you ever consider requesting for adminship.

SUITHalloween?'s Review:

Well, first I'd say to use more Edit Summaries. Next, you said you'd like to be an Admin one day, now: You should participate in more AfDs and maybe look at some RFAs, and listen to what TBC said. Other than that, you're a good editor and keep up the good work.--SUITHalloween? 04:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Zoot Review - There are 2 types of Wikipedians. No, not the bad & the good, nor the female & the male (I heard an "it" contributed once!), but yes, the actual writers & the social users. You my friend, are mainly a social user. Social users skulk around Esperanza & Wikiprojects & user talk pages. They are really fun & usually nice & usually get elected to adminship more often because they socialize a lot more than worker users. You really want a mixture of both social & actual work edits. Although you don't actually need admin powers for actual work, I find it crazy when editors get passed of Adminship solely on their social rep. After all we are here to edit an encyclopedia... I'd suggest taking part in a weee bit more article editing & definitely visit RfA's etc like TBC up there... You're a nice guy (or so it seems...) & with a little more editing & understanding, you'll get to be an admin in no time... Which is more than I can say about myself! :( Spawn Man 05:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Hello DoomsDay349, how are you doing? I finally arrived here, there are just too many reviews to do and too little time :-( Here are some tips you may find useful.
    • First of all, although it is nice that people may consider me a good wikipedian, I do not like the "role model" label. Every wikipedian is unique, and comparing each other is not useful. Sure, everyone may admire a wikipedian, but please don't take from them just more than their general behaviour or edit means. Every of us must be independent, have their own ideals (not clashing with those from Wikipedia) and work as best as possible. As I usually say, if we were to compare each other, we would all lose against SimonP ;-)
    • Mathboth reports 89% of summary usage for major edits and 84% for minor edits. It is suggested to keep both above 95%, especially for administrators where every edit may be judged by their peers. It is curious that you had done around 37 minor edits in total out of almost 3000.
    • I appreciate your work at the Dragonlance environment, it has been very important, especially when our WikiProject is so small. As suggested above, though, if you want to become an administrator you need to expand your participation in Wikipedia to other topics. You will find yourself in a situation where an article has been tagged as speedy delete, and only your experience when reviewing similar articles may help you during the first weeks.
    • Indeed, you need some more participation at the different deletion debates, as you only have 40 or so edits in [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]], none in categories or images, and only a couple in Templates. I agree that AFD conditions may seem overwhelming, however nobody asks you to learn everything at once. Begin reading one of our notability guidelines, in example the one about companies, and then review the different articles for deletion about companies, either agreeing or not with the proposal. If there is a bordeline case (it appears to be notable but the article does not really give insight), you may consider searching the web for more information, to either justify or reject the deletion. Don't be afraid of expressing your opinion, as every one is valuable. Once you think you have understood the idea behind that notability, just pick another, read and understand it, and search for discussions where the guideline can be applied. Only practice will help you learn them, and corrections from others should not be feared but instead appreciated. Finally, try not to pile on: if a debate has already 20 delete opinions, don't add yours just to add it. People will judge you according to your opinions, and prefer someone who is open to debate and participates in controversial discussions (those that nobody knows which "side will win") than those who participate in discussions that are already decided. Again, don't be afraid of giving an opinion even if it is a Keep when there were already 20 Delete ones, or vice versa.
    • Although you have 342 edits in the Wikipedia namespace (including 120 in talk pages), over 200 were at Esperanza. While Esperanza will improve the quality of your relation with others, it will barely improve your chances of becoming administrators. This is because administrators are expected not only to treat users cordially, but also know the different policies and guidelines to apply when working with vandals and non notable articles.
    • As for User:DoomsDay349/WikiPlomacy, it appears to be a good way of approaching other editors. But I would limit the time spent there, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a networking site.
    • Reviewing your contributions, indeed you spend a lot of time talking with other users. You have proven you are good establishing contact with others and to cover Dragonlance topics, maybe it is time to widen your participation in other places. As recommended, deletion discussions are a good way, as it helps the community and gives you some knowledge about admin-oriented tasks. Also, peer reviews are a good way of helping others improve their articles without having to edit them. You can either help them by sharing your knowledge about the different manual of styles, or by reading the article from a casual point of view (someone who does not know the topic), pointing out the problems you found (in example, sentences that you could not understand: if you can't, the casual user who does not know about the topic would not be able to). You can also participate in feedbacks, and with a good knowledge about style, featured article candidates and featured article reviews.
    • Finally, besides interacting in maintenance categories, you should spend some more time patrolling. When warning an IP with no previous warnings, please use {{welcomeip}} before posting the warning, as it gives them useful information. I don't see edits at Administrator intervention against vandalism nor requests for protection, but I guess if you focus more in patrolling you will have opportunity to edit there (note that, one day, you may be the one reviewing the petitions there, so you need to know when and how to report).
    You have a lot of potential, but need to expand your "influence". Try using the Special:Random link and improve the article where you end. Just polishing the article is enough. As for adminship, I would wait at least a couple of months. Spend some more time patrolling and less in Esperanza, and someday you will become an administrator. As long as you stay cool and learn from past examples, you should be able to nominate yourself and have a good chance of success. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 20:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I think all of my contributions have been good on Wikipedia, but I do particularly think my contributions to the removal of many Dragonlance stubs. When I first joined Wikipedia, there were about 60 Dragonlance stubs, and now I believe there are about 20. I am rather proud of this.
  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, a while back, there was a discussion after the move of Speaker of the Sun to Speaker of the Suns. It started of fairly civil, but a Dragonlance Nexus editor, Kranar drogin got involved and questioned the move. We proceeded to talk about it and things got heated. My role model on Wikipedia, ReyBrujo, stepped in and cleared it up. I do feel rather badly about that. Aside from that, not really. In the future, I will try to keep my cool and handle such situations in a more mature and civil way.