WP:ER redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Expert retention or Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.

	Shortcuts: WP:ER WP:ERV
General information    Main page    Discussion    Backlog    Archives: (2005–2008) • (2009)    Templates edit · changes

Wikipedia's Editor review process allows users' behavior and contributions to Wikipedia to be evaluated by peers, who will provide constructive feedback on areas for improvement. Anybody may be reviewed, regardless of their tenure at Wikipedia. Users requesting a review of their administrative actions should see Wikipedia:Administrator review.

When asking for a review, please consider reviewing another editor.

Purge page cache if reviews haven't updated.

[edit] Guidelines

Reviewers and reviewees should adhere to Wikipedia's behavioral policies at all times.

When reviewing, consider these points:

• User conduct – informative edit summaries, constructive comments on talk page, attitude toward others, etc.
• Number and types of edits – is the editor making positive contributions to the encyclopedia?

Users with an asterisk next to their name in the subheader have not been reviewed yet. Users may still need more reviews even if they do not have an asterisk. Also, the older backlogged requests have priority for reviews, because users who have had their requests sitting there for a while often feel like they've been ignored, and every user deserves at least a few positive words on their progress or some constructive criticism if they request it. Please remember to remove the asterisk when you leave a review for an editor.

[edit] Requesting reviews

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

• Create a subpage using the box below, replacing "USERNAME" with your own username. NOTE: Please make sure there is no space after your username, as this makes it hard for reviewers to reach your request.

1. If you have had a previous editor review, create a new one appending a number after your username [usually, (2) if it is your second review, (3) if it is the third, etc]. The preferred format is as follows: Wikipedia:Editor review/John Doe (2)
2. Do not save the new page yet! Replace "STATEMENT" in the edit box at the bottom of the page with a brief message about yourself and why you want to be reviewed. You must change "USERNAME" TO YOUR OWN USERNAME
3. Click "Request a review", which will take you to the edit form for your editor review.
4. Follow the instructions above the editor form to complete your request.
5. Optional: You may put the {{Editor review}} template or the {{Editor review sticker}} template on your user page to advertise the review page.
6. Optional: It is possible to add a userbox onto your talk page (after the review is finished) by placing {{User Editor review}} at your user box section on your User page.

[edit] Archives

Sections with at least one review will be archived at Wikipedia:Editor review/Archive (2009) thirty days after they have been created. If you are searching for an archive from before 2009, it will be in the 2005–2008 archive. Depending on the year your request was created, it will be archived in the corresponding archive page.

Contents 1 Guidelines 2 Requesting reviews 3 Archives 4 Current requests 4.1 HaiyaTheWin* 4.2 Garrettw87* 4.3 Paul2387* 4.4 Wexcan* 4.5 Mkdw* 4.6 Mrmewe 4.7 Shirik* 4.8 GeneralCheese 4.9 ArcAngel* 4.10 Gosox5555 4.11 MWOAP 4.12 La Pianista* 4.13 SchfiftyThree* 4.14 Ilyushka88 4.15 Duncan* 4.16 TheGrimReaper NS* 4.17 Taelus* 4.18 TParis00ap 4.19 SuperHamster 4.20 Twilight Helryx 4.21 Coldplay Expert 4.22 Lithorien 4.23 IShadowed 4.24 Tim Song 4.25 December21st2012Freak 4.26 Mm40 4.27 MisterWiki

[edit] Current requests

[edit] HaiyaTheWin*

HaiyaTheWin (talk • contribs • count) I have worked on a few articles in the past, but I always feel like I am doing something wrong, or there is something I am missing. I would like to be reviewed so that people can give me advice on places where I've done something wrong or I have missed something. HaiyaTheWin IS The Win! 18:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I just recently became active on Wikipedia since creating my account last summer. I have started the article Cheley Camp and I have made some edits to some other articles, one of my favorite articles is Clochette cheese. I have yet to find one subject which really interests me, so I am currently jumping around, trying a little bit of this and a little bit of that. I also patrol new pages and recent changes, as well as welcome new users. I also generally watchlist the pages I edit, so I can also watch for vandalism from my watchlist.

2. Have you been in any disputes 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?

   As far as I can remember, I've never been in any major editing disputes. I have, however, been somewhat hasty to warn people or revert edits or propose the deletion of articles. I am going to try to talk to people more, and try to talk out the problem. If I can't, and the problem continues, I will report it and hope that an administrator could deal with it better than I can.

Reviews

---

[edit] Garrettw87*

Garrettw87 (talk • contribs • count) Just want some feedback on how I'm doing, as I want to be the best I can be. Not necessarily wanting to go for admin any time soon, although advice toward that end would be welcomed just as any other comments would be.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 09:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I have a lot of edits in the "User talk" namespace, and probably more edits to userboxes and my own userpages than I should have, but of my main (Article) namespace edits, I've done a good bit on my hometown and RAID (including related pages).
   Concerning my edits on users' talk pages, I do a lot with Twinkle and I'm trying to start using Friendly more as well (see here). Incidentally, I've never tried some of the automated wiki-editing software out there like Huggle or AutoWikiBrowser.

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

   -One time, I kinda put myself in the middle of an edit war to try and stop it, although I think it may have just stopped on its own – I don't know. All I know is that my ANI was never responded to, which I thought was weird.
   -Secondly, I was involved in a dispute with an anonymous user (who may have actually had a user account, but I don't know for sure) who insisted that since she did not use the term "Roman Catholic" to describe herself, and neither did anyone she knew, that the word "Roman" needed to be removed from the word "Catholic" across Wikipedia. I asked for my adopter's opinion on my responses, and he told me that maybe it was time for me to step back from the dispute to clear my head – so I did.
   -Thirdly, there was an issue with the page for a radio station in my area where a nonsense word was inserted on more than one occasion, which I had to revert each time. It wasn't a dispute, per se, but it was an incident, I guess.
   Those are the closest things to disputes that I have had so far.

Reviews

---

[edit] Paul2387*

Paul2387 (talk • contribs • count) Paul2387 (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I mainly contribute to article related to TV or Film

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

   I have had a few edit dispute but managed to sort them by discussing on relevant talk pages, and I'll carry on doing this in the future

Reviews

---

[edit] Wexcan*

Wexcan (talk • contribs • count) I've been on Wikipedia for over three years (editing for about two), and generally edit in bursts every few weeks/months. I hope to start contributing on a more regular basis and was just wondering if anybody might have any comments for me to improve my editing in future? Thanks! Wexcan  Talk  06:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   My primary contributions are mainly in new page patrolling, reverting vandalism, welcoming new users and, more recently, monitoring new files. Earlier this year I made some substantial changes to EasyJet. Recently, I have created a number of articles such as HSS Stena Voyager which has been nominated for DYK, and creating and expanding other ferry-related articles such as HSC Jonathan Swift.

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

   I haven't had any real disputes so far, nor do I intend to. Dealing with vandalism obviously can be stressful but I'm happy in the knowledge that I am helping Wikipedia and can switch off at any time. Recently a user contested speedy deletion of an article (now deleted) and made a personal attack on me on the article's talk page. I reverted their edit, which was inappropriate for a talk page, and explained that continuing the conversation would serve no utility to either party and an administrator would be along to make a decision shortly.

Reviews

---

[edit] Mkdw*

Mkdw (talk • contribs • count) I have recently been motivated to come back for a major contribution. Two years ago I completed what might have been called a peer review then. Quite some time has passed and I have continued to edit Wikipedia on my weekends and whenever I had some time. I am curious to see how other people view my work and welcome any constructive criticism, comments, or questions for me. Mkdw^talk 23:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   Reviewing my edits I seem to undergo these bizarre phases. Lately I have been working on re-establishing the article Vancouver back to featured article status. Operation Schadenfreude has been the seed to the fruits of our labour on that article. And even more recently, looking more into WP:RfA and WP:AfD

2. Have you been in any disputes 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?

   Recently I nominated an article for WP:Afd that was a snowball fight, literally. I have not been in a situation of controversy for quite some time and found myself making a few outline statements that I withdrew. I often find myself very passionate about topics I become heavily involved with and must remind myself as I have in the past to remain calm and collected.

Reviews

---

[edit] Mrmewe

Mrmewe (talk • contribs • count) I would love to eventually become an admin but would also like to learn more about Wikipedia editing and general policies mrmewe (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   Under a different username,I initiated a request for deletion. I primarily have only made grammatical edits.

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

   I haven't been in many, but know that it is important to be diplomatic

Reviews

• Hi Mrmewe, here's my review -it's only a short one as you only have 130 edits!

• User conduct

• Edit summaries: I see that you use edit summaries on 88% of your major edits - but they tend to be the default messages - I would suggest that you mention in them what you have done in the edit - it makes it easier for those who have the article on their watchlist to see what's happening!
• Constructive comments on talk pages: I only see two comments on article talk pages, one of which was not directly connected to the article - and the other was a constructive suggestion about an image in the article.
• Attitude towards others: Again, there is not much to go on! Most of the messages you leave on user talk pages are warnings about vandalism!

• Edits

• Article vs non-article:A quarter of your edits are to articles, with almost half of all your edits being to user talk space. If you intend on continuing with vandal patrol, this is not a problem - but I would say that if you intend on going for adminship in the future, a lot of editors will want to see more article work.

• Other notes:

1. I see that you have been adopted by Arbitrarily0 - this is an excellent way to improve as an editor. Listen to Arb's advice, ask them questions about anything which you're not sure of!
2. I see that you applied for adminship after very few edits. If you were to consider going for adminship in the future, I would suggest that you have a lot more edits before going for an RfA. Different editors look for different things in an admin - for example, here are my User:Phantomsteve/RfA standards.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Shirik*

Shirik (talk • contribs • count) I am asking to be reviewed just to see where I am and how I can improve. I am a strong believer in the theory that nobody is perfect and that one of the best ways to improve is to have others point you at what you're doing wrong and how to improve—generally trying to judge yourself poses a conflict of interest, even if only subconsciously. I know that I've made mistakes, but I think I'm doing OK as well. I would like to think that eventually I could make a good sysop, but I also admit that if I were to !vote on someone like myself, I'd give them a WP:NOTNOW right now. I think I am beginning to learn the CSD criteria based off mistakes I have made (which is a great way to learn), but I don't have it 100% yet. I would like to see if, although people will probably agree with me on that point, if I'm on the right track or if there's things I should spend significant time correcting. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I spend most of my time doing three things: recent change patrolling, WP:AfD, and copyediting. I am a rollbacker, and the majority of my edits likely come from huggle. I am also working on a new collaboration tool and bot, CollabRC. On the actual writing side, I have created and maintained two articles, North American blizzard of 2009 which was featured on WP:ITN and Super Saturday which was featured on WP:DYK. Beyond that, I take copyediting very seriously and generally spend literally hours on pages when I get a request. Basically, I focus primarily on maintaining the quality of Wikipedia. While I don't produce as much content as other editors, I think that what I've done behind-the-scenes is just as important, even if it comes with rare recognition. I don't really care about the recognition so much as I care that I am doing what I can to keep Wikipedia running strongly.

2. Have you been in any disputes 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?

   Everyone gets into a minor dispute every once in a while and I am no exception. One AfD nomination I made sparked off a little dispute between the creator and I, which started in the discussion there. I later left a note on his talk page asking that we try to focus on the content, and this discussion eventually went to my talk page. After some time I decided to take it to WP:WQA just to get an intermediate party involved in an attempt to cool tensions. After that we actually resolved it independently, and we seem to have no hard feelings; we both left notes at each other's talk page after the conclusion of the AfD nomination (which I withdrew). I think, while it didn't go as well as I had hoped, the right move was to try to get an uninvolved third party in on the discussion, as I did. In the future, I think I would probably do the same, as introducing an uninvolved third party is generally a good way to relieve tensions, though perhaps a better choice of words would prevent it from escalating so quickly.

Reviews

• This guy keeps taking down all of the legitimate edits that I am making to pages. I edited the articles on sea and sealand and the edits were taken down under false pretences. This is the kind of thing that is killing wikipeidia. People are trying to expand articles and constructive information is being deleted by editors like Shirik.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.167.243.189 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 1 January 2010
  • I'm sorry you feel that way, but unfortunately it was quite evident that your edits, such as those here and here were neither constructive nor fit for an encyclopedia. I hope you take some time to review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines which should give you a little more insight into what should be included in an encyclopedia. Thanks! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Good anti-vandalism work. Every one of your reports I've seen at WP:AIV so far have been accurate. Keep it up! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

---

[edit] GeneralCheese

GeneralCheese (talk • contribs • count) Hi, Im GeneralCheese, i am a rookie editor. And so far i have been reverting vandalism and i have created 1 article so far. I want to be reviewed because i just want to know how im doing so far. And i want to know what kind of editor i would be in the future. GeneralCheese 21:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   Well my primary contirbs to wikipedia would be fighting vandalism, i love to fight vandalism and i will do everything in my power to keep vandalism off of wikipedia.Soon, i will request to be a rollbacker so i can use more powerful tools like Huggle. 1

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

   I have never been in editing disputes before. I dont recall in being in any.But on my old account which i forgot my username years ago, I was in an editing dispute. Me and this other user was fighting over Compatibilities about Libra and Cancer. I was trying to tell the other user that reasearch said that cancer is in fact compatible with libra. So after a while i just got tired of him and i left the situation alone.

Reviews

• Well, it's hard to judge what kind of an editor you WILL be. One thing I can suggest, though - be careful when reverting IP edits. I noticed when you reverted this one that you only reverted that IP's second edit, and not the first one as that one should have been reverted also. Not a big deal as it was dealt with by the next editor, but that's a trap you want to avoid.

Another thing that might help you on fighting vandalism is (if you're not already) checking this page - anything that says "tag" at the end bears special attention.

Best of luck to ya! ArcAngel (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your review. The reason i reverted that page is because i noticed the IP user put an inappropite word on the article, so i feel thats vandalism. --GeneralCheese 02:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• This user should be patient and learn the editing process without using tools first. General Cheese reverted many constructive edits I made to Catherine D. DeAngelis including many new sources and removal of harsh remarks from a blog (WP:BLP and WP:RS). I had a good edit summary for all of my edits. This user is inexperienced and should get more experience before they call everyone's edits vandalism. MiRroar (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I note this user has reverted my comments and left uncivil edit summaries and comments at my talk page. The user also didn't bother to revert the mistaken deletions and admits using multiple accounts. Further behavior like this will be reported. MiRroar (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me but i made a new account because i forgot my username on the other one. --GeneralCheese 22:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet you introduced yourself as a rookie editor? MiRroar (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes because i figured people would not believe i had another account which i forgot my username on.--GeneralCheese 00:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:FormerAccount.  fetchcomms☛ 01:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] ArcAngel*

ArcAngel (talk • contribs • count) Having an account since September, 2006, but have only been actively editing since February of 2008 and have over 8,100 edits to date. Roughly three and a half months have passed since my RfA, and rather than attempt another run so soon after I'd like to get some feedback from my fellow editors (especially those who opposed me at my RfA) as to how I have done since. I have created 9 articles to date, with another two waiting in my sandbox. I am a vandal fighter and new page patroller, and have participated in various XfD areas while attempting to improve the project. I have looked for redlinks to fix and articles that need wikified. I also have rollback rights. I don't have any FA or GA nominations so far, but I have been awarded six barnstars. ArcAngel (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I feel my best contribution so far is on my first article (which has since been redirected). I am also proud of my contribution of Rowdy Herrington, though it is only a stub at this point, I added what little info I could find on him. My other contributions to date have been to fighting vandalism, and commenting in the various XfD areas and RfA's.

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

   I have had a few disputes with content when I felt that the content wasn't appropriate (such as BLP's where the article didn't assert notability), so I attempted to explain to the article author why the article wasn't notable enough for inclusion. I think that I am a very level-headed person, so in each case I have calmly explained my position, so it really hasn't caused me any stress.  :)

Reviews

---

[edit] Gosox5555

Gosox5555 (talk • contribs • count) I've always had an interest in adminship, but I don't think I'm there yet with the edit numbers in the article namespace. Anything in particular that I should do to become a better candidate? Gosox5555 (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I've been on the NPP for a little while, and I've been involved in some AfDs. I've worked on Articles for Creation, which is my proudest accomplishment. I don't feel like my articles are great, but I have created a few. I have been a new user patroller, which allows me to welcome good users and attempt to teach those who have vandalized the error in their ways.

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

   I haven't had any major problems with Wikistress or conflicts with other users. I've been involved in some AfDs that have gotten heated, but I usually keep my cool. I do have some n00b skeletons in my closet, first 25 edits or so are pretty bad.

Reviews

• writing things like GAs, DYKs and (eventually) FAs shows people very quickly what you can produce. Alot of folks (like me) are time limited, so noting that you've done some audited content is a quick way of (a) showing you know how it feels to write something and be scrutinised, and (b) discuss with a reviewer. Right now there are a shortage of hooks at T:TDYK, so is a good time to practise. Ask someone there for tips. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• GA's, FA's, and DYK's aren't generally required to be an admin, though they do show what kind of content builder you are. If that isn't your strong point, then having knowledge of various polices WP:BLOCK, WP:CDB, and other admin related policies, as well as participation in the WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:RPP, WP:ANI, WP:CSD, and deletion discussion areas are a big help. WP:RFA is another important area to participate in as it will give you some insight into the process of admin selection. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] MWOAP

MWOAP (talk • contribs • count) I am thinking about adminship, but know I am not there yet. I would just like to know how users see me so far, so I can become a better editor and hopefully a better admin. MWOAP (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   My Contribs primarily involve reverting vandalism & I try really hard to keep the Category:Pages with missing references list to below the backlog status. I have also tired a few on Category:Articles to be split & Category:Copied and Pasted Articles and Sections. I also keep a watch on a lot of Star Trek articles. Also, just recently, with the help of User:Fetchcomms I have made my first template (Template:Tech Issue).

2. Have you been in any disputes 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 probally a few minor disputes that I don't remember. But if I ever get mad, I walk away from the situation for a while, and then come back to it all calm. I plan to get into the discussions on Articles for Deletion today.

Reviews

• Hi MWOAP here's my review (I'm doing it now, as you have relatively few contributions so far, so it won't take too long!)

• User conduct

• Edit summaries: 100% on major edits, 98% on minor edits. Most of the non-automated ones are brief but explain what has been done.
• Constructive comments on talk pages:The comments that you leave on article talk pages are constructive and geared towards making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. They may be little things ("does anyone object if I remove xyz tag, because ....") - but those help tidy up Wikipedia, which is important!
• Attitude towards others: Your communications seem to be considerate and helpful - and to the point!

• Edits

• Automated Edits: A quarter of your edits are automated, using TWINKLE, AWB and FRIENDLY. I didn't see any problems here.
• Article vs non-article: About half of your edits are to articles, with a further 12% to article talk space and about 20% to user talk.

• RfA

• I'm only going to make one recommendation here: get more involved with admin-type areas, such as more Articles for deletion, more Speedy Deletion tagging, some WP:AN/WP:ANI/WP:RFA edits. These are areas where you will show your understanding of the policies, and that you can explain (and justify) yourself.

• Summary

You seem to be doing a good job, but as you said, you are not yet ready to think about adminship, in my opinion. Keep up the good work that you are doing, and see what happens! Oh, by the way, when/if you ever go for an RfA, one question I'm sure you are going to get asked is why do you think there should be mandatory registration - As the essay Wikipedia:IPs are human too says, although 80% of all vandalism is caused by IP editors, 80% of all edits made by IPs are not vandalism (i.e. that 20% of all vandalism is caused by registered editors, and 20% of IP edits are vandalism) - and how does this fit in with Wikipedia:Assume good faith?

Anyway, I hope that this review is helpful - although I have noted that you will not be on Wikipedia for an unspecified period of time - however, assuming that you will still be around until 2100EDT (0200UTC), then you should hopefully catch this before you are away! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] La Pianista*

La Pianista (talk • contribs • count) I have just come back from a short retirement. I may not have many edits to review from, but I would like to know what to do to help me start afresh. After all, un-retiring implies a certain change of idea, am I right? :) —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 06:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I don't really have any "primary contributions" at the moment. Right now, juggling between real life and Wikipedia work leaves me with little choice than the random glossing over some, copyediting the occasional random article, patrolling recent changes, etc. I am currently working on P:CLM and am trying to become active again in my previous WikiProjects (most notably, WP:CM)

2. Have you been in any disputes 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 will always be editors that have caused me stress, but I hope I've been able to hide my anger (or vent it elsewhere!). Just for the fun of it, I sometimes type up everything I wish to say to an editor, walk away for a few minutes, and then re-read my statement to see if it seems cool-headed or not. Naturally, upon a first reading, it doesn't. :) So I try to be understanding and always modify any comments that could be misconstrued. People have been stressed at me before (long before), so I remind myself of what it feels to be misunderstood and consequently attacked.

Reviews

---

[edit] SchfiftyThree*

SchfiftyThree (talk • contribs • count) I Schfifty3 18:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I usually do not attempt to participate in huge consensus-building discussions, but I instead rather act as a WikiGnome. I also have appreciation for my vandalism work here, and it has been one of my greatest efforts since early 2008.

2. Have you been in any disputes 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?

   This used to happen with User:ClueBot but now it's happening with other users. I sometimes have undergone stress due to the activity of Huggle users, particularly when someone uses it nearly every day in one year. I cannot imagine how someone always devotes their time using the program. As to why this is in an editor review, I just want to hear from some others.

Reviews

---

[edit] Ilyushka88

Ilyushka88 (talk • contribs • count) Hello there. I registered this account in the beginning of 2007, but I had couple of long, long breaks. I am asking for someone to review me because I would like to know what should I do less, what should I do more and especially, how can I improve my editing. I am not doing this because of RFA or anything like that. I want to be reviewed because I want to help improve Wikipedia, and I want to know what should I change in my editing to get most out of it. Please, do criticize me.  Ilyushka88 Talk to me 16:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I have always enjoyed fighting vandalism. That is the main reason why my automated edit count is so high. I have used Twinkle and Huggle to revert vandalism and to warn users. I think it was in the beginning of November when I found out how much I enjoy patrolling new pages. That's when I started tagging pages for speedy deletion. I also spend much time at #wikipedia-en-help in IRC, and I enjoy helping new people really much. So I must say, most of my experience is in WP:CSD and reporting to WP:AIV.

2. Have you been in any disputes 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 cannot remember when I had problems with someone in Wikipedia last time. Most of the things have been taken care of by talking. I can also take pretty much of "beating" before I get sressed.

Reviews

• You've always been nice to work with, and I always see you working hard when I go around to patrol too. I don't really have any concerns, but maybe you should consider expanding into content work? I've begun mixing that into my regular Huggle work and such, and it has really become a very large part of my time now. Anyhow, good job so far :)  fetchcomms☛ 00:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Fetchcomms, for your kind words. I am going to try more content editing from now on.  Ilyushka88 Talk to me 07:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• There is always a backlog at WP:PR, where editors are very keen for any feedback at all to their articles. The whole key of this place is collaborative editing, so places like this need to thrive. No need to do alot, but I am sure there will be some articles popping up time to time about subjects you're interested in, so worth checking periodically. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Duncan*

Duncan (talk • contribs • count) Hello, community! I am Duncan. I would like to submit myself for review by the community because I find myself double-guessing myself on some contributions and because I would possibly like to put myself up for adminship; any review and comment would definitely be helpful. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 09:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   My contributions mostly consist of WP:NPP, WP:RCP, reversion of vandalism, and the occasional visit to WP:AFC and WP:CHU to help out with anything I can. To the second part of the question, I would say the short articles I have created regarding my city (Dallas) are my best contributions. I know I don't contribute loads of articles per month, but I enjoy creating articles about little-known stuff that I know pass the criteria for notability.

2. Have you been in any disputes 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 think every Wikipedian will eventually run into at least one content dispute (after all, behind the screen is a human being; we can disagree with each other at times). I have tried dealing with it myself as far as I can. My most stressful situation would have to be a past sockpuppetry ordeal here; I was asked by a user to give a third-point of view opinion, and it turned into a huge uncivil argument. Because I was rather new, and not too experienced with policy and modus operandi of sockpuppeteeers, I handed it off to the admins/checkusers to deal with. As far as stress, that comes and goes almost once a month from the occasional editor disagreeing with a deletion nomination, but nothing WP:DENY or WP:RBI can't fix.

Reviews

---

[edit] TheGrimReaper NS*

TheGrimReaper NS (talk • contribs • count) I joined in September 2009 and began to edit articles of my interest, until I discovered vandal-fighting. I still contribute to such articles, but I also mass-revert edits which are in violation of policies. I'm planning to apply for adminship at WP:RFA so I can assist more with the perfection of Wikipedia (like blocking 4-warning vandals quickly and efficiently), but first I need to perfect my Wikipedia skills. TheGrimReaper 12:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   Like I said before, my main contributions consist of rewriting and wikification, and I also use Huggle to mass-revert vandalism and bring the vandals to justice (WP:AIV and warnings).

2. Have you been in any disputes 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 only been in one instance of a violation of WP:3RR, which was in the Egyptian pyramids article (a vandal had teamed up with his friends to vandalise the article), but I was never warned or blocked (WP:IAR, I suspect). Occasionally vandals who I have encountered insult me, but I revert their comments (WP:NPA). Sometimes I even explain my actions to them.

Reviews

---

[edit] Taelus*

Taelus (talk • contribs • count) I have been an editor on Wikipedia for over 4 years now, however 3.5 of those were spent as many dynamic IP address doing small article work here and there. As my userpage says, I eventually encountered a blocked IP, so I dug up this old account again and then decided that after so much time I should dive into "behind the scenes" work to help out, and learn the policies better. As you might assume from me having spent so long editing under IP addresses, I do struggle to be bold at times and for a long time was worried about breaking the wiki, although I am now making bold edits here and there, but still have my uncertainties. Thus I thought I would request an editor review, am I being too bold sometimes, or am I not being bold enough in places? Also I would like feedback in general as currently I help out in AfD, RfD, PROD, New page patrol, Random page patrol and WP:VG, and would appreciate any comments that could help me improve my work in such areas. Thanks in advance. Taelus (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   My primary contributions are small article edits, with about 50% of all my edits being to the article namespace. Whilst the majority of these are clean-up or small content changes, I have written an article: Console exclusivity which I am quite pleased with, and I helped re-write Warcraft (series) to include more references, and to lose its in-universe tone. I have also contributed to several other video game pages with chunks here and there, and have helped to add references to many pages I see across AfD and when patrolling. Outside of article work, my primary work is probably with redirect discussion, as I feel particularly motivated to help here as during my 4 years I have met many strange and confusing redirects. However, my project work is spread out over several areas as stated above.

2. Have you been in any disputes 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 one which comes to mind would be when I saw some video game news on Gamespot as soon as it was posted, and thought I would be bold and add it into World of Warcraft. Unfortunately I did make a mistake and gave it undue weight by placing it in the lead section, rather than a subsection, and thus my contribution was reverted which upset me somewhat. The involved editors and I then proceeded to move around the information and change it whilst discussing on the talk page. Thankfully by the end of the day when everyone took a step back we could all see that our passionate editing, and very fast Bold, Revert, Discuss movement had led to the best middle ground, and apologies and thanks were given all around for the potential hurt feelings that passionate editing can give. In retrospect, I suspect that alot of the problem was misunderstanding, as the sourced citation was changed three times quite quickly after it came out, making the debate of "Thats not what the cite says!" quite difficult. All is well that ends well of course, although at the time it did dent my enthusiasm a bit as in a way I felt my feelings were too fragile for bold content edits, but thankfully in retrospect I can see it worked out positively.

Reviews

---

[edit] TParis00ap

TParis00ap (talk • contribs • count) I request an editor review because I eventually want to renominate myself for adminship. I wish to participate in admin rolls in WP:CSD, WP:AFD, WP:AIV, and WP:RfPP. v/r - TP 01:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   My primary contributions to Wikipedia is my WP:CSD work. I work CSD two ways: 1) I tag articles that qualify under criteria (obviously), and 2) I save articles that are tagged CSD but do not quite meet criteria or clearly deserve articles. I've saved Mercer Pottery Company, Crimeface, Doorly and others.

2. Have you been in any disputes 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 quite a few disputes that ended nicely. The latest one is over the article Shiron.net with User:Eddau and we've both apologized to each other for our behavior, it was a lack of good faith assumptions on both sides. My talk page also has a few other recent disputes as well. I've tried to handle each one with civility, a smile, and a helpful attitude.

Reviews

• I think you're doing a great job, and you seem to be grasping the way things work quite well. If you keep going the way you are and start helping out in other areas by writing articles, expanding articles, and even doing some copy-editing, I'll gladly nominate you for adminship next year around May or June. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 13:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] SuperHamster

SuperHamster (talk • contribs • count) Hello. I am requesting a review from other editors to see how I am doing and what I should do in the future. I've been editing for about a year now, most actively in the last few months. Comments and constructive criticism are welcome. I would also like to see, if I were to be applying for adminship, what your vote would be, and primarily, why, so I can work in areas I'm weak on. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   In a general view, most of my contributions and experience lie in the recent change patrol, new page patrol, and image departments. I am pleased with my edits in these areas and believe they are my strongest source of my experience. In terms of singled out edits, I am also pleased with an article I made and expanded to DYK status, Mandazi. Other than that article, I do not have anything "amazing" such as featured/good articles, featured images, etc. I also created the article Twin Skies as my sixth edit, but it needs a good partial rewrite to make it good.

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

   Of course, it's quite hard to edit Wikipedia without finding yourself in a dispute at some point. None of them were anything major and generally they all came out with a positive outcome after discussion. If a user disagrees with my edit, I'll usually try to discuss the dispute with another user (e.g. here). I think any problem can be sorted out, or at least a consensus be formed, through discussion, unless of course a user is being unresponsive or just generally being inappropriate, in which it may have to be taken to WP:AN to be sorted out there. In any case, I always try to approach a dispute with keeping one's cool in mind, as I think is the strongest and easiest way to help solve conflicts, even if the other user isn't keeping their cool. Not keeping calm won't get you anywhere, no matter how many guidelines you list or points you make.

Reviews

• Hi SuperHamster, here's my review

• User conduct

• Edit summaries: Although all of your edits have summaries, the majority of them are automated ones. The ones which are not automated are brief, but succinct.
• Constructive comments on talk pages: the comments that you leave on the talk pages of articles are constructive, with the aim of improving the encyclopedia.
• Attitude towards others: I see an editor who seems to be considerate and helpful, wanting to help other editors to improve the encyclopedia.

• Edits

• Automated Edits: Your %age of automated edits is about 60% - a quick look through your history didn't come across any obvious problems with how you are using the tools.
• Article vs non-article: Although a lot of your edits (about 44%) are to articles, the majority of those appear to be vandalism/new page patrols - which obviously helps to maintain the accuracy of the encyclopedia. Some people look down on such work, but it is essential!

• RfA

• CSD: Looking at your last 25 SD tags (going by the notification on the creators' talk pages - I am not an admin, so I can't see the deleted articles), you appear to be tagging accurately, with a 92% deletion rate of the articles/files you have tagged for speedy deletion
• PROD: I only saw one of these - which was deleted after the 7 days was up.
• xfD: In the xfDs I looked at, you gave considered, policy-based !votes.
• ANI/AN:I see a few contributions to ANEW, but none to ANI/AN
• Contributions to RfAs: I see that you have !voted on 3 RfAs, all with good reasoning behing your !voting
• Previous RfAs: N/A

• Summary

Overall, I see an editor who is working to improve Wikipedia, and to help others to do so - keep up the good work!

With regard to an RfA, I'll be honest - if you were to put up one, my !vote would be Neutral or not now - I would suggest that you need more work on articles beyond just "maintenance" work, and less automated edits, as I know that this has been a source of many opposes recently. My "not now" would be based on the fact that I have not seen enough evidence of how you would deal with controversial decisions, and with criticism - however, this would not be enough for me to oppose you, while not being enough to support either.

I hope this review is helpful! Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your in-depth review, Steve =) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Twilight Helryx

Twilight Helryx (talk • contribs • count) Just want to know what people think about my edits and behavior. I'm hoping to be an admin some day, so I want to be sure that everything about me is as ideal as possible. Twilight Helryx 01:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I mainly revert vandalism (and good-faith edits) on my talk page on on Recent Changes (though lately it mostly the former; I've watchlisted a lot of articles). I also do a lot of work on Bionicle-related pages anything else that has my interest. I've recently started doing gnome work on the World War II article and am actively participating in improving it enough for GA status. When I'm not doing any of these things, I spend my time teaching my adoptees.

2. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past (please note that this does not refer to ^{(Edit Conflict)}) 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?

   For harrassing users, well, only one so far. I reverted this IP's edits for Apex predator and a few minutes later, he did this to my userpage. Fortunately, another editor so kindly reverted it for me. As side note, the vandal was miles off in his insult; he didn't even get my gender right! XD But to prevent further vandalism, I left a note on my user page for possible future vandals which you can still see today. So far, I haven't been vandalized a second time.
   I seldom get into any disputes. But on the few occasions that I do, they are usually peacefully resolved. My worst, and most shameful, dispute was with Ridernyc over a template. I removed it because I thought it had been resolved, but Rider saw what I failed to see. When I realized my mistake, I immediately admitted it and sent a Peace Dove with an apology note attached to him. But whatever the circumstance, I learn from my mistakes (if I was wrong) and grow ever more vigilant with myself.

Reviews

• Well I must say. I am very impressed in your editing. Even to the point that I envy some of your contributions (in a I whish I could do that kind of way). You seem to have avoided all the issues that plague me today. Not only that but you have had no issues that I can recall. No blocks ever and you are very civil. Your on your way. Good job. (PS, sorry this review is so shore but there's nothing wrong with you that I can find. perhaps if you want to be an admin you should read over other's RFA standards and try to rate yourself and then work from there)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you, Coldplay; I'm glad you think so. =) I was just wondering what people would think about some of my recent embarrassingly clumsy mistakes like this one. =P --Twilight Helryx 01:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Coldplay Expert

Coldplay Expert (talk • contribs • count) Well this is my second review. My last one back in September-October had questions such as why was I blocked for "abusing multiple accounts" and why I had +45% of my edits to talk pages. Well I feel that I have certainly addressed those questions. Now a but about myself. I am a resident of a small little town in the Commonwealth on Virginia and I am a "minor". I have been reluctant to actually say so even though several editors have guessed correctly about my age. The reason being is that wikipeida has several unwritten...I guess you can call them policies...that seem to frown on minors editing. I however disagree. Now Those of you who know me will know that I hope to be an admin some day. (When, I dont know...a long time away to be honest but I will not nominate myself...ever) I feel that I have made several crutial steps on my wiki-journey since my last review and I hope this one will help me do the same. Weather your here to slander or prase me, I encourage all editors who see this page to speak what they think as your comments will help to imporve my communication with others and the way I help this project. Thank you, and Merry Christmas. Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   My primary contributions to this project are vandal fighting and my work on World War II related articles. I am really pleased with my work with the WWII article itslef which may soon earn GA status.

2. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past (please note that this does not refer to ^{(Edit Conflict)}) 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 several editing disputes in the past. Most recently is my dispute with User:AzureFury who IMO acted rather uncivil in his objection to me putting the POV template on the Iraq War article. (For a full overview of what happened, check the article's talk page and the Wiki-ediquette alerts for AzureFury-Incivility at Iraq War) In the future if things will get as heated as they did then. Ill be the bigger person and just walk away.

Reviews

• I'm going to be a bit blunt here. I think you need to review WP:5P and understand what Wikipedia is about. Your talk page shows that you and a few other editors are nearly constantly engaging in some sort of social conversation, to the point where you come across as a "MySpacer". It's great that you have such enthusiasm, but if you're aiming to be an administrator, please work on your maturity levels and avoid off-topic chatter. It would also be a good idea to double check your grammar; your post here contains at least one dozen blatant typographical errors, which makes it rather difficult to understand. Finally, I notice that you make a point of emphasizing on your age quite often. There are a number of potential implications associated with doing so, so I'd advise against it whenever possible. –Juliancolton | ^Talk

Well like I said before. Thanks for the bluntness. And yes I know the myspaceing has gotten way out of hand. My spelling isnt the best either but thats a whole other story. Anyway I have undertood the policies of wikipedia. (After haveing them being shoved im my face for X amount of times) I feel that there seems to be this "jolly" atmosphere around my talk page for some reason. Much like User:Spongefrog's page. It can be a double edge sword as it results in exesive myspaceing. I feel that I have worked on my maturity as I have become more engaged in the article work rather than talking about non-sense. As for my age. I thought that I may as well put it out there since several other editors seem to have guessed it already. I have no regrets telling others that Im below the drinking age. Im not trying to use this as an excuse but rather to set things strait. As long as people view me as a equal as were suppoes to (I doubt they ever will) then Im ok about it. Anyway thanks for your comments Juliancolton.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, alright, but you've already pledged to disengage from social networking on Wikipedia in the past, and it's yet to show signs of letting up. My advice to you would be to avoid responding to any talk page comments aside from those that focus on the encyclopedia itself. Hope I'm not discouraging you, but constructive criticism, even if harsh, is always good. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well I think that constructive criticism is better than any comments like "your amazing" as im sure others will say. Anyway yes I need to ignore anything that is not project related. Do you have any ideas as to how. I seem to be drawn to replying to everything that is posted on my talk page. Even if it is in violation of any binding policies.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Essjay once said something along the lines of "Every time you go to make an edit, think about whether it will help to make Wikipedia a more successful project; if your edit does not do that, don't click save". It's something that I always keep in mind, and I think it could certainly help you as well. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. now if only that could be applied to my spelling...--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm afraid I must agree with Julian's comments. Let me tell you something: back in the day, when I was still new to Wikipedia, I heavily MySpaced, too. It got severe enough that I was reported to AN (and nearly restricted to the mainspace) back in January. I reformed down the road, and now I'm fully rehabilitated. I ceased my MySpacing in favor of becoming a productive editor, and I know you can too. Well, that's not to say you're not already productive – I do admire you for your DYK work as of late. Why not resort to creation, expansion, or nomination of potential DYK articles? Or, on top of that you could help out with reviewing DYK hooks. Hope this helps! --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 23:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Comming from my adopter, its nice to know that I am no on my own. As for the DYK's Ill gradually work more in that area. I love helping out there as my contributions make people (readers) think about something that they perhaps did not know exist. Ill be sure to continue my work there.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want to be an administrator? Gerardw (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well there are many reasons. First off I do not view adminship as any special status other than just another person who is deticated to helping this site. I wish to be an admin because I hate vandalism and I have seen (on several ocassions) where vandals go an a spree for 40+ minutes after they are reported before they get blocked. For some reason. Not that many admins are on during friday night. And as a reuslt the encyclpedia suffers. I want to help enforce WP:VANDAL by actually blocking these people. Not only that but I would love to help out in the DYK section even morethan I do already by adding nominations to the main template ect. I hope this answers your question--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol, those happen to be the same reasons I'm looking to be an admin. <P --Twilight Helryx 00:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For MySpacing, as long as you take Julian's advice, you should be 100% cured before long. As for spelling, here's my advice: Don't rush to hit the save button; as soon as you're done typing, pause, look over your work, and fix whatever typos are in there. Even then, click the Preview button first to see if you've missed anything. It would also help to have your spell checker on. It'll make spotting typos much more easier. If you see the misspelling, but can't seem to remember the proper spelling, right click the word exactly on top of it and you should get a small menu with spelling suggestions (among others) on it. Hope this helps. Cheers!--Twilight Helryx 00:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks Twilight. And As for being an admin. If my fellow editors think that me bing an admin (down the road, lets not rush ourselves) is not a good thing then oh well. Whatever helps this project out best is fine by me. After all adminship is no big deal. But I would like to fix the mosterous backlog that plagues the AIV all the time.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the spelling, just use a browser which has a built in spell checker in it, like Firefox. Rkr1991 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 04:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Answer to admin question is good. My feedback -- related to the WQA -- is that you will be happier if you can avoid taking things personally and should remember retaliation is not helpful here. Another editor's actions doesn't change the standard the rest of us should try to maintain. Gerardw (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your right. I shouldnt lower myself to the level of others. If this ever happens again ill just walk away from the situation. Thanks.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 17:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Kind of the reason we and Thejadefalcon co-wrote this article. =3 --Twilight Helryx 19:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey I helped too! Didn’t I?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's why I said "we". I guess I should have named us all separately. ^^" --Twilight Helryx 20:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh its ok.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 20:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Lithorien

Lithorien (talk • contribs • count) Hi there. I'm Lithorien, and I've been on Wikipedia since 2004, though I went through a long time of inactivity due to some immaturity on my part. What I would like to see from this editor review is the opinions of fellow editors on my general Wikipedia behavior and helpfulness - areas that I can improve upon, and things I can do better in terms of helping to keep Wikipedia running well. Lithorien (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I mainly contribute to AfD and monitor the recent changes to catch signs of vandalism and to try to catch newbies and give them a greeting and a little helping hand. There isn't anything that I do that I am particularly pleased or displeased with at this time, because most of what I do is automated or procedural.

2. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past (please note that this does not refer to ^{(Edit Conflict)}) or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   I have had a time when I was in an editing dispute over an article that was up for deletion. I ended up acting very uncivil through the entire debate. In the future, I plan to remain civil through discussions and come to a consensus rather than attacking my opponents.

Reviews

• I think you are a good user. Your Speedy deletion nominations generally seem accurate and your AfD arguments strong enough, although it would be good to see more content creation. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 11:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. The point on content creation is one that I definately need to address - it's all well and good to keep Wikipedia cleaned up, but that doesn't do a lot of good if there's still content to be added. Thank you for the review! :) Lithorien (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think that using speedy deletion in a case like this isn't correct. If this person actually did produce a #1 hit in Japan, then they would be notable. There's at least enough to warrant a discussion or convert to a prod (I'd go with the prod). If this is a case of clear vandalism (which looks likely) that would be different, but you used the non-notable criteria to delete it. My point is to suggest being a little more careful on the speedy deletions. Royalbroil 23:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• I will try to remember that and tone down my hair-trigger speedy finger - I tend to forget about prodding when I'm looking at suspicious articles. Thank you very much for that advice. :) Lithorien (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] IShadowed

IShadowed (talk • contribs • count) Hello! I am IShadowed, a rollbacker on Wikipedia. I joined in January, but took a nine-month wikibreak because of unfamiliarity of how wiki works. I generally want to know what other editors think of me so I can know how to improve.  IShadowed  ✰  02:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I generally work in WP:NPP and often use Huggle. I've been told that I "don't edit articles" enough, so I recently got my first WP:DYK, and I joined the WikiCup, which has encouraged me to edit articles more often than automated edits. Although I'm happy with most of my edits, although I'm especially proud of my {{helpme}} monitoring and welcoming users, sometimes even extending help and possible WP:Rehab to vandals. I believe that letting new users know you care is important, because when I first join in January, I really did not feel all that welcomed, although when I re-united (so to speak) with Wiki in November, I was happy to see that quite a few editors seemed and acted a lot more understanding towards newbie confusion, possibly accredited to WP:Newt.

2. Have you been in any disputes 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 had my hare of conflicts, yes. I have had specific users cause me stress throughout the past 2 months, mainly over disagreement of opinions that went a little to far and rose into a minor fight. I've never been involved in a Revert War. I generally deal with this by either apologizing once I calm down if I am at fault, or ask a second opinion on a Wikipedia IRC channel or via WP:Wikiquette.

Reviews

• I've known this user since I first started becoming an active editor, and we had a few minor quibbles, but overall, they've resolved themself as a result of both of our inexperience. I think that she has grown a lot in the past few months and has become more active in content creation (good work with the DYK). I think we get along fairly well now, and it's been nice working with her. I know there's a lot to learn still, but she's getting involved with a lot of different areas of Wikipedia, and my overall impression is a rather pleasant one.  fetchcomms☛ 03:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• I can't say much outside the usual "more content edits, please." But it's obvious you're trying to work harder (congratulations on your first DYK!). Special:Random is there for a good reason - if you wish to pass the time, click it and try to improve the article that comes up. It will most likely be a stub with a few readily noticeable grammar errors or other glitches that you could easily fix. If you're not much for writing content, it's one more way to contribute to mainspace. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪ How's my driving?} 04:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Seems to be solid considering work so far. Maybe a little too friendly, though. ;) Keep up the good work. ceranthor 21:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Forgive me in advance. I never was to good at providing constructive criticism. You seem to be much better suited for vandalism reversion, new page patrol, and welcoming new users, all very useful tasks. But all things that have plenty of people doing them. Might I suggest branching out? Edits like this are good. Two comments about that particular edit. First, and most pedantic, is that you used the <reference> tag, and not {{reflist}}. The latter is recommended, and a smaller template, if I remember correctly. It is also more flexible, allowing multiple columns, and even then, they can be tweaked further. I suggest its use. The second is this: when you make an edit fixing one thing, however noble, leaving obvious errors is still a problem. The current revision has problems that you would of seen, having set up the references. The links are all faulty (having an extra '[]'), and there is a chunk of text under the references that are supposed to be a further reading. I think. Moving on, I suggest you try branching out. If you like what you're doing, keep on keepin' on, but you might enjoy other things as well. Might I suggest new file patrolling? Or maybe helping up clear an ever-growing backlog? A couple suggestion. There is always work to be done with files and images. I suggest looking into. P.S. - Work in AfC is always appreciated, so many thanks there. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• I'd use a Proposed Deletion instead of Speedy for anything which looks like it could be the least bit credible when patrolling new pages. Your percentage of article contribs is pretty low vs total contribs. Branching out is good - see Wikipedia:Peer review for a place where editors are keen for feedback on their work. The good thing about this is there is no structure so is a good place to begin reviewing or auditing content. Even just skimming to see if there are any you are interested in reading about. Can't understand a word or sentence? Suggest simpler wording. Note something not covered already or something which sounds funny. Also, writing a GA is a good idea too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Tim Song

Tim Song (talk • contribs • count) I also have an alternate account with the unimaginative name of Tim Song II (talk • contribs • count) and another (Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs)). Listing myself here to get some feedback on my work. Tim Song (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   Most of my work these days is at AfD, where I do most of the relists and perform non-admin closures, and at deletion review, where I frequently participate. I'm also a participant in the Articles for creation process, and wrote a script for AFC. In addition, I also Huggle sometimes.

2. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past (please note that this does not refer to ^{(Edit Conflict)}) 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?

   Nothing recently. I guess my skin has grown thick . I still sometimes disagree with people, obviously, but to the best of my knowledge it has not been personal.

Reviews

• Everything I've seen from you has been good, between your AfD work, DRV comments, and general gnome-ish edits. I just learned a couple days ago that you're not an administrator, which I think ought to be rectified. :) Keep it up! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• As JC said, very good work overall and I certainly agree that you should become an admin in the near future. Also, good work at AFC!  fetchcomms☛ 16:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Agreeing with Julian as well. If you want to try adminship and want some help, feel free to contact me Regards SoWhy 12:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• I've seen your edits a lot at AFD, and I think they are quite helpful. (Sorry to bring up potentially bad memories, but...) I appreciate the sensible, low-drama approach to conflict you took at your last editor review – disengaging from the situation and seeking the advice of other members of the community. Echoing the above comments, I think you should go for admin. Keep up the good work! — æk^Talk 07:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• I have consistently seen you at AfD. I only have one issue with this you: the fact that you have not yet been nominated for adminship. You should get that fixed (NB: on that note, I am more than willing to nominate you). --Shirik (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, thanks guys. BTW, Julian, I'm kind of surprised that you do not know about my mopless status given this Tim Song (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there an echo in the room? You should be an admin Tim but I'm concerned that the zealots at RFA won't promote you for not having enough article writing experience. I'd say its time to run as long as you promise not to leave in disgust if the crowd at RFA screw up and vote you down. Another co-nom here when you want it. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not sure why, but I see you closing a lot of AfDs I've taken an interest in. Some people might think that this is an indication of ambition to be an admin. I only see three articles created by you, Dan Gerber and Alabama Department of Public Health, two of which you seem to have recreated following a copyvio problem, and one from AfC, Liu Yong (Qing Dynasty). Do you have another account you use/used for article creation? Abductive (reasoning) 05:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • No. To be frank, I'm not a good writer. Also, Liu Yong (Qing Dynasty) went through AfC because I was writing a script for AfC at that time and needed something to test it on. Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] December21st2012Freak

December21st2012Freak (talk • contribs • count) Hello. I have been editing for over 4 months since I registered on July 18, 2009 (I actually been editing since early 2008 with multiple IPs). I do lots of vandal-fighting, new-page patrolling, and some stub-sorting. I also received 8 barnstars (not including Hidden page/Signature page barnstars or Smileys, Cookies, or other things) which you can see here. I want about 100 barnstars. December21st2012Freak (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I mostly patrol recent changes to look for vandalism, but I mostly do it with Huggle. Before I had the rollback right, I was reverting vandalism with Twinkle and before that, the undo button. In August 2009, I got my first barnstar, followed by 7 more barnstars after that. The first barnstar was an Anti-Vandalism barnstar. I also patrol new pages to look for nonsense pages, and look at Category:Stubs for any stub-sorting.

2. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past (please note that this does not refer to ^{(Edit Conflict)}) or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   In mid August, I saw this editor create a nonsense page called Cracka lackin. After that, I tagged it for deletion, then he replaced the content of my user page with im gay. He was blocked afterwards. Before that, I saw this editor which put an afd tag on a page, without discussing, and some people reverted it. He keeped reverting everyone, but then when I saw it, I also reverted it. In November 2009, I came across the Editor XXV sock Native to Neptune, which was attacking people on there user page, then he created the sock Native to Saturn, which was attacking me on my user page. He created lots of socks after that.

Reviews

• I've seen lots of your work when I do NPP and use Huggle, and I have to say that you have a good eye for that sort of thing and often beat me to reverts or CSD tagging. Perhaps you might consider taking a break and do more content-related work? I saw that you already created a few articles, so maybe branching out some might be a good change. I'm not sure those incidents are real editing disputes (they all sound like vandalism to me). Also, I'm not sure about your statement about wanting "about 100 barnstars". I'm not saying that barnstars are a bad thing to have, but it shouldn't really be a goal that you have (I mean, if you edit well, people will recognize you). But that's just my opinion. Good job anyhow,  fetchcomms☛ 03:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I expanded the Baldy Mesa, California article for a bit on November 9. December21st2012Freak (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• 'Ello! Here goes my first review, lucky you. I've seen you around quite a bit, both on the recent changes when I'm vandal-patrolling and on my watch list. Your experience and contributions in the vandalism area are excellent. You have also been very active in the first four months of you having and account, which is also great, considering that many users start out very slowly. As Fetchcomms said, getting into more content-related work is a great way to get more experienced and could be the next step you may want to consider getting involved in. You have already created quite a few articles. Skimming through, many of them seem to be small stubs. A good idea may be to start expanding one (adding content, sections, and references) and seeing how far you can go with that. Keep up the great work, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to expand the Baldy Mesa, California article for a bit. December21st2012Freak (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to add another note: I was just lurking around and ran into some RFA's you've contributed to. So far you've opposed two candidates (here and here). While there is nothing wrong with opposing, your reasons stated were "Too many automated edits" and "The answer to Q5 is concerning, and 70% of your edits are Huggle edits. You should have an opinion on the BLP policy which an admin is aware of, and you should stop using Huggle and edit articles." When opposing, a bit more descriptive and more reason-giving reason would be better. What's wrong with having x amount of automated edits? Should the user never have used Huggle, and instead just reverted vandalism manually? Or not revert vandalism at all? Heck, what's wrong with automated edits anyways? I'm just throwing questions out there that should be answered when opposing. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I can only echo what was said above. Good job!--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. December21st2012Freak (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Going to be blunt: I have maturity concerns. Barnstars aren't a goal to work towards. –blurpeace ^(talk) 23:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It was just a joke. December21st2012Freak (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again, maturity concerns. Recommend that you delete the guestbook for starters. –blurpeace ^(talk) 03:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Lots of people have guestbooks. Even Jimbo Wales has one. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} 03:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A page where users can communicate in a friendly way does not convey immaturity, the way one acts does. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 11:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User space should be used for collaboration between editors to improve the encyclopedia. How does a guestbook do that? Pointing at others isn't a good way to substantiate your position. Pages like this do not inspire confidence. Truthfully, you come off as a MySpacer. I'd recommend you do some real work (i.e. without your automated tools). Feel free to reject my review. Though a word of caution: I wouldn't recommend running for RfA at this time. –blurpeace ^(talk) 23:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Your edits seems to be constructive, however, you're userpage is scary. It's crowded and busy.  IShadowed  ✰  04:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...how is it scary? It's more simple than not. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't that scary and busy, it has less bytes than the original userpage. December21st2012Freak (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't scary or busy at all. Even the devil is smiling from happiness. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What I'm worried about, is his previous signatures and their changes. I never liked the changes one bit! 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 11:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your concerned about that when you did the same thing?Abce2|Free lemonadeonly 25 cents! 18:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that you are using your old signature from late June/early July. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} 18:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I plan to keep it this way as long as I edit.Abce2|Free lemonadeonly 25 cents! 18:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Mm40

Mm40 (talk • contribs • count) I've been on Wikipedia for a bit under two years, and I'm thinking of attempting to gain adminship. I don't want to run if I don't have a reasonable chance to pass, so I'd just like to gauge my chances. Thanks, Mm40 (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Mm40 (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   Content-wise, I'm happy with my 3 DYKs (a fourth on the nomination page, Marisa Wegrzyn) and two FLs (a third in the making, Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award. But perhaps my biggest contributions have been my review work. I find that I'm decent at it (at least better than writing my own articles) and there's a definite need for reviewers. In admin areas, my biggest contributions have been made at CSD; I have over 700 deleted contributions, and don't recall a declined speedy in a while. I've also been trying to get involved with UAA, but I still have plenty to learn.

2. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past (please note that this does not refer to ^{(Edit Conflict)}) 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?

   Because I generally avoid contentious areas, I've not been in any notable disputes. Although there have been a couple disagreements, they generally stem from mistakes on my part and are resolved quickly. If faced with a serious dispute, I would probably do something else for a while (like play chess) and, if the issue doesn't resolve itself, seek comments from uninvolved parties.

Reviews

• I haven't really worked with you that much, but from what I can discern, you seem like a fine editor.  fetchcomms☛ 02:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I also wanted to add that you've done some good work with writing and reviewing, and that maybe you should consider working in other areas as well (such as AFC for example). I think that what you would do about editing disputes is a good idea (though issues hardly ever resolve themselves). Overall, I really don't have any complaints from what I have seen.  fetchcomms☛ 03:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] MisterWiki

MisterWiki (talk • contribs • count) I'm lovely! MisterWiki talking! :-D ^{(SIGN!!!/REVIEW/SUPPORT ME AT META!!!)} 19:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   Welcoming users, creating articles of my interests, wishing a happy birthday to the Wikipedians, etc.

2. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past (please note that this does not refer to ^{(Edit Conflict)}) 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, never.

Reviews

• Welcoming is all very well, but I think it would be good to do more content work, which you seem to have been doing a great deal of quite recently.  fetchcomms☛ 16:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)