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 Krazycev13 4.2 Ilyushka88* 4.3 Duncan* 4.4 TheGrimReaper NS* 4.5 Taelus* 4.6 TParis00ap* 4.7 SuperHamster* 4.8 Twilight Helryx* 4.9 Coldplay Expert 4.10 Lithorien 4.11 Tim Song 4.12 December21st2012Freak 4.13 Mm40* 4.14 MisterWiki* 4.15 Thejadefalcon 4.16 Belinrahs* 4.17 Pyfan* 4.18 Pepperpiggle 4.19 Dogposter 4.19.1 Questions 4.19.2 Reviews 4.20 Addihockey10 4.21 ZooPro* 4.22 AtheWeatherman* 4.23 Eagles247 4.24 Panyd* 4.25 Michaelkourlas* 4.26 Plau* 4.27 Netalarm* 4.28 Ceranthor*

[edit] Current requests

[edit] Krazycev13

Krazycev13 (talk • contribs • count) Hello, this is my review board. Please leave any recommendations and/or comments on my work as an editor to Wikipedia on this page. Any feedback would be much obliged. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 ^{other crap} 00:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

---

[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

---

[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

---

[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

---

[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] Tim Song

Tim Song (talk • contribs • count) I also have an alternate account with the unimaginative name of Tim Song II (talk • contribs • count). 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)

---

[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 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)

• 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)

---

[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?

   Two years ago I had troubles with a user called Diegogrez, but I think I'm doing a really good job welcoming new users and supporting them.

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)

---

[edit] Thejadefalcon

Thejadefalcon (talk • contribs • count) I've been an editor on Wikipedia for nine and a half months and have had this page under consideration for some time. I want to know what my weaknesses are so I can put some more work into improving them. I've received some queries about if I would like help to become an admin, something which I don't feel I'm anywhere near ready for but would like to be one day. Therefore I want to place myself under scrutiny in order to help crush this likely delusional fantasy of mine. Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   Almost all of my contributions are to video games, though I am hoping to expand soon into other sections (for instance, WikiProject Harry Potter or the articles relating to Tamora Pierce books). I am proud of few edits because I know that they'll be changed soon very rapidly. However, I am pleased about my first major edit, to The Lord of the Rings: Conquest, which was neutral point of view for a game I utterly despise and also gained me my first barnstar. A smaller edit to Aliens vs. Predator (video game) also seemed very good at the time, but doesn't look as big as I remember now that I've fished it out of my contribution list. Finally, I created what was to be my first article, only to find out that it was already on Wikipedia (last I'd heard, it had been deleted). Under the guidance of xeno, I replaced the content of Fable III with my own version of the article. Now that I have installed Twinkle, however, I have found that my user talk page edits have skyrocketed and I now focus simply on anti-terrorism vandal-fighting. While it can be very cathartic and while someone needs to try to take on J.delanoy, part of me also wants to get back to actually hunting for and adding my own content one day rather than simply reverting. I have also just taken on my first two users as adoptees, NarSakSasLee and The.Filsouf, and am waiting to see how I get on with that. Finally, I forgot to mention, as I said on Taelus' talk page, I'm also involved in Usernames for administrator attention. As you'll see below, Katerenka has now directed me to Special:NewPages and I'm going to try to do at least one, maybe two articles on there a day (though so far, I've done something like ten in two days).

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?

   Ah. Here was why I had to force myself to submit myself for an editor review. I have had a virtually spotless record until yesterday, with only very, very minor disputes (that I can remember, anyway), no blocks and very few warnings. Unfortunately, that all crashed down around my ears last night. I have recently become a talk page stalker and noticed an IP talking to EdJohnston and being fairly rude about it. I warned him for personal attacks and was going to continue to try to calm him down and get him back involved in the project. That went... well, badly, would be the understatement of this millenium. On my third comment to his talk page, I was reduced to incoherent fury. After PMDrive1061 blocked them, I did what I had later promised on that talk page and reported myself, both to PMDrive1061 as the blocking admin and xeno as an unofficial mentor. Both admins forgave me, xeno in the thread I created on his talk page, PMDrive1061 on my talk page, but I still feel guilty about snapping like that. I rarely lose my temper, but when I do, I get no warning myself and I also telegraph no warning to others. I simply go berserk, which is not a good thing. Hopefully, that let off some steam and it'll be a long, long time before anything like that ever happens again, either on Wikipedia or in the real world. Nevertheless, I feel ashamed about it (though you probably hear that from everyone who does such a thing) and I don't ever want to do it again. The sickening irony, however, is that that very morning I had created two templates with the intention of calming down an dispute.

Reviews

• As I said in the comment with the barnstar I gave you, I think you are an excellent editor who is passionate about what they do and has the best interests of the project at heart. However, indeed as you admit you may get a bit too passionate at times when dealing with vandalism/personal attacks. Perhaps you should take some time before you reply when the situation gets hot, if you can manage to do so. I would also suggest you try to balance your activities, so that if you find yourself getting a bit frustrated with anti-vandalism tasks, you can simply put them aside and work on some content. Or perhaps you need a wikibreak, even if it is only a few days, which can help you feel refreshed and reflect on your choices. Additionally, may I recommend that you get involved in some project space things such as AfD and RfD? It could help you gain more experience and consider whether you do want to run for adminship in the long-run. However, suggestions aside, you are a great editor, and I will say again that your edits to video game articles and the WikiProject are inspiring to others, as your enthusiasm and openness is what a community project should be all about. Keep up the good work, and remember no editor is perfect, and the best you can do is to continually improve yourself. Also one final suggestion, although I am unsure if it is possible since I am not a frequent tools user: Try adding "Reason: <Description>" onto the end of your Undo/Revert edits, even if it is vandalism. It can really help the users to understand what they did wrong in non-blatant cases, and can help other editors read the page history flow better. Hope my comments help, happy editing to you. --Taelus (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• xeno said the same about taking time to reply here and I agreed with him. If I catch myself making what may be construed as an attack of some sort, I find a way to reword it or just give up. Honestly, if I had caught myself saying what I did... I'm not sure what I would have done. I was furious and upset and I let an event from my past I never wanted to confront again catch up with me when I wasn't expecting it. To be honest, some part of me says that, even if I had noticed before I posted it, I still would have continued out of blind anger, though I suppose we'll never know. It's over, it's happened and I don't censor previously posted comments because I feel that makes me seem like I have something to hide. I've reburied the reason for my anger with the help of a friend and I believe I'm ready to kick some vandal posteriors in the nicest possible manner once more. As for AfD and RfD, I do occasionally get involved, but not enough that I felt it was worth listing them. Since my mess up of attempting to get WikiProject BioWare deleted, I've been reluctant to get too deeply involved, though I did get involved in Categories for discussion briefly to nominate Category: 28 Days Later for deletion. As for the idea about the edit summary, it is possible to create an additional edit summary with Twinkle (the only tool I use barring my rollback feature priviledge), but only when reverting good faith or normal edits. As far as I can see, you don't get the option for adding an extra summary when reverting pure vandalism. I've already started doing it here, though it may take some time for it to become habit. When I'm undoing something manually, however, (usually when Twinkle is down and it's not pure vandalism (making rollback unusable)) Firefox saves my edit summary for future use and that can get crowded if I have many varying edit summaries and I haven't found a way to remove them yet, so I try to keep things simple (e.g. "Comment," "Unneeded," "Rewording" or "Grammar" et cetera). Thanks again for your review and all the suggestions you gave me. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• You seem like a great editor to me, it is good that you are getting into vandal fighting, and are adopting users. You say you have installed Twinkle, so maybe some NewPage patrolling would be good. Review me? *Pepperpiggle*^*Sign!* 14:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've heard of New Page patrolling, but I'm not entirely sure what it involves or where it is. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Special:NewPages @Kate (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I am shocked. In several years of using the worlds fifth most popular website it is the first I have come across anyone using such language. I think before anyone even begins to stop and pat each other on the back for good editing, or suggest new administrative capacities for the type of behaviour in discussion, that someone should go in and remove the offending words, replacing them which clear links to this page and the appropriate Wikipedia guidelines. While the words themselves are too offensive for an encyclopedia, the comment should stand as a reminder.

Blurting out an ill chosen word in conversation may be considered to be forgivable. It isn't as simple as that. Specific comments were chosen as a response - time was taken to format the response, Wikipedia editing guidelines followed to a degree. Yet all done with malice and in the full understanding that these words would become part of the public record. And there is no isolated incident. There is a clear intent shown here - not a stray moment of weakness, a process of recording thoughts in the manner intended. This shows that the editor in question is capable of acting out on their thoughts without regard to the consequences.

I have yet to see anywhere where thejadefalcon has been given a warning for their use of language and disruptive behaviour, that would seem to be a good first step. While the incident in itself would seem insufficient to have to ban this editor, it should be noted that it must necessitate that thejadefalcon must not at any time be given administrator status and the opportunity to do real damage with ill chosen responses. Someone who will lose their temper for a moment and then consider their actions would not become engaged in a prolonged, perfectly formatted dispute with repeated cursing - this lack of judgment should bar such a person from holding any position of authority which they could abuse. Weakopedia (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• I originally wrote a eight or nine paragraph response to this but none of it seemed right. So, I'll keep this as simple as I can (and after typing the rest of this, it still doesn't seem right, but I feel I need to respond). I'm not proud of it. I made a mistake, I admitted that. I requested punishment. I was told, by an administrator, that he or she "have completely blown gaskets in far worse ways than you just did" (whether they were an admin or not at the time is unstated, though it is clear that others felt it was forgiveable, otherwise they would not have gained/kept their admin tools) and that we're "only human." Humans make mistakes. I'm not using this as an excuse, as I hope my self-reporting indicates, I'm saying this as fact. What 71.174.142.108 said hurt. Badly. Was my response out of malice? No. Malice implies a cold-blooded act. I was furious and upset and it was an act of passion. Acting like that... it made the pain ease slightly. Not much, but it helped. Reporting myself afterwards was my attempt to make up for a moment of selfishness where I cared more about trying to come to terms with my own feelings than improving Wikipedia. I'm not a sweary person at all. I do not use this language on a daily basis, online or in the real world. I've... lost the ability to keep this as simple as I wanted and I have to leave now, so I don't have the time to rewrite this again. Therefore, I hope that repeating what I have said previously will have to do: I'm sorry. I really am. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 12:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, come on Weakopedia, don't you think you're being too harsh? Thejadefalcon has explicitly stated several times that he knows he's done wrong. He's even asked for punishment. So what purpose could a warning possibly serve? It would be entirely redundant. This is an editor who spends hours of his time reverting vandalism, and suffering from personal attacks (from the vandals he reverts). He snaps once, after a particularly bad instance of it, probably related to something pretty personal, and we're expected to condemn him for the rest of his life? No. Unless the user has a long history of this, it doesn't really happen like that on Wikipedia. It's obvious he's learned from his mistakes, and has shown a great deal of remorse, and that's what'll count in a RfA. An editor doesn't need to be completely perfect to be an admin. How will administrator tools increase his ability to do "real damage"? And another thing, administrators don't really have much more "authority" than regular users, see WP:DEAL and WP:TROPHY, see below, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 15:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for the defence, Spongefrog, but it was unneeded. We discussed it here and came to an understanding. And yes, it was very personal, but with the help of a caring friend, I think I'm ready to put it fully behind me (though, admittedly, I had thought that the first time around as well). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Aargh! I'll just strike it out. On the latter part, I'm glad to hear that, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 16:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Spongefrog, that really all depends on whether you want Wikipedia to be seen as dealing fairly and evenly with problems that arise. If a transgression has been committed then it is fitting that there should be an official response. If not then it becomes a bit like religion - you must follow the Wikicommandments or you will be punished. Except if you pray first for forgiveness. The problem with this approach is that it provides a "get out of jail free" card if you can sound convincing with your alibi, and this encourages Wikipedians to shout first knowing that a timely apology shall get them to Wikiheaven.

It should not be up to the individual Wikipedian to assess how best to atone for their sins. That should be done following an established framework. The warning for abusive language should be automatic, otherwise justice is not seen to be done. In fact justice then becomes something the individual Wikipedian may judge for themselves, which is a dangerous precedent.

Whilst Thejadefalcon may have the best of intentions his cause is not best served by stories of how other editors managed to act out and get away with it. No amount of provocation justifies using swear words on a service used by children. If I was too harsh then my apologies. Nevertheless some people are being too lenient, and there has yet to be reached a middle ground. Weakopedia (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Okay. Reasonable. I agree with most of that. But, as Thejadefalcon has showed so much remorse, this was clearly a one-off thing, which is unlikely to happen again. Warnings/block are really for repeated incivility (I hate to name names, but User:Roux is a good example). A warning notifies him he's acted wrongly, telling him not to do it again, which would seem kind of redundant in this case. And on the topic of swearing. I completely agree with you. I don't think it should be used on Wikipedia. But apparently, people can use swear words casually on Wikipedia, just so long as they're not used maliciously or to create offense. See WP:CENSORED. Of course, thejadefalcon did use them to create offense so it doesn't apply here, I just thought I'd say. If you really think he has to have a warning, what's to stop you issuing him with one yourself? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

← Thanks for the response. I am personally satisfied with Thejadefalcons attempt to rectify a mistake that he himself has admitted to. Obviously everyone is in agreement that no punishment is warranted. The one person who might disagree would be the person against whom the remarks were intended. That person is unlikely to participate in this discussion and for good reason, having been punished for their own transgressions. However is that not a good measure? If we accept that each editor is responisble for their own words for the sake of argument we can ignore the specifics of the case and generalise. There is always an aggrieved party when swear words are used, and their use may serve to harm the projects standing in the eyes of third parties. Swear words constitute an argumentative stance that is incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia. As you rightly stated the fact that the use of these words in this context was against policy is beyond refute. Thejadefalcon has gone to length to take responsibility for his actions and that is to be commended. The consensus is that Thejadefalcon is genuinely sorry and it won't happen again, which I am happy to support. However to generalise again, I believe that offensive remarks can damage the credibility of the project and should be addressed promptly, with any subsequent apologies being taken into consideration with regards to followup action. The apology shouldn't affect the initial reprimand or the impression can be given that an editor can say what they want provided they are timely with a retraction should that become necessary. It should instead be implicit that swearing and combatitive language are intolerable. It is already somewhat implicit in the rules, but this type of procedure reflects the application of those rules by the community and in many ways is more of a measure of what will be accepted. As to your question I do not consider myself to be familiar enough with Wikipedia policy to go around warning individual editors and feel more comfortable adding my views to the more general discussion. Weakopedia (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've seen these review things around but haven't paid much attention to them basically because I have yet to come across an editor with whom I have any real dealings and who want feedback. You're no exception. We haven't really had any dealings other than a misunderstood warning on an IP's talk (if people really want to know what was said, they can search through my history) and yet I am strangely compelled to review you as an editor. I think this review may be useful to you because while I have a very limited experience of your WP activities I have had a quick peruse through your current talk (I'm a talk stalker I'm afraid) and this review page and think that in many ways we're very similar editors (although the 'attack' that led you to starting this review is nothing in comparison to what I can do [1] I'm not proud of it screw that, it's the greatest contribution I've made to the project!) in that we're pretty dedicated to the project yet approach it in a laid-back sort of way. Basically I know first hand (if you can be bothered, try tracking down some arguments I've been involved with) that it's really easy to get over-excited in arguments or with vandals but that that doesn't mean we're any less dedicated to the project then any other contributor so keep up the good work (and let's face it - every so often we come up with some pretty entertaining warnings!) All that's left to say is please leave me alone - you attract the weirdos!! raseaC^{talk to me} 23:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• (chuckles slightly) For what it's worth, I can understand why you reacted like that (I stalked his contribution log). Thanks for the review. And don't worry. I'll steer clear of you whenever possible. :P --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Weirdos? What weirdos? Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 22:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've recently encountered a spate of personal attacks. Nothing like what some users face, but it's more than I usually have. This is probably my favourite. Not only did he somehow fail to get the picture right (still unsure about what happened there and why it didn't work (and why it blanked text)), he also vandalised one of my userboxen... a userboxen in a hidden space. >.> Vandalism fail? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Uhh...that was kinda a joke thing. I was referring to myself, you know. Never mind. Hell, while we're admitting stuff, I once called a guy a bad word too. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 22:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• You are a great editor which may become an admin in 1-2 months. December21st2012Freak (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• (mouth opens and closes in horror at the thought) Uh-uh! --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry 2012 but ill have to disagree with you. Thejadefalcon, let me be the next person to say how good of an editor you are. You are a very good asset to this encyclopedia. However your anger and the way that you showed it on that IP's talk page gets me worried. Admins must be calm at all times. I do think that you can will and already have fixed it. However in an RFA I would still !vote neutral or weak support as it was just a few days age (I would never !vote oppose unless you went on a vandal spree) I must say though that you are very good at keeping cool. (Unlike me. See Talk:Iraq War for further details) Anyway bottom line is you are great and in a few months (March-April-May?) You should be ready for the mop :)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with you. If I was to be nominated for sysop tomorrow, I'd decline on those grounds alone. Even if I was calm all the time, though, I don't believe I'm ready to be an admin. Maybe by May, but I seriously doubt I'll have the confidence to submit myself to an RfA. However, the compliment is appreciated. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 04:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)0

• Dont worry. Ill always be willing to nominate you..even though I have no idea how.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 05:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 05:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Well, first thing's first, your edit count shows you have just over 5,300 edits. Which is pretty good for someone who's only been here since exactly the same day as me. Can you believe that? 9 February 2009? We have the same wikibirthday! Anyway...28% of your edits are to articles and 47% are to user talk. That's not beyond reason, as a lot comes from vandal fighting. But maybe some additional article writing would be something to work on. I notice a surge in edits since late October (see Wikichecker stats) which...well, I'm not sure what to say about it, I just thought I'd bring it up. Your edit summary use is practically 100%, recently anyway, so no real issues there. It's good that you're trying to help by adopting new users. Provided you don't make a hash of it all, this'll improve your ability to help people/answer questions, which you'll undoubtedly need as an admin.

You say you'd like to be an admin some day. I think you could be; you seem to have the maturity and the judgement skills (this is just based on my own experience with you). But not just yet. I won't dwell on the incivility incident, everyone has their moments, but you'd get a helluva lot of opposes based on that right now. Try to go into other areas of editing too, a bit of editing variety always helps with RfAs.

But, of course, disregard everything I've said if you feel it's a load of grrschflarbendsrjj or blatant hypocrisy (which much of it is), Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the WikiChecker link! I love it! (bookmarks) The huge surge in edits was when I gained a broadband connection of my own and I wasn't limited to library times any more. I'm trying to increase my article edits, but I tend to do most of my bigger jobs in one edit, so the edit count is mildly misleading. And if I was to just disregard every criticism I recieved, I'd be a fairly worthless admin and this editor review would be for naught. I appreciate all comments here (and am genuinely suprised by the amount of feedback I've received). And regarding RfA opposes, no, I wouldn't. One oppose would be enough: mine. Thank you for the review. I appreciate it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I note your comments relating to your present unpreparedness for adminship, and clearly one cannot bring an unwilling horse to the trough. As you are aware, we have interacted, in a wholly positive way, on a significant number of occasions. I would be prepared to nominate you for admin today if you wished. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

... seriously? Even with my answer to question two? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. I have never felt that a one-off outburst should be used to judge a whole person. I also suspect (and do not wish to know)that your outburst had a personal motivation behind it. Look at some of my early outpourings some time. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I... thank you. I'll... give it some thought. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Belinrahs*

Belinrahs (talk • contribs • count) I'm a Wikipedian that enjoys working behind-the-scenes, on pages like AFD, DYK, and working on new pages, tagging them, and if necessary, mark them for possible deletion. The main reason I'd like this review, is so I can get the opinion of others on what I should do, my strengths, and my weaknesses. Thank you for your time. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 14:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I'm proud of my work on pages like Turner Catledge, which I near-completely redid. I'm also proud of my work against vandalism and the general "maintenance tasks" of Wikipedia. Someday, if I feel my skills are sufficient enough, I would be willing to use the admin tools to help the wiki further, should the community feel I am ready.

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 occasional quarrels with users, such as when I first started doing vandalism reversion - since then, I have become much more familiar with Wikipedia policy and what does and does not constitute vandalism, and I'm proud to say it has a while since I've had any big conflicts with other users.

Reviews

---

[edit] Pyfan*

Pyfan (talk • contribs • count) Hi, I've been here for a year and eight months now and I just wanted to see how I was going, thank you for taking the time to review me. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 10:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   A lot (about 60% according to X! tools) of my contributions are vandalism reversion. I have also started this article and rewritten almost the entire Great Expectations article.

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 never been in any major disputes. All the quarrels I've had here will be here: User talk:Pyfan/Archive 1 or on my Talk page, but I don't feel any of those are worthy of a mention here.

Reviews

---

[edit] Pepperpiggle

Pepperpiggle (talk • contribs • count) A review would be nice because I would like to know how other users think of my contributions to Wikipedia, and if they think I would eventually make a good administrator. *Pepperpiggle*^*Sign!* 23:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   My primary contribs to Wikipedia are reverting vandalism using Huggle, but I am starting to do a bit of work patrolling the New pages.

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 haven't really been in a dispute with other editors, except for the occasional IP who vandalises my User page for reverting their edits.

Reviews

• I don't have time for as long a review as I'd like to give, I'm sorry, but I think one thing you need to do is to try to examine the amount of edits you make to your userpage. They account for almost ten percent of your edits. While there's nothing bad about editing them, try to keep them down a bit, doing large edits rather than small ones. I believe I've read somewhere that, if you have a massive number of edits to your userspace, that can reflect badly against you if you are ever nominated for adminship. However, your article and user talk page edits have a good ratio about them, especially if you spend most of your time reverting vandals. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• I like that you're fighting vandalism, and that you're learning what is, and what isn't. If you want to become an admin - and we do need more active admins - then consensus seems to require a well-rounded editor, experienced with... well... everything. So, yes, start with counter-vandalism. But, while you're at it, get involved in some WP:RFCs (only offer an opinion if it's well thought through - you don't want to look like a dill, especially as everything you've ever done is offered as evidence at an adminship application), and... actually, I think others have covered The Steps To Becoming An Admin. Let's see...

User:Pigman/Musings_on_Adminship

Graph showing the Cumulative distribution function of days of editing prior to adminship for users admined since Dec 2004.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards - the criteria which various users think you should meet for adminship

User:Porchcrop/Getting_adminship A step-by-step process to getting adminship, which basically says you need to have a depth of experience in everything.

And as a personal guess, I think getting involved in mediating some conflicts - being an independent, disinterested party who can successfully bring a resolution to a disagreement just through talking with those involved, and getting them to understand the views of the other side - will help greatly, showing you to be a consensus builder.

In summary: vandal fighting good. You need to show that you haven't got a hair trigger. If you really want adminship (and seriously, you've got to be mad - who wants to schlep around cleaning up other's feces?), you need to do other stuff too. Josh Parris 06:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't usually do these but I stumbled on yours and just a quick peek - I wanted to give you some advice. You have ~2500 automated edits out of ~3500 total edits. That means you have ~1000 manual edits, of which ~250 are on your user page or subpage. That means you really only have 750 manual edits. A lot of RfA participants like to see around 2000+ manual edits. I recommend not using twinkle for the real easy CSD tagging and save it for the more complicated AfD tagging and that will help curb those edit counts. v/r--TParis00ap (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Dogposter

Dogposter (talk • contribs • count) I just want to see what others think about the editing I do on this site. Dogposter 21:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, do you think I would be a good admin if I get some more mainspace edits and experience? Dogposter 00:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

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

   I sometimes edit various science articles, but lately I have begun reverting vandalism more.

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 never been in any major disputes, just some vandalism to my user page that was reverted and once had a minor argument over a redundant template.

[edit] Reviews

1. I think that your vandalism work is great. Maybe some work patrolling the New pages to diversify your edits, but otherwise, you seem like a pretty good editor. By the way, watch your user page edits. I just realized they account for about 1/8 of your current edit count. *Pepperpiggle*^*Sign!* 22:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't edit userpages a lot anymore, but a while ago I edited mine quite a bit so even though I don't do that as much anymore, the edits are still in my record. I think they're fading out now. Dogposter 14:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

1. I think that the Pepperpiggle put it perfectly and also I think you would make a great admin. Spike35031 (talk)

---

[edit] Addihockey10

Addihockey10 (talk • contribs • count) I would like to be reviewed because I am thinking of nominating myself for adminship in a while (about 7,500 edits) and I would like to know what I could improve/work on before I nominate myself. --Addihockey ^(t/c) 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   Well, my main contributions have been with Huggle when I revert vandalism. On occasion I edit with AWB. Otherwise I edit with Huggle.

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?

   My user page has been vandalized many times, I wish that it wouldn't happen but I can't necessarily prevent that. I dealt with it by not giving the vandal the reaction he wanted, I didn't blab on his talk page about how it made me feel bad, I just breezily gave him a warning. I don't intend to change that, however if I discover a better way of dealing with it I will change it accordingly.

Reviews

• Sorry about the delay in getting here. I looked at a lot of good, constructive work that you have done, but I think that this [2] sums up my opinion. You explained everything concisely, and most important, pleasantly. I see a good intentioned, dedicated "Wikipedian." I don't see any lolling around in process wonkery; I don't see any evidence of anything that would prevent me from supporting you for sysop. However, what really impresses me are editors that add new content to the knowledge base, so get busy and write us all a nice article! Good luck, and feel free to post me on anything that you think we could collaborate on together. "We strive together, for the greater good." Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• You mentioned that you would go for an RfA in the near future when you have more edits. If I totally ignored your edit count, but still looking at your contributions, I would probably say (here is my rfa criteria) Weak Oppose. The reason I would say this is that, although you have very worthwhile contributions and have really helped out Wikipedia (thanks for that work doing so), the percentages of automated edits is high. I am sort of "anti-automated" and others will still oppose you just because of the automated edits. What people want in RfA, to my knowledge, is at least 3,000 manual edits to the mainspace. If you lay off of Huggle for a while, you won't have a problem passing. Otherwise, you might fail, or be extremely close. Other than that, Thanks for all of your contributions again. Regards, smithers - talk 01:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] ZooPro*

ZooPro (talk • contribs • count) Im ZooPro and am wanting this editor review so that i can decide if i would make a good admin and pass an RfA ZooPro 05:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   My primary contribs are to WikiProjects like WP:ZOO WP:ANIMALS and PORTAL:ANIMALS i am please with the fact i rated every unrated article in those wikiprojects.

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?

   Editors always cause me stress, i usually assume good faith however at times i do loose my cool, but i always say sorry, Stress mainly comes from users that are just out to cause stress like constant reverts or article vandalism.

Reviews

---

[edit] AtheWeatherman*

AtheWeatherman (talk • contribs • count) Hey everyone. I would like to request a review as I would like to see how I am getting on around the wiki, and to see if I can improve in any particular areas. Thanks for your input. AtheWeatherman 18:48, 14 November 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 to weather articles, especially drought articles, and geography (caves and glaciers in particular). I also do some CSD and AFD work, as well as some wikignoming. My best conributions have been my DYK's that I have recieved, particuarly the Drought in the UK one, as I have done this from scratch and am hoping to get a GA on it. I am also quite proud of the Dewbow article as I started that one from stratch and got the image permission too

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 was once caught in the middle of an edit war, on sikh foods, as I was editing the article at that time. I got a settlement from both, and in this I was always civil and never really got stresses, as that really is not in my nature. In IP's, I simply revert and warn, as I have had some good old personal attacks in my time. :)

Reviews

---

[edit] Eagles247

Eagles247 (talk • contribs • count) I joined this website on May 29 of 2009 after using this site for many years before for research and the like. I mainly edit NFL articles, and I am a big Philadelphia Eagles fan as you can see from my username. I would like to be reviewed, because there is always room for improvement and I am a perfectionist. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:40, 13 November 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 to National Football League articles and Philadelphia Eagles articles, as previously stated above. I have been following the Eagles and the NFL for six years now and I want to put my knowledge of the NFL to some good use. Sometimes I also edit college football players' articles, because in a few years they will become NFL players. The contributions I am most pleased with include the Northwestern Wildcats quarterback Mike Kafka article I created (which is currently being reviewed for Good Article status. I am also pleased with my contributions to every Eagles player page, as I have cleaned up all articles and helped improve them.

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?

   It seems like I have been in many disputes, but the most recent one that comes to mind is the argument over Mike Ditka. You can read about that dispute here, here and here if you click "next edit" nine times. This user caused me a lot of stress, due to his terrible spelling and grammar. I deal with stressful editors by either warning them or researching their POV to see who is correct.

Reviews

• Though there's always room for improvement, as you've said, I'd like to start off by saying that yore doing very well. To start, your edits are good. Even better is your edit summaries-- they are exactly what edit summaries should be. Even before I looked at the edits themselves, I usually knew what I was going to see; the edit summaries say what you did, and why, in a clear and concise manner. It made following your work much easier than it would have been otherwise. I can't find any incidences where you've broken policy. You seem to know the rules well, and stick to them.

On the various talk pages in which you've had conversations you are doing fine at communicating what you want to communicate. There is one minor issue I've noticed though: when your annoyed with someone, you tend to get a bit short with them. This isn't, however, something I'd worry about too much. Most of the times this happened were from conversations with editors who had already repeatedly refused to listen. Just remember that tone of voice doesn't translate well on the internet, so things may end up seeming harsher than you meant them.

Over all, your editing is great work, and I hope you'll stick around! Happy editing! Sophus Bie ^(talk) 06:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! Just for my reference, which user was I "short" with? Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I was mostly referring to here, specifically the one word answer "No." It wasn't a criticism; I was merely recalling several times recently where I myself rediscovered that people have thin skins on the internet. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 00:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, yea. I don't remember that conversation at all. But that IP just didn't understand basic NFL roster terminology even after I explained it to him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Panyd*

Panyd (talk • contribs • count) Hello! Just received some negative feedback on a large project I'm doing and was hoping an overall review would help. It'd be good to know the community's opinion on what I've been up to. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   My primary contribution has been adding infoboxes to tv articles. I'm extremely proud that I managed to get the list down from over 2,000 articles to less than 800. I've also done 'a lot' of work on AfDs and I'm happy with the way I've conducted myself in these discussions.

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 tried to get involved in a few major editing disputes. The last was for Tea Party protests. However, after making zero headway, I've had to step back. I've been involved in some disputed AfD's such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Porn for the Blind (2nd nomination). I like to think I handled myself with civility and though the outcome in the example above was not what I would've wanted I dropped the stick and backed away from the dead horse.

Reviews

---

[edit] Michaelkourlas*

Michaelkourlas (talk • contribs • count) I have been editing Wikipedia for a while with one other account (User:VBKid) and IP addresses (the one that I remember was User:72.139.74.72) but only just started really getting into it and trying to follow proper Wikipedia policy. As I approach 1200 edits, I'd just like to know how I'm doing so far. I'm thinking that one day, when I have enough experience, I might submit a RfA. Michaelkourlas (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Questions

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

   I have done quite a bit of vandalism reversion and editing random articles for grammatical mistakes. I also have contributed two new articles (Whose War Is It? (book) and Rockcliffe Parkway). I also have rewritten the Windows Product Activation article and the Sacred Music Society article (partially).

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

   I haven't had any of those problems so far, although I have talked often with people over my new bot and its approval process (User:MichaelkourlasBot).

---

[edit] Plau*

Plau (talk • contribs • count) Although I am not the most active user, I try to help out as much as I can. I know not everyone has been happy with my edits, but they were all done in good faith. - Plau (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Questions

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

   I primarily edit Anime related articles, but I also do fix minor errors hear and there.

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

   Yes, I usually try to resolve these things on the talk page, and try to compromise if I feel it's the right thing to do.

---

[edit] Netalarm*

Netalarm (talk • contribs • count) I'd like to get the community's views on my edits in order to further improve on my editing. Netalarmtalk 01:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

• This editor has behaved recklessly and rudely. I attempted to remove a long list of random trivia from an article, which had been tagged as such for nearly two years. Apparently without even bothering to look at the content of my edit or the edit summary, this editor reverted it, accusing me of "unconstructive" "vandalism", and threating to block me for it. It was not, and this kind if uncivil knee-jerk editing is a detriment to Wikipedia. Clearly he cannot be trusted with rollback privileges. - 99.24.251.105 (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Please AGF, see discussion with several users. Netalarmtalk 14:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I mostly deal with articles with a promotional tone, and do a fair amount of recent changes patrolling. I'm pleased with my contributions to the abuse response project, starting the revival of a dying project.

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

   The only problem I can think of is with User talk:NealZaslavsky, whom I reported for vandalizing after 4th warning. This user clearly does not see the point, does not assume good faith, and had a very negative tone while emailing me. Despite that, I attempted to let him see my point, only giving up after he stopped responding. I enjoy dealing with problem users and articles =D.

---

[edit] Ceranthor*

Ceranthor (talk • contribs • count) I'd like to check in with how others regard my contributions. An RfA in early spring seems to be my preference, but I'd like feedback on how I'm doing just as well! ceranthor 23:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Questions

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

   Mainly, my primary contributions are the FAs and GAs I've written. I don't like to treat them as text, but meaningful articles, this is why I focus on one corner of wikipedia-earth sciences. Volcanic eruptions and earthquakes are arguably the most devastating natural disasters, and so many articles on major events are missing from this encyclopedia. My goal is not to "bring an article to GA or FA", but to improve it so that it is more than sufficient for any reader, expert or general person, to enjoy it and understand it as well as possible. Of course, getting the articles 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake, Scattered disc, Nevado del Ruiz, and 1968 Illinois earthquake to FA are probably my favorite contributions, particularly Nevado del Ruiz. It's incredible to see what an amazing article collaboration can produce, and that article had crap prose before others came and helped me work on it. I think it's an excellent resource for the volcano, absolutely the best on the internet.

I'm also quite proud of my contributions at WP:QUAKE and WP:SOLAR, two projects which I coordinate. I think my work around them has enhanced others' experience while being involved with work concerning these projects.

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?

   In all honesty, I'm no good at resolving drama disputes, I'm only good at giving advice to both sides and hoping they'll listen. I always strive to be level-headed, even more-so when attacked, and try my best to be completely impartial when necessary. I think that drama is you know, fun and all, but completely stupid when it comes to the internet. *joke*After all, for those drama pushers, when you annoy your worst enemy beyond no return, who is there to oppose?*joke*

---