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 Micwa* 4.2 Pattav2* 4.3 The Arbiter 4.4 Aaroncrick* 4.5 Jujutacular 4.6 Razorflame 4.7 Malpass93* 4.8 J04n 4.9 Ks0stm 4.10 Nimbusania 4.11 WWE Socks* 4.12 Btilm* 4.13 Backbeatlistener 4.14 Barek* 4.15 Michaelkourlas* 4.16 Irbisgreif 4.17 Accdude92 4.18 Phantomsteve 4.19 Plau* 4.20 Netalarm* 4.21 Coldplay Expert 4.22 Spongefrog 4.23 Peachypoh 4.24 User:Hmrox 4.25 Ceranthor* 4.26 Dylan620 4.27 Click23* 4.28 Aditya* 4.29 OrangeDog* 4.30 Rockstone35* 4.31 GaelenS.* 4.32 Jprw* 4.33 Unionhawk* 4.34 Keystoneridin 4.35 Rsrikanth05 4.36 Marx01 4.37 Tyw7 4.38 Parker1297 4.39 trakesht

[edit] Current requests

[edit] Micwa*

Micwa (talk • contribs • count) My name is Mike, and I have just started editing Wikipedia in early October of this year. I have learned quite a bit, and am still learning. I have made little over 700 edits. I would liked to be reviewed to let me know how I'm doing, and what I need to be doing to improve. Thanks. Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 20:21, 9 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 with actor and film pages. I enjoy creating, updating, and improving actor's Filmography tables (and regular cleanup to their pages). I have also improve Lead sections on articles that I like (and other parts of the articles), revert vandalism, clean up, and tag. I don't feel experienced enough to create articles yet. I'm the type that will try and fix something, before slapping an article with tags.

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?

   Actually, yes, when I first started editing Wikiepdia (a month ago). The article was Wildblue (it's since been moved to ViaSat's page) -- I thought I could improve and expand the article without learning Wikipedia's policy. I worked on it for a few days, and then a user came and reverted it all back (see here what it looked like after I was done. To be blunt and honest, I was highly pissed. Since how it was written, they thought I worked for the company. I was pretty rude to them, and even threaten to leave Wikipedia. Obviously that didn't happen, and I soon realized my fault and apologized and worked on consensus of what to do with that article. All of this is (sadly) documented and you see it in my contribs (I'm ashamed to even link to it here). After that, I have read up on a lot of Wikipedia policies and have done my best to follow them. Though, there are times where I still don't understand something and make a mistake -- so far others have been nice to let me know on my talk page. I have also had a few images deleted for copyright (again my fault for not reading the policy). I have now understood that only Creative Commons images (of people) are required -- no matter what.

Reviews

---

[edit] Pattav2*

Pattav2 (talk • contribs • count) My name is Patrick Harding, I am currently a secondary school student in the Australian Army Cadets, in my spare time I edit wikipedia. I would like to be reviewed so I can see what I can do to become an admin one day. Pattav2 (talk) 04:58, 8 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 would mainly be to many motorsport articles. I also do edit the odd cricket or Australian rules football article. I also try and expand on stub pages of those categories I primarily edit.

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 is rare that I encounter edit conflicts. Sometimes I just accept what they have said as sometimes I realise I was wrong. I do not argue about it nor cause harm to the person that has corrected me.

Reviews

---

[edit] The Arbiter

The Arbiter (talk • contribs • count) I enjoy editing Wikipedia. I collaborate on various things, and especially enjoy reverting vandalism. The rollback feature is nice. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 23:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   Primarily, I use the recent changes list and other things to revert vandalism. However, I also sometimes add information into articles. I like my edit to the American Civil War about the Dred Scott decision. I also added Tim Wilson's new album to his page.

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

   As of now, I have not. I have observed some, but not been in any. Hopefully, it will stay that way. If it ever happens, I will treat the other user with respect and try to reach an agreement.

Reviews

Review by Intelligentsium:

You seem to be doing pretty well so far; a look at your contributions show no major blunders. Your anti-vandalism work is very good, and you seem to know the difference between vandalism and non-vandalism, and you warn/message accordingly. I appreciate your efforts to save articles from deletion, as evidenced by your edits to Windows Police Pro. Your new username seems a bit risky, as "Arbiter" could too easily be misread or misinterpreted as "Arbitrator", but as a 'crat thought it was OK, I have no real issue with it. You might want to do some more mainspace work; only about 11% of your edits, as far as I can see, are to the article namespace, while over 36% are to your userpage. I have some concerns about this edit to Talk:Taylor Swift; as I have stated there, talk pages should not be used for general discussion, posting of userboxen, etc., as they are not forums or MySpace, but places to discuss improvements to articles. Your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Police Pro seems to show that you do not understand what should and should not be included in Wikipedia. A few of your talk page comments seem unconstructive or demonstrate a lack of understanding of talk page guidelines, especially this (use the RD/MISC) and the one linked above. My suggestion is, keep up what you're doing well (article rescue, vandalism reversion, and the like), and try to do more mainspacing. Keep up the good work! Intelligentsium 00:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I answered this on Intelligentsium's talk page. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 01:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Aaroncrick*

Aaroncrick (talk • contribs • count) I'm Tasmania's only current substantial editor on English Wikipedia and I'm requesting a review from peers to help me improve as an editor. Many articles I edit, are ones few have much interest in. I would like to be become an admin within a year or so, but first I think it's important I improve my writing skills and get involved in more admin related areas of Wikipedia. Thankyou. Aaroncrick (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I started off contributing mainly to Tasmanian related articles; however, I now mainly contribute to cricket articles and occasionally dabble with Australian rules football arts. The article I have spent the most time on would have to be York Park, Launceston, Tasmania (when I was very inexperienced and did not have much clue} and Ricky Ponting (all Launceston based topics).

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?

   Luckily I haven't really ever been in any serious editing disputes I can remember. Yeah, maybe the odd anon vandal, but everything has been dealt with swiftly - nothing major. I'm not one to get stressed over issues on wikipedia as I'm usually a carm individual and I stear clear of religious/nationalist debates.

Reviews

---

[edit] Jujutacular

Jujutacular (talk • contribs • count) I've been editing for nearly four months. I would like some constructive criticism to see how I can improve. Jujutacular ^T · C 06:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   For maintenance work, I am most active at WP:AFD, WP:NPP, and WP:DPL. My content contributions can be found on my userpage. I helped promote List of counties in Missouri to become a featured list. I have several DYK's. I am also proud of my recordings for classical guitar – some of which have earned featured sound status. As sort of the antithesis of this question, my least pleasing contributions to Wikipedia can be found at User:Jujutacular/Mistakes.

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

   I can't say I've been involved in any serious editing disputes. Any disagreements I've had with other editors have been resolved fairly peacefully. I will work to continue to deal with disagreements peacefully and thoughtfully in the future.

Reviews You are a remarkably proficient editor for someone with only four months of experience. I am particularly impressed by the diversity of edits that you made on your first day of editing. Did you have an account before this one? I only ask because you have the RfA tally in the 'community areas' of your user page, so I assume you have aspirations of getting the mop, and if you get nominated it will be asked.

As for your editing it is very good. Your reasoning at AfD is appropriate and you don't get into pissing contests. You may want to increase the frequency of your !votes, of late you have been doing a lot more sorting than !voting. You also may want to try to contribute to the articles that you !vote on a bit, if they didn't need improving they probably wouldn't have been nominated.

Disambiguate away, I think us disambiguators are the red-headed stepchildren in wikipedia so we have to stick together!

I love that you keep a list of your mistakes, there is no substitute for humility to keep us on the right track. CSD's are tough but it's vital that you are fastidious especially if you want the mop!

Impressed with the sound clips, I didn't even realize folks contributed sound to Wikipedia.

As a new page patroller you are often the first bit of feedback that Newbies receive. I don't think you are too bitey but I think that you could be a little friendlier and make it clear that you are available to help them out. You evenespouse this on your userpage but your messages (User talk:M-rawr26479, User talk:Dacollier) are kind of cold and impersonal IMO.

Lastly, if you are put up for adminship and you want to see how NOT to respond to questions read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/J04n.

Best of luck to you and I'll see you around. J04n(talk page) 03:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Razorflame

Razorflame (talk • contribs • count) Hello there. I would like a review on how I am doing here. Thank you. Razorflame 20:10, 29 October 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 the English Wikipedia are my many vandalism reverts. That is the only thing that I am good at at this point in time, and the only thing that I have time to do right now.

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

   I still have not had any major issues or problems between me and/or any other user on this site besides the few IP addresses that have had questions of me in the past, and I believe that I resolved their questions fairly quickly and civilly.

Reviews

Just a comment on the aesthetics: The color scheme is pretty extreme. I get the impression it's as vibrant as your personality. That can be quite an asset but it's important to remember that the vast majority of people in the world are more subdued. Unless they're color blind, bright red/dark green/sea blue/canary yellow on lime green on teal is likely to strike most as gawdy.

That being said, the actual info is well arranged. Ordered and concise. Simple, yet elegant. I really like it. Two minor arrangement suggestions you might could tinker with:

1. See how the page looks with the Userboxes stretching 4-wide. I think the reduction in whitespace (or in this case, greenspace) would add to the aforementioned strength of the page's arrangement. Although you'll have to check that under various screen settings - while it may not work so well at 800x600, I believe the majority of people view pages at 1024x768 or greater (full-disclosure - I'm viewing it at 1280x960).
2. In the contributions box, the repeat of 'Made the article' 39 times homogenizes the list, greatly diminishing the scope of your contributions. Similarly, you might see how it looks without the country listed with every city (ie. Olari instead of Olari, Arad). Perhaps you could make that section into a 2 column table (again reducing whitespace) - with the first column heading 'Made the Article' and the second 'Contributed to Article' (or 'Article Contributions' or some such)

Additionally, I don't think it would hurt for you to compile the data (or its highlights) on your stats page and display it in a table in your Contributions section. It's interesting (and impressive) info that will make the page more robust.
I know how useful another perspective can be, so I just thought I'd give you some input to chew on. You are, of course, free to disregard any or all of my suggestions. Either way, good luck and have fun!
-K10wnsta (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm appending this because I didn't have time to elaborate on my summary earlier (although it was the crux of what I intended to write). I got a bit sidetracked in offering input on how you could better display your contributions. Why? Because they're impressive. You've applied yourself to so many things across the various wikimmunities - I had to do a good deal of clicking from your page to see the scope of it (and every time I went back to your user page, I about had a seizure from the colors :) ). It looks like you've involved yourself in a little bit of everything. I'm glad I had the opportunity to see your effort.
-K10wnsta (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Malpass93*

Malpass93 (talk • contribs • count) Hi, I'm Malpass93, and I have been a Wikipedian since the 3rd of August 2007. Over two years - and over 5.9 thousand edits - later, I would like an editor review to see whether I have progressed to gain the credentials required for an RfA or RfB application. Malpass93 (talk) 19:16, 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 usually edit articles relating to; a) association football and various other sports, b) UK television, c) Disney and Universal theme parks and d) video games, particularly Sega ones. I also like to sort out fair-use rationales with regard to images.

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?

   None that I can remember off the top of my head

---

[edit] J04n

J04n (talk • contribs • count) Hello. I am looking for constructive feedback because I believe that feedback is essential to improving ones skills. This will be my second review and I am really looking for some more constructive criticism than I received the first time around. Since my first review I have become more active at WP:AfD, PLEASE comment on my assessments there. J04n(talk page) 15:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Review by Jujutacular (talk · contribs)

• Awesome disambiguation work! I'm minorly involved at WP:DPL, and I always see you up on that leaderboard :). Anyway, I am also involved at WP:AFD and so I will comment on your work there. In general, your !votes seem well thought-out. You frequently cite policy in your arguments, and avoid things like "just not notable". It's also good to see you are able to acknowledge when another's opinion is better. In short, you seem quite clueful. Even in places where the closing admin disagreed with you, I have to say you made a good argument. Personally, to me a good editor at AfD is not someone who agrees with me all the time, but someone who debates effectively. You certainly do that. I really couldn't find any complaints against you. Keep up the good work. Jujutacular ^T · C 06:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Review by Epeefleche (talk · contribs)

• Only encountered you and your work recently (at AfD). But you're one of the best. Attitude is great, helpfulness superb, list articles on AfD lists so others w/interest can see them which is great (wouldn't you think there would be a way to automate that?), look for sources, add sources. What's not to like?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I have about 500 pages on my watch list. I try to maintain the quality of those pages, make sure that everything is properly referenced and follows MOS. I do a lot of disambiguating, and as mentioned I'm becoming more active at Afd.

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

   Not really, I answered this question on my first review. That example is the closest thing. I think I have good relationships with other wikipedians, I try to bring things up on talk pages.

---

[edit] Ks0stm

Ks0stm (talk • contribs • count) I'm looking for feedback on how I'm doing and how I can improve as I near my goals of first admin coaching, then adminship. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

About me and my contributions:

Ks0stm (talk • message • contribs • global contribs • deleted contribs  • page moves  • user creation • block user  • block log • count • total • logs • summary • email | lu •  rfa  • rfb  • arb  • rfc  • lta  • checkuser  • spi  • socks | rfar • rfc • rfcu • ssp • search an, ani, cn, an3 | current rights • rights log (local) • rights log (global/meta) | rights • renames • bots • blocks • protects • deletions • rollback • admin • logs | UHx • UtHx • UtE)

Reviews

Good job tagging pages for quick deletion so far! Your other edits appear fine, although if you want to be an administrator, you might want to do some more work in Requests for deletion XfDs, or other forms of that, as well as some vandalism reverting. The more areas you work in that administrators also work in, the better it looks for a potential future administrator, in my honest opinion. Cheers, Razorflame 22:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   As with my last review, mostly work on WP:METEO and WP:Kansas related articles, although I have started getting into more vandalism fighting and new page patrolling. As with before, I am pleased with my contributions as a whole, but the ones that I'm particularly pleased about are my contributions to severe weather related articles.

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

   I still have not encountered what I would call a major dispute, although the goings on at quiz bowl and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quizbowl were close. I dealt with that situation, which appeared to have a tad of sockpuppeting involved, by consulting with other editors and keeping my cool. If such disputes/situations arise in the future, I will deal with them by consulting with other editors and fufilling my role as an eagle scout.

---

[edit] Nimbusania

Nimbusania (talk • contribs • count) Hi, this is my second review. I am looking to get some suggestions and recommendations of things I can do to improve. Any positive or negative feedback would be very helpful to me. Thanks, Nimbusania talk 03:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

• I was looking at your contribs, and you user-page, and you seem to be an amazingly well rounded editor. As you have said, you have not had any disputes, but what you said about not communicating might be an issue later on. Although I'm sure you would communicate when necessary, I also find it good to talk to other users whenever. I hand out awards, talk about both articles and userpages, and occasionally just talk. I have not been as active as usual due to RL, but I still would start communicating more with editors (to where you find yourself a pretty well know person in your view). Not essential, but I find it fun, stress-relieving, and additive to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, sometimes keeps sanity when you need to just take a break. Either way you're still a well-rounded editor. Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 03:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   The types of things that make up most of my edit count include: anti-vandalism activities, spell checks, fixing badly translated articles, some photos and a couple of maps and just general clean-up. I don't have any particular edits of which I am particularly proud, as I am still in the stage of finding a particular area of Wikipedia to focus on.

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

   I don't communicate much with other users, so I'm certain that I have never had any disputes with other editors, both anonymous and user.

---

[edit] WWE Socks*

WWE Socks (talk • contribs • count) I would like to put myself forward for consideration as an Administrator on the English Wikipedia, in order to allow me to contribute to the project in the extra ways the admin tools allow. I would like to be reviewed for this. I've been a member since September 10 2006 under Socks 01 and then WWE Socks since December 2007. WWE Socks 23:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

It seems that you removed relevant, properly sourced information from Wikipedia's page on Bobby Knight.

That was an accident. I just started using the Anti-vandal tool and sucked at using it. I mistakenly clicked the rollback button which reverted non-vandalism. I now understand how I need to be more careful and will not make another mistake like this again. Sorry all. WWE Socks 08:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I believe I've made contributions that have positively added to the project. Most of my edits are in the article namespace.

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

   I have never been in a serious conflict before. That doesn't mean I haven't had disagreements, but I've resolved them by talking it out.

3. Do you feel that pages can be moved without a discussion to form consensus, and do you feel that WP:BOLD overrides such a requirement? ArcAngel (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

   I believe that WP:BOLD does override this requirement. And if someone does disagree with the move then the page is moved back and discussion should be formed. WWE Socks 00:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Btilm*

Btilm (talk • contribs • count) Hello. I have 4000+ edits and want to be reviewed. I use AutoWikiBrowser and Huggle a lot.  Btilm  18:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC) updated  Btilm  04:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Questions

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

   I would have to say my best contributions to Wikipedia would be just using AutoWikiBrowser to clean up and tag articles.

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

   Well...there was this one time when an IP user was using the {{helpme}} tag inappropriately. (S)he kept saying disruptive things. I started reverting his/her edits. After 2-3 reverts I started undo them so I could tell him/her to stop undoing my reverts. I reported this user to an administrator, and after 5-10 minutes of undoing edits, they were finally blocked from editing. I would of done the same thing if it happened right now.

---

[edit] Backbeatlistener

Backbeatlistener (talk • contribs • count) Even though I have been registered on this site for about 3 years, my contributions to Wikipedia have been somewhat scarce. I occasionally do some decent work, and would generally like to know if I am being as helpful as I could be. Backbeatlistener (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Hi Backbeatlistener! Just remember an old clichéd phrase: Quality, not quantity. Make sure every edit you do contributes toward the good of Wikipedia and it's standards, and before you know it, your edit count will visibly increase... Nevertheless, you are keen to help out on Wikipedia and that's what matters.

Your contributions show a passion for Ireland-related articles, but also variety of other interests, which is particularly good for an user with less than 100 edits.

It's always good to show contributions in different areas of Wikipedia, not just the article namespace. Collaboration and association with other users is important and good communication skills (also spelling and grammatical correct-ness) show other users that you are reliable, trustworthy and can relate well. Also, remember the small things when editing: including spelling, grammar, references when necessary and edit summaries. I hope you decide to stay with Wikipedia, because I believe you have what it takes to be a top-quality editor.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask on my talk page and I will respond as soon as possible, but remember that trusted administrators are plentiful on WP and are usually good at solving difficult problems. All the best. - Nimbusania talk 04:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I did some decent work on a Fair City character list, and lately did some work against vandalism. I know these are small contributions compared to the other users here, but I would just like to know if I'm doing it sort of "right". 1

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

   No not particularly. On one of my first edits I made an un-sourced contribution, but this was deleted immediately and I think I have learned alot since then. 2

---

[edit] Barek*

Barek (talk • contribs • count) I have roughly 20,000 edits (not using any scripts) and have had a Wikipedia account for over three years, being active in the community for around two years. I was recently asked on my talk page if I would consider accepting an RfA nomination. I'm honored by the suggestion, but have declined for now as I want to work on getting some DYK/FA/GA's under my belt before going through that process. While working on that, I wanted to request a WP:ER to see what input I might receive on other areas of my editing behavior that I should work on improving, or areas where the community feels I may currently be lacking. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Questions

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

   My primary behavior on Wikipedia is as a WikiGnome, as well as several maintenance areas of Wikipedia such as WP:COIN, WP:ANI, WP:AIV, and WP:WPSPAM. My primary article work is in the area of making incremental small improvements to a large number of articles. I do have articles which I've started and/or collaborated on, some of these are Marquette Harbor Light, Vista class cruise ship, and Lewis lamp. I've also worked on a handful of templates and uploaded several images (both here and on Commons) that are in use on Wikipedia articles.

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

   I have been in editing disputes periodically - I would be surprised if someone with my number of edits hadn't been in at least one. The first time it happened, I found it stressful as real-world stress was building up at the same time - I dealt with it by backing away from the wiki for a while and letting the community work out everything on its own. Since then, I haven't fealt very stressed by disputes. The disputes are on the content and not something I take personally. If someone tries to make it personal, I generally ignore it or take it to WP:NPA if it escalates to that level. I archive my talk page discussions, so it's pretty easy to review my past interactions with other editors.

---

[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 800 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 a bit of vandalism reversion and editing random articles for grammatical mistakes. However, there are two articles that I am most proud of: the Windows Product Activation article and the Sacred Music Society article. I have throughly rewritten the first and partially rewritten the second. I'm proud of them simply because I fixed them and helped make the encyclopedia better.

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, but I am concerned about one or two things. Because I'm relatively new, sometimes I've made mistakes. I don't know everything about the Twinkle feature and sometimes have marked things as vandalism when they are actually not (I reverted my changes, of course). Sometimes I jump too quickly into things, like wanting to merge the Mozilla Firefox article with the Mozilla Firefox 3 article without realizing the fact that every major version has its own page and that this is normal. In the future, I suppose I'll think twice before editing to stop these mistakes from happening.

---

[edit] Irbisgreif

Irbisgreif (talk • contribs • count) I intend to, barring unforeseen circumstances, go for an RfA sometime towards the end of the year. I would like to know what else I need to learn and/or work on before that time. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

• I've only seen great work from you so far. This isn't going to be much of a review, but I think you're well on your way to becoming a sysop. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Your edits look good. A bit more focus on ConstEdits. See my user page. Thanks for making yourself available. We need good Admins.- Ret.Prof (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC) PS Good answer.
• Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I would be interested to hear more about your former vandalism...you have a userbox self-identifying as a reformed vandal, and a few months back you had one expressing that you still had to fight temptations to vandalize. If you address this clearly and thoroughly, I would not expect any negative effect on your chances of passing. Keepscases (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I intend to work in two areas, and have generally concentrated on them. A - Patrolling new pages, patrolling random pages, and reverting vandalism. B - Dispute resolution, such as mediation and 3rd Opinions. I am most pleased about beginning work with MedCab and starting a political dispute resolution project. WP:PSRP

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 made this account after an editing dispute, and I end up in discussions at AfD and related issues all the time. I believe that the best way to deal with issues is to seek neutral ground, get to the root of the dispute, then offer to compromise in such a way that the encyclopædia benefits.

3. One of the challenges that face us at Wikipedia is that many of our most gifted Editors are sensitive sometimes even temperamental. After they get stepped on or kicked around a bit they get discouraged. This is a quote from one such user:

   When a person goes through the time and effort to write an article or to research sources or whatever, he or she is going to have some emotional attachment to it. That's natural. Personally, I like it when someone takes an article and improves it and expands it. But if there's a danger of the hatchet coming down in the form of aggressive deletion monkeys, then why should I put my time and mental equanimity on the line? I'm a professional writer and editor. I get paid to do this stuff. I'm less willing to write and edit articles on a voluntary basis when those contributions aren't welcome. -- Acsenray

   How would you deal with the aforementioned concerns?

   Their emotional attachment is natural and fine. If, however, they are worried about the deletion of the article and feel less inclined to contribute as a result, then I would remind them professional to professional, that not every word survives the cutting room floor. When I am editing a book, sometimes I have no choice but to go to the author and say “this part had to go” or “this section needs more work before it is ready”. In a perpetual project like Wikipedia, editors and writers should remember that sometimes, things are going to be deleted. This isn't a bad thing and it's all for the benefit of the encyclopædia. This reminder is also good for those who haven't had professional editing and writing experiences.

   It is worth noting, however, that sometimes things that are deleted were deleted for more severe reasons, such as violating BLP or pushing a POV. Those editors should reconsider if they really wanted to write an encyclopædia. There are other ways out there for someone to write what they feel, an encyclopædia needs to give “just the facts”. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 01:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Accdude92

Accdude92 (talk • contribs • count) I want to be reviewed so that someday I can hopefully pass my RFA. Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 13:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Questions

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

   my primary contributions are as a member of the welcoming committee.

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

   I have not yet been in any editing disputes.

---

[edit] Phantomsteve

Phantomsteve (talk • contribs • count) I have been using Wikipedia for about 4 years now, but have been more active recently. I am looking for ideas on how to improve as an editor! I know I'm miles off applying for admin, but I believe life is all about improving yourself, and learning! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

I really mean it when I say I think you are almost a "model" Wikipedian. You're always thoroughly and helpfully answering questions on the help desk, and even on your own talkpage! You seem to have a knack for being able to easily explain the most complicated policies and guidelines to new users; in addition, you are direct: you tell the user what is wrong with their article or image and how to fix it without adding any "filler" or unnecessary reading. You're also always friendly; I've never seen you in a bad mood, or run across a discussion where you've made an uncivil comment. Also, I like how you edit Wikipedia with the goal of improving the project, and, as you say, "improving yourself" through learning, not with the goal of high edit counts or getting the mop.

I am particularly impressed with the quite rational response to the second question. Editors that a) have the ability to step away and take a break when something in their life causes them stress and b) do not let disputes affect them off-wiki (if they get into any disputes to begin with!) are probably Wikipedia's best and most-valuable editors. There is an imaginary line between WikiWorld and the real world, and those who keep each thing on its side of the line will end up being the happiest and most successful in both.

I'm beginning to ramble on, so I'd better wrap up. I would like to see you get the mop someday. I think it's great that you are genuinely interested in improving any and every article you come across. Wikipedia needs more editors like you! Xenon54 / talk / 20:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I tend to do bits and bobs! I like to answer questions on the Help Desk, and recently I have been doing a little bit of vandalism patrol. I like to find citations for article (which I come across randomly, through looking at Category:Articles lacking sources or Category:Articles lacking in-text citations), or sometimes I'll come across an article that looks interesting through HD questions. Recently, I have started looking through the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion looking for articles mistakenly labelled for SD when they don't meet the criteria, or changing the SD tag to a more appropriate one. The only major contribution I've made article-wise is the William Stanley (Victorian inventor) article, which I researched and wrote up - and am looking to improve.

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 not really had editing disputes. Differences of opinions, of course, we all have those - but not really disputes. I don't tend to get stressed with other editors here - after all, I don't know them off-wiki, they don't know me, and it's not worth getting stressed about. If the situation arose where I was getting stressed, I'd just take a few hours/days/weeks away from Wikipedia - it is possible, from the rumours I've heard!

---

[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] Coldplay Expert

Coldplay Expert (talk • contribs • count) I'm called Coldplay Expert or CE/Coldplay for short. I started wikipedia in late July of 2009, and became instantly addicted to the site. I attempted to recive rollback a few days ago and it failed due to a previous block. (I just got rollback yesterday) Um..I am also A deticated vandal fighter and I have also made about 6 articles. I am whay I consider myself a semi-n00b since I know what im doing (sorta). One more thing. I dont know when this editor review thing ends. Is it like 7 days or so. (Im soo ignorant but I can also be very smart too)--Coldplay Expert 22:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

• You keep adding Spiderwebs and Panic to the unreleased Coldplay section. They're not, their names got changed to Don't Panic and Trouble.

• Hi. While you're a relatively new user, your contributions have started to become pretty good. There's a bit controversy about all the socking accusations, but I think you've been cleared of that now, since it wasn't really you. And it'll pass. After your "experiences" with the hidden page deletions, I think you've become more reasonable and familiar with policy. As A Little Insignificant said, introducing your friends to Wikipedia, defending them when they make mistakes, and helping them to contribute better is afterwards, more than most people can say. And by declaring you were no longer going to violate WP:MYSPACE, you set a good example to them too, one which they've followed. Your interest in helping the project (the vandal-fighting stuff) shows you're on the right track, so keep doing what you're doing for a while, you're on the right track, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias) 19:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Humph! I come here late to find an evil frog has stolen my input from me! :( Ah well, anyway I can only repeat what I've said. You've learned a lot quickly on Wikipedia. I'm especially impressed with your ability to improve from your mistakes, and you're definitely headed in the right direction. Also, per Spongefrog (ha!) you seem to have become a role model for your friends on Wikipedia, who have also improved a lot since they started. I'm impressed. Nice job! A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 16:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• 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, this editor reverted it in 1 minute, accusing me of "unconstructive" "vandalism". 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) 01:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry about that, you see I just started to use Huggle like 5 seconds before that edit so I accidentally reverted your edit and warned you. It was a mistake sorry :)--Coldplay Expert 02:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• I can really only echo what Spongefrog and A little insignificant (or is it Shady Leprechaun? ;)) have said. While relatively new, you have learned rather quickly. You have a tendency to use talk pages for chatting, but after having been told that, you've improved a bit. Out of 2362 edits, only 497 (21.04%) are automated, which is good. I'm a bit concerned that 43.53% of your edits are to user talk pages, but as I said earlier, you're improving in that regard. Your edit summary usage for major edits is only 76%, so I'd like you to be more diligent about using edit summaries. There's an option in your preferences to force an edit summary, might be something you'd like to turn on. :) Best, –Katerenka ^☆ 06:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• all right, time for my 2 cents. first off I beleave that your a great contributer to the encyclopedia. You do a great job in the area of vandal fighting. You also made some good articals, and many useful edits to others. I know that you want to be a admen some day (so do I, but I got a loooong way to go) so I suggest that you branch out into other areas of wikipedia, like MFD's. I really can't say anything bad about you, you even tought me how to use wikipedia, and got me out of a few jams (did I mention how thankful I am). All in all, I think that you are a good addition to the Wikipedian team, and you are an all around good guy. regards--Orangesodakid 22:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Can you try to use a spellchecker before you save a message? You just have too many spelling mistakes. -- Mentifisto 23:45, 25 October 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 are reverting vandalism and creating coldplay/Alaska/Ghost town related articles. (yeah I know its a wierd combination) I am very pleased with three of the articles that I created, Latin America Tour, Strawberry Swing and Mohave, Arizona.

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

   Yes I have been in conflicts in the past such as MFD's for secret pages and other minor stuff. I will deal with it in the future by following WP:SNOW and also taking other editors opinions into account more that I do now.

1. Could you elaborate on situation that led to the block you received on 18 September for "Abusing multiple accounts or IPs"? Question from Katerenka (talk · contribs)

I would love to. (You have got to remember though that I was a very new person when this happened and if it were to occur again, I would go about things diffrently) Well it all started when my good friend (in real life) User:Orangesodakid got one of his MFD's up for deletion. While I was off line he made a WP:SOCK called User:Gurrenlaggan and vented his anger ar the MFD. Gurrenlaggan was blocked and the IP address of OSK was too. Thinking that he himself was blocked, OSK called me and told me he was blocked, (without telling me about Gurrenlaggan) So he gave me his password (Now I know that illegal) and told me to get on OSK. He then had to get for who personal reasons. I got on OSK and found out that it was not blocked. Rather it was his IP address that was. I then found the post by Gurrenlaggan. (Trust me I was very mad, haveing told him directly not to do that) I then tried to get on Gurrenlaggan (thinking that was the way to help him out) and asked for an unblock. Well MY IP address then got blocked. So I went to OSK's talk page and asked for someone to unblock my IP address. (while stateing it was really me who was on as OSK) Then an admin came along and thought that OSK was the puppetmaster of both Coldpaly Expert and Gurrenlaggan and directly blocked me and OSK. (by then I am thinking what the heck is going on?) Because of this whole feasco that was created by OSK, people have had doubts about me, first by thinking I was a sock of OSK then of Guitarherochristopher. In fact none of this was my fault and I was only trying to help a friend in need to the best of my noobish capabilities. I hope that this was sufficient to answer any and all questions about this. (Im tired of repeating ALL of this to eveyone who askes). Cheers.--Coldplay Expert 22:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Spongefrog

Spongefrog (talk • contribs • count) I'm called Spongefrog. I made an account in early February of this year, and became gradually more and more active over the following weeks. I got rollback rights a few weeks ago. Oh, and I don't normally act as immature as my userpage makes me appear, I swear. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 17:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

• Your awsome!!! Thanks for helping me out when I was in hot water!--Coldplay Expert 18:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• You're a funny person, who can always be counted upon to give a few laughs - and that's saying something. Plus you do a lot of productive work as well. I think we need more users like you; People who keep us hooked to WP. Who says encyclopaedia's are boring ? Not while you're around !! Keep up the good work, you may soon graduate to the status of being a role model ! Rkr1991 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 19:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• you're a cool dude (frog, robot, czar, thing). you are simply amazing(I guess?) bravo, my main man (frog, robot, czar, thing) bravo. regards--Orangesodakid 18:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  No offense, but this isn't a section for pure compliments. Your supposed to review the editor, in this case Spongefrog.Abce2|This isnot a test 23:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  Hehe, yeah, I sort of have to semi-agree with Abce2 here. Not that I don't like compliments or anything. I feel bad now, sorry, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias) 09:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Here is the funny guy who thinks he is the Czar of all Russias. You are amazing! December21st2012Freak ^chat 23:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Alright then, let me back up my comments, I belive LSP is amazing becasue he has helped me out with several problems in the past as well as being very friendly to newcommers like me (am I still a newcomer?)--Coldplay Expert 18:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Guys, you are still missing the point. What you are supposed to do on Editor Review is look at Spongefrog's edits and then give him constructive suggestions on how he can improve them. Things like "you need to leave edit summaries" or "you need to provide sources for your edits". I am not saying Spongefrog is not doing those things, those are just examples, I have not actually reviewed his edits. SpinningSpark 17:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, Abce2 and/or Spinningspark, why don't one of you set an example? Please, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Okay.Abce2|This isnot a test 18:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviewed by: Spinningspark

Your edit count shows 6,000 edits, which is not bad going for someone who has been on for less than a year. Nearly 60% is in article space and 25% is in talk space which is a good balance (well ok, a bit more talk than average but well within limits). Too little in talk space can be a sign of an editor who cannot communicate with others (I get the feeling that has never been your problem) and too much can be the sign of someone who is on Wikipedia to chat instead of building the encyclopedia. Not too much store should be set by these kind of statistics though, there are all sorts of reasons they may be skewed, high edit count can be through using automated tools, absence of talk can be a Wikignome doing something blindingly uncontroversial etc etc. Your use of edit summaries is nearly (but not quite) 100%, also a good sign.

Articles created are all very small stubs so there is not much that can be analysed there. Other mainspace edits show a good range of articles being edited, again a good sign, people here to push a POV often show interest in a very limited number of articles, sometimes just one. Your mainspace edits have a good smattering of added references, you should continue to aim for absolutely everything you write being referenced. This is good discipline and is a check preventing POV and OR unintentionally creeping in. The vast majority of your mainspace edits seem to be small incremental changes, but in some cases if you view them all together, it can amount to a quite substantial addition to the article (example) and I see you were a major contributor to Charles Widmore and got it on DYK. Nevertheless, I feel you are at the stage where you could write more substantial pieces of your own rather than just tinkering with existing articles. Maybe expand some of your stubs?

I notice that you have ambitions to be an admin (according to one of your userboxes). I think you will make a great admin, you are not yet ready for an RfA but I think you have the right stuff to be one in time. However, I need to tell you that you will have to do some big time cleanup on your user page if you are serious about that. Don't get me wrong, I like your userpage, I even liked your "shame list" (at one time I considered restoring it just so I could put the humourless jerk of an admin who deleted it onto it, but I figured you are capable of making enough trouble for yourself without my help) and it will be sad if all that changes. However, you need to consider the impression you are creating for someone coming to your page asking for your help as an admin, or more likely, with a complaint. Is your page telling them they will get a fair hearing from you?, is it saying you will carefully and properly consider what they have to say? will they believe you are an experienced editor who understands what he is doing? It is no use saying that you will change it if you become an admin. If you want to be an admin you need to start acting like one now. I was lucky enough to have an excellent admin coach when I got the mop. I can't do better than repeat his advice; if you act like an admin, in a sense you are one already and giving you the tools becomes no big deal, if you are not acting like an admin, people will not believe you can do it and will be reluctant to make you one. That's not to say you should deliberately deceive people, just that you should always think "how would I handle this if I were an admin" and then go do the thing you just thought of.

One small point. I don't care too much for the row of barnstar symbols on the top of your userpage. This is the place many editors use for FAC stars. The barnstars can easily be mistaken for FAC stars at a casual glance and some people (but not including me) might think you are being deceptive. SpinningSpark 15:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you covered it.Abce2|This isnot a test 22:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   To begin with, I did Wikignoming almost exclusively, but have done some article writing and recently branched out into vandal fighting. I've done two GAs, both in collaboration with Drilnoth (talk · contribs) (although Drilnoth did most of the work to the first one). I do some WP:AfD work too. Very little experience at ANI, although I did help out Coldplay Expert (talk · contribs) on Monday, after he was about to get blocked

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

   No disputes really, but I had a couple of warnings early on in my Wikilife, mostly for an obsession with getting Barnstars (I had a list with all the people who had seen my userpage and not given me any). I think I apologised prolificaly, and I've more or less been forgiven. Oh, and I was once blocked. All I can really say for myself is that it was a variation on WP:BROTHER. That would explain most of it. Think that's all.

Additional Question from --Coldplay Expert 18:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

1. What is your strongest and weakest positions to wikipedia?

   Umm...I'm not quite sure what you mean. Think you could clarify a bit more? Do you mean what am I best at and what am I worst at? Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes sorry about that, I must have worded that wrong.--Coldplay Expert 23:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really best at anything in particular. I'm just okay at most stuff. Oh wait, I'm good at typing out citewebs. I didn't use to be, but now I am. And I'm quite good at dealing with high amounts of vandalism in a short amount of time. To the same article I mean. I used to be horribly uncivil, insulting vandals etc. under the radar, but I'm not any more. So my worst thing is probably making decisions. Sometimes in an awkward situation, I'll panic, or not understand policy, and run off to an admin for help, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 08:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No, no, ignore everything above. Well, actually don't that's overreacting. I have almost no knowledge on uploading images or how to manage them and that sort of stuff, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Peachypoh

Peachypoh (talk • contribs • count) I've been editing Wikipedia for about 2 [not 3 - sorry, memory fails] years now, but have not received any feedback on my talk page. I'd like to know what others think of my editing. Peachypoh (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

1. Hello. You haven't been in any conflicts or anything, or been blocked, so that's a plus. Despite being here for two years+, however, you only have about 200 edits. Which isn't that bad really. Quite a lot when you think about it. Your edits are confined mainly to gnoming, but we need people who correct spelling, or maintain the Wiki in other ways, otherwise it would fall to pieces within days. You could benefit from a little more experience in other areas, though, perhaps some participation at WP:AfD or in WP:RfAs or something like that. If you're interested, maybe even a little vandal fighting. But if you're not interested in braching out into other areas, that's fine, ignore what I just said. Sorry for the poor quality of this review, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias) 18:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I generally correct bad grammar and spelling when I come across them. The edits which I feel partcularly pleased about are the minor spelling edit to Template:elementbox (which appeared on all the element pages and had gone unnoticed for a long time) and the rewording of Qiu Fazu, even though that was not finished.

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

   I haven't been in any editing disputes before, because my editing is mainly for S&G.

---

[edit] User:Hmrox

Hmrox (talk · contribs) I want to help out this encyclopedia by doing something other than just constantly reverting vandalism all the time. It would be nice to be recognized by other editors in this community. As such, I would eventually like to become an administrator one day sometime in the future. The first time I submitted an application, I was only 12 years old at the time with horrible grammar, and no throrough understanding of how Wikipedia worked. However, to become an admin one would need to be recognized as a dedicated editor to this project with significant achievements. Can someone offer me advice on how to improve my skills beside tirelessly reverting vandalism? Hmrox (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

1. Well, you're a more-or-less solid contributor when it comes to vandalism. I'm not an expert here, so forgive my possibly bad review. If your goal is to become an administrator, it would to you good to get invloved in some of the WP: prefixed work, like commenting on WP:AfDs and WP:RfAs, or some contibutions at WP:ANI or something. You don't need to be an admin there (I think), if you want to help out in discussions there you can. WP:Cleanup has some stuff you can do if you want to work on articles, but as for writing your own articles, I don't have any advice there really. You could always expand a stub somewhere. Or work on a GA/FA, maybe in collaboration with a user who is more experienced in that area. Sorry, if I've not been much help, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias) 19:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• View this user's edit count using a PHP version of Interiot's tool.

Questions

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

   The only thing worth mentioning is that I revert tons of vandalism on regular basis. If the vandalism gets out of hand, I simply report at the

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 conflicts are persistent vandals who will not stop after a final warning. I just report them if they keep causing trouble so that an admin can deal with the vandal.

3. What advantages / disadvantages do you see for an editor in the use of an automated script, such as HUGGLE or Twinkle?♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 10:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

---

[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*

---

[edit] Dylan620

Dylan620 (talk • contribs • count) *gulp* Well, here goes! I am presently a rollbacker with 10,000 edits and just over a year of experience on the project. My previous ER revealed numerous concerns about my editing, and I believe I have alleviated most or all of them:

• Content creation: At the time of my last ER, the best article I had was the B-Class Timeline of the 2001 Atlantic hurricane season. Granted I still don't have a terribly large amount of content credits, I do have one featured list (Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season), two DYK creation credits (Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season and William Thompson Lusk (another editor deserves most of the credit for that one)), and one DYK nomination credit (Hurricane Bill (2009)).
• Incivility: I wasn't always the editor I am today. If I had to pick a single edit out of the (according to popups) 10,360 I have, this would have to be the one I regret most. I admit it. I attacked Ottava unfairly, I was way out of line in doing so, and I shouldn't have done that. Ever since that April 3 '09 RfA !vote, I have worked to maintain civility and keep cool. I've even tried to cool other disputes (or at least prevent them from getting bigger), like at Talk:Same-sex marriage and at What If (Coldplay song).
• Maturity: Concerns about my over-enthusiasm were also raised at my April ER. In general, I try to keep my comments mature and helpful nowadays, and while I am still enthusiastic about Wikipedia, I don't go over the top (like saying "HELL YES" a billion times over at the Anonymous Dissident RfB) anymore.

In summary, I open this ER to seek feedback on how I have improved as an editor since April. In addition, I am moderately active at DYK; if I were to become an admin (I plan to run the RfA gauntlet some time in late December), I believe that DYK would be my forté (alongside clearing the backlog at Schutz's tool). Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 22:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

1. Dylan, you are one of the best editors I know, EVER! your smart, kind and helping, Thanks for what if even if it will spend eternity on my "shelved" list. I think that you should be an admin soon. you rock! Cheers.--Coldplay Expert 22:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

   Awww, thanks! :D --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 23:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Dont mention it pal. Your really good at this stuff!--Coldplay Expert 01:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I think most of the concerns raised above have more or less been addressed, you're certainly now one of the most mature editors I know. Obviously you're no longer uncivil, I find it hard to believe you ever were. I don't see anything wrong with your content work. Better than mine anyway. Wikipedia needs maintenance edits. If everybody stopped writing articles, Wikipedia would still be a pretty good encyclopedia. If we all stopped reverting vandalism, Wikipedia would be rendered useless in days (yes, I stole that from Julian Colton). And you do a lot of work adopting, how many is it now? 14 or something? Actually, I think you have a good chance of passing an RfA. There was something else I was going to say, but I can't remember it now. Sorry for how bad this review is. Sorry. Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias) 18:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you should try RFA. You would make it for sure! (Oh and can you please review me too?) Best of luck,--Coldplay Expert 23:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

. Well, I suppose I might pass if I ran today, but I'm not so sure... I'd like comment from my former coach first. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 00:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Julian said I should wait a little while longer, since my early behavior may be a sticking point which would make it hard to pass an RfA. So, no, not now. Sorry, Coldplay. :( --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 00:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to support you at RfA because it seems to me that you have difficulty making decisions independently. Even just now, you had to ask Julian for advice on whether to run or not. If you can't make a decision like that by yourself, how can I ever trust you with the duties of an administrator? However, I am getting this impression mostly from talkpage edits I saw you making more than a few months ago, so if you do run RfA I will re-evaluate you based on current behavior before placing any !vote. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 06:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Its ok, if you just wait a while, im sure that you will get it. (Me on the other hand, that is a LONG way off...if ever)--Coldplay Expert 18:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   Most of my contribs to this site are general maintenance edits (like typo correction, vandalism reversion, etc.) as well as DYK reviewing. I would have to say that Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season is my proudest achievement – it was both my first featured list and my first DYK hook on the main page.

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

   Funny – I used to have conflicts left and right, but nowadays I barely have any at all! I used to patrol for vandalism a lot, and my userpage was frequently vandalized. I dealt with that by simply reverting it. The latest real conflict with my fellow editors that I can recall was at the What If (Coldplay song) page – multiple users were reversing the redirect to the X&Y article (the "What If" article was redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What If (Coldplay song)), and I was one of multiple editors who were restoring the re4direct in accordance with the consensus. In the end, the page was protected by an administrator. I also offered to rewrite the article in my userspace to make it eligible for inclusion, but I gave the sandbox to Coldplay Expert (talk · contribs) because I couldn't find any sources.

---

[edit] Click23*

Click23 (talk • contribs • count) One day I might want to become an admin, so I just want to see how I have done up to this point. I know that I lack in adding substantive information to articles, I spend most of my time dealing with vandals and recent changes patrols, I need to get back into new page patrols and commenting on AFDs. Click23 (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Questions

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

   This would have to be dealing with vandalized pages

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 two that I can think of are ThreePeace and Dellwood Country Club AFDs

---

[edit] Aditya*

Aditya (talk • contribs • count) I've been editing Wikipedia for quite a few months now. I've tried WP:AIV, WP:CSD, WP:UAA and WP:AFD. I have now begun to focus on BLPs. I wish to RfA in a month or two, so I need constructive advice on how I can improve my activities on-wiki. Regards, ƒ(Δ)² 16:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC) ƒ(Δ)² 16:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Questions

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

   I already answered the first part up there. I'm particularly proud of my BLP edits, and helping newcomers with their first article(s).

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?

   BLP is tough area to work in, and I've been involved in quite a few disputes (a lot more than I can list here). I think I handled them well, and don't see any reason to change how I will handle them in the future.

---

[edit] OrangeDog*

OrangeDog (talk • contribs • count) I've been editing Wikipedia for about 4 years, being more active in the last year. I generally potter along minding my own business but have become increasingly involved in the community so I thought I'd do one of these. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 04:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Questions

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

   Listed on my user page, plus lots of typo and grammar fixes and some vandal-fighting. I hang out around the pumps a lot as well. I think I'm most pleased with Cambridge University Catholic Chaplaincy.

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 got rather exasperated during WT:Notability (populated places) (failed) as people didn't seem to get what I was saying and were arguing against straw men. In the end I just accepted that I wasn't getting anywhere and there were more important things in life. Generally I try not to get to worked up about things and keep a sense of perspective.

---

[edit] Rockstone35*

Rockstone35 (talk • contribs • count) Hello, I'm curious as to what I should continue to do to help boost my edit count so that I can become an admin one day. My admin request which anyone can see: here, failed due to lack of edits. I was well aware that I was most likely not going to make it, but wanted to anyway to see if I should try again after I gain experience. Please let me know if there is anything I can do in the future to make it more likely to become an admin. Thank you. Rockstone (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Questions

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

   Vandalism fighting and reasonably debating with people. My favorite contribution is Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church/Page_rename_proposal because I successfully debated my point. 1

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?

   Quoted from my admin request: "Yes, a few. My first real conflict was when I deleted something that called Communist States oppressive. (Since that was NPOV, yes, it is oppressive, but you don't have to be blunt about it, its criticisms should speak for it) That was way back in 2007, and my methods were ill advised at the time, but I have improved. Also, Human Rights in the United States has been a large topic for me because I thought the scope of the article did not include Abu Garib. It appears that the main thing I fought for, which is that the pictures which serve no purpose be deleted, did occur a few months after I disengaged from the article. I am glad I did, and if I am admin, I won't mediate things I have vested interest in (being a US citizen and all). Later problems have been related mostly to my incorrect Speedy Deletion tags, which is why I plan to stay out of article deletion until I am well versed in that."

 Thank you very much. 

---

[edit] GaelenS.*

Gaelen S. (talk • contribs • count) I am just looking for some constructive criticism on how I personally can improve on Wikipedia. At some point in the future I would like to apply for administrator though I realize that now is not that time. Anything you can offer, as long as it is helpful, would be greatly appreciated! Thanks,Gaelen

Reviews

Questions

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

   Though I may have contributed more to some pages than others, those are most likely not my best contributions. I have been trying to discover articles on which I know something about and add information I believe helpful or edit areas that I believe need some clarification. I have no particular edits of which I am very proud.

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

   I have been in one small editing dispute which I tried to resolve with some tact but do to my relative inexperience, I did not particularly understand its nature. I hope to deal with any future disputes by calmly stating my reasoning and suggesting a compromise that might work on both sides.

---

[edit] Jprw*

Jprw (talk • contribs • count) Just would like some feedback on what I'm doing right and areas for improvement Jprw (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Questions

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

   Alice Cooper

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

   Yes, I have been in disputes. In order for a dispute not to get out of hand, the trick is to always consider responses carefully

---

[edit] Unionhawk*

Unionhawk (talk • contribs • count) I do want to become an admin, but, in the short term, I am once again considering adopting a new user. All constructive criticism is welcome. Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 00:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Questions

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

   Since my last review, RuneScape was quick-failed in the GAN for a {{rs?}} tag. I have done a lot of work at AfD, and have eliminated my habit of using Huggle to get a lot of contributions.

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?

   Since my last review, I have been in many editing disputes. Some of this I guess I sort of should have expected for becoming a Rollbacker, but I never expected becoming involved in an arbitration case. The debate I listed in my last ER is nothing compared to the many disputes that have flown my way. None have caused me an incredible amount of stress. Wikipedia is nothing to lose sleep over.

---

[edit] Keystoneridin

Keystoneridin (talk • contribs • count) As an editor, I know that I have made mistakes with attitude towards others and common other mistakes. I hope to become a better editor by helping others with their pages and articles. keystoneridin! (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

• Firstly, apologies for the fact that you had to wait over 2 months to get a review!

One of the things I notice about your edit summaries is that there are seldom any beyond the automatic mention of the section being edited! It is always a good idea to have a brief summary about what you added/changed. Also, if a change is minor, it is a good idea to tick the "This is a minor edit" box!

Looking at your contributions to article talk pages, I get the impression that you think you know better than others - and that what you think is more important. An example of this is your comment on Talk:Chandanathoppe - the article as it was when you typed that was not tidy, but it contained recognisable information which just needed tidying up. It said where the village is, its transportation links, etc. The information was obviously placed their by someone who does not speak (or at least write) with English as a primary language - in fact the user did not make any further edits on Wikipedia after that edit. They may have edited on the Hindi Wikipedia, but not on the English one.

It's the way you phrase things - however, I do not get the overall impression that this is what you want to portray, but that you want to be helpful. From your early edits, it is obvious that you had a previous account registered here (as you mention on your user page) - how many edits did that have?

Your communications with other editors can come across as a bit arrogant. Again, it is obvious that you are trying to be helpful and give advice - but sometimes you say things along the lines of "if you have a picture on the article, that can stave off deletion" or telling people they have 12 hours to find information to add to an article to stop it being deleted.

As ThaddeusB said in a reply to you on his talk page: Apology accepted, but please choose your words more carefully in the future. I have read through a few of your recent comments to people, and a number of them could easily be read as insulting. Please remember that online people can't hear your tone, so if words you choose convey a certain tone people will assume that is how you are talking to them even if that isn't what you intended.

Onto your edits: about half of your edits are on articles - that's a good figure. Your goal of keeping non-encyclopedic information out of Wikipedia is what we all have - but you have to be careful. Some of the "unencyclopedic" information you want to keep out is just information which you are not aware of. This especially applies to areas outside of your country, where information may not be readily available to you. Make sure that you check thoroughly before removing information (as a start, Google Books/Scholar/News/News Archive/Web). However, the internet (and specifically Google) is not the be-all and end-all of finding information! If it's an area with which you are unfamiliar, a good place to ask for advice is at the relevant WikiProject (for example, on the above example of the Indian village, WikiProject India would have been a good place to ask for advice!

In summary:

1. Keep up the good editing work
2. Be more aware of the tone of your comments on xfD, talk pages, etc - we can only see the words, and may not be able to work out the subtle meaning - and if you come across as arrogant, opinionated or rude, further misunderstandings are inevitable.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 00:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I feel that I have done a great job in keeping non encyclopedic information off of Wikipedia. People use this as a tool for information, and I would like to keep Wikipedia as credible as possible. 1

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

   I have been in one dispute that I can think of. It involved Sturm College of Law. I was editing something from which my own two eyes could see. The other editor was editing from what he/she read. We became heavily disputed and contacted admins. I think this was the best possible solution. 2

---

[edit] Rsrikanth05

Rsrikanth05 (talk • contribs • count) Well, these days with a lot of new users undoing my edits and all, I feel I am not doing good as an editor. So I thought, I'd go in for a review. Also, please NOTE, I have absolutely NO intentions of applying for admin... Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

• Sorry it's taken 2-1/2 months for someone to get around to giving you a review!

One thing that I notice when looking at your contributions is that you don't very often leave edit summaries - almost everyone I saw was automatically put on by Twinkle or Huggle. It is helpful to leave a comment in the edit summary explaining what you have done. There is an option in my preferences that will remind you if you don't fill in the summary.

Your comments on talk pages tends to be adding/editing WikiProject banners - which is very helpful! Well done.

Your attitude towards other editors appear to be friendly - although most of them are Twinkle/Huggle warnings - there are relatively few comments to other editors, so I can't really comment much on that.

Over 70% of your edits are either to articles or their talk pages - a good figure - although about 20% of your edits are using tools like Huggle and Twinkle. My advice would be to keep up the excellent work on India-related articles - the edits you make there seem to be valuable.

Incidently, I wasn't aware of Cameltrader's Advisor tool - thanks!

As you have no intentions of being an admin, then that's the main things that I can think of to comment on. Keep up the good work! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 23:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   Mostly my edits are either on articles relating to India, or I just go around cleaning up articles using Cameltrader's advisor tool. I am particularily pleased about having got Transport in India to GA level.

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

   Yes I have. Sometimes, editing does stress me out, at such times, I take a break, try and study, or watch TV.

This editor, Srikanth, is very inconsistent in his views and allows links from some sites and not others. Very rude in his emails to me and I am surprised Wikipedia is allowing him to run roughshod like this.

---

[edit] Marx01

Marx01 (talk • contribs • count) Hello to all. I am a relatively new editor but have been in possession of an account for quite some time. I love editing articles related to science, and taking photographs to help the wiki(It would be great if the reviewer could stop by my photo galleryand critique that). I also revert vandalism when I can and don't hesitate to revert blatant vandalism. My pride and joy on Wikipedia is my very first article, Neutralizing antibody, which I put much effort into. Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 01:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Review by Intelligentsium:

It seems you're doing fairly well. I appreciate your trying to edit less in your userspace; right now almost 30% of your edits are concentrated there. Your contributions to Neutralizing antibody are excellent; much better than many other new users would have done (this does not necessarily mean they can't do as well, however). It seems you're doing some anti-vandalism work; I appreciate your efforts to keep rubbish off the project. I see you're trying to get involved at WikiProject Astronomy, which is very good, as there are many astronomy articles needing a lot of attention. You seem not to have been in many conflicts, but you know how to deal with them. Your view on IPs as expressed here is concerning, but it's your opinion and I respect your right to hold it, even if I do not personally agree with it. My suggestion is to keep up your mainspace work, but try not to bite the IPs. Some of your reverts of revisions of 76.200.225.90's edits were accompanied by vandalism warnings, though the edits were not vandalism and would probably be better with a personalized message, or at least an OR warning. Intelligentsium 02:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   Most of my revisions at the moment are reverting vandalism and my userpage. However I'm attempting to slow down on my userpage so I can focus more on the wiki. I also write on talk pages quite a bit. I am also striving to remember edit summaries. My favorite edits were to Neutralizing antibody,since that was my first article and it came out being much more than I expected.

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

   There are a few. When I first came to the wiki I felt rather bad when my stub on Revolte (my first attempt at an article) was speedily deleted, but I understand that now. Also I Had a rather brief conflict with a user (I do not remember the name). The person was a vandal and I received almost immediate vandalism to my talk and user pages. Luckily an admin stepped in and helped me out (which I thanked greatly him for). Since I have never directly combated anything against me personally, I have little experience in that field. However if anything comes up I will solve the problem without going overboard or becoming nasty. I have a strict requirement of peaceful resolution and give myself few exceptions.

---

[edit] Tyw7

Tyw7 (talk • contribs • count) Hi. I am User Tyw7. I have been previously editing as Troop350 (talk · contribs). I have made over 268 minor edits and major on Wikipedia as both Tyw7 and Troop350. I just wanted a quck review of how other users think about me. Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 21:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

• Hi Tyw7. Firstly, apologies for the fact that you've had to wait almost 3 months for a review! Hopefully the back log will get worked on. Anyway, on to my review...

I will start off by saying that I'm disappointed with your answer to question 1. Although you do not specifically say so, you give the impression that you were responsible for the two articles achieving Good Article status, and I was looking forward to seeing how you helped get it to that status, as I have a couple of articles that I would like to get to GA!

Having looked in detail at both of these article's history (plus that of User:TechOutsider/Sandbox), I see that on the Norton 360 article, you made 5 minor edits (1 removing a sentence, 4 changing the publisher in citations) in the week before it made GA status - the main editor responsible for getting that article to GA was TechOutsider. With the Norton Internet Security article, you made 42 edits. None of these were 'major' - changing image names, adding images, changing image sizes, etc. 17 of those edits were made before it got GA, the rest since. Again, the reason why that article achieved GA was that TechOutsider did a lot of very good work on the article. Don't get me wrong, your work was good, but in no sense would your edits have ensured that these two articles achieved GA. (incidently, the 5 edits you made on TechOutsider's Sandbox were also minor on the whole).

Looking at your talk page, the first thing that struck me was the warning saying "Vandals do not vandalize this page! This page is always being monitored. If you vandalize this page, your account will get blocked." - firstly, the page may be vandalised without being noticed by anyone, even if a lot of people are on vandalism patrol; secondly, if someone vandalizes the page, they may not get blocked - if for example it is the first time they've vandalised and it's a minor thing. The problem with your message is twofold: firstly, if someone vandalises it and then aren't blocked, they'll think it's OK to continue (and get warnings); secondly, you are inviting people to vandalise it, to try it out!

Also from your talk page, looking at User talk:Tyw7#Mr Unsigned Anon, you seem to be indicating to another editor that you can get another editor blocked. I couldn't find where you said that specifically, but you need to be careful not to misrepresent yourself. In this kind of case, you need to (from the beginning) make it clear that you are not an admin, but that if the other editor wants you to put the case to an admin, you are happy to do that for them.

Still on your talk page (and archives of same) - my one main bit of advice would be to listen to the advice given! You were told you weren't ready for RfAs, but went ahead a couple of times after being told to get 2-3000 edits and get involved in XfDs etc. The Mr Unsigned Anon entries in the archive shows that you are not ready for dealing with those kinds of conflicts on-wiki. You are young, and eager to help - but sometimes the best thing to do is leave well alone!

Now to your edits: firstly, please try to put something in the edit summary explaining what you are doing. If it helps, in my preferences there is an option that will alert you if you forget! I have it set on, even though I normally remember anyway, just to be sure!

The work you've done on Docklands Light Railway rolling stock is good - but again, the vast majority of those edits are minor!

The main problem that I see with your edits is that only about 17% of them are on articles and article talk pages. 56% of them are on User pages and User talk pages. At the end of the day, most edits should be for the encyclopedia - some people would say my figures are skewed (53% on articles and article talk; 35% on user and user talk) - but for someone who is wanting to be an admin to have less than 1/5 of their edits on the encylopedia, most editors at an RfA would be concerned (unless a lot of the non-article edits were on xfDs and the like).

Positives This sounds gloomy - but it's not all bad. You have an enthusiasm for Wikipedia! You are young enough to be able to improve yourself, and have a desire to work on the project. This should be enough to overcome any perceived flaws.

Overall advice:

1. Use edit summaries (turn on the option in my preferences)
2. Do more work on articles
3. Do not think about another RfA for at least several months (and when you do, by all means mentions the Norton articles if you feel they are indicative of your best work - but do not imply that they got GA status because of you - that got you at least one 'oppose' on one of your RfAs.
4. Do not think about another RfA for at least several months (yes, I'm repeating myself - I think it's important). Before even considering going for it, read the comments made at your 5 RfAs (1, 2, 3, 4 and , 5) and the advice you were given on your talk page (and now in the archive) about them; thoroughly read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship; look at Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship - see why the current admins got approved by the community. Most of all - remember that adminship is No big deal!
5. Re-read your last 2 reviews: Wikipedia:Editor review/Tyw7 and Wikipedia:Editor review/Tyw7 (2)

I hope you do not feel that I have been too harsh. I thought carefully before putting my comments here - I have spent about 2-1/2 hours looking through your contributions, talk page, RfAs, etc - my comments here are not meant to put you down - but to show you how you can improve. Other editors may leave a different opinion here. Overall, my advice would be to forget about adminship for a while, and enjoy editing! That's why we're all here, after all. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to put them here or on my talk page. Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   My best contributions to Wikipedia I have to say are the articles Norton 360 and Norton Internet Security, particularly Norton 360. This is because both of these articles are now listed as Good Articles. In addition, I have made many edits so I consider all my work good contribution to Wikipedia. I am currently working on Docklands Light Railway rolling stock

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

   I have so far not encounter any edit conflits with other users. The only users I have edit conflict is with myself. For example, I was editing two pages and on one of the pages require me to login. When I did that, when I tried to save the page I edited with an anonymous IP, I have an edit conflict with my logged on account and my anonymous IP account. Therefore, I can say I have not have any edit conflicts with other users. When I encounter any edit conflicts with another user, I would cancel my edit. Then I would consider both sides and solve the conflict calmly. I would consider the information that user wishes to add to Wikipedia.''

3. Conflicts over editing are not the same as (edit conflict). Have other users disagreed with your edits in the past, or have you disagreed with the edits of others. How have you dealt with it?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So far no one has disagreed with my edits. I would deal these conflits the same way as I deal with a edit conflit. I would leave a msg on that editor's talk page and try to resolve the conflict peacefully.

1. I must say, you've been fortunate. I note (I hope you don't think I'm cheeky) that you have had several RfAs, in which "lack of experience" seemed to count against you. If you wanted to try again, I can recommend volunteering over at Wikiquette Alerts for a few weeks. No one will ever be able to say again that you lack experience in dealing with stressful editors.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

---

[edit] Parker1297

Parker1297 (talk • contribs • count) Hi, I am Parker1297 I would like to be reviewed because I really want to know what you think about me. I joined Wikipedia 7 December 2008. I have made almost 500 edits. Parker1297 (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

• Hi Parker1297, sorry that you've not had a review done in the last 2-3/4 months. Hopefully we can get the reviewing sorted out here! Anyway, on to my review...

When editing, it's a good idea to use an informative edit summary. This shows what you actually did rather than just showing which section of the article you edited. There is an option under my preferences where you can get a warning if you do not leave a summary (I tend to use it now, to make sure I remember on those occasions when I'm tired, or the kids decide that this is the moment when they really must have my attention!).

Your comments on talk pages are succinct and to the point - not a bad thing!

The edits you have made are geared towards the encyclopedia - almost 40% on articles, with a further 15% on article talk pages. This is good! I notice that most of the article edits are minor ones - adding a few words or a couple of sentences. These little bits are important - they may not be noticed by many people, but they make the article more accurate, more complete.

I also noticed that you made a Request for Adminship. The enthusiasm is great - but you need a lot more experience on Wikipedia before going for admin! Read the links that NW made in their comments at your RfA - especially WP:AIV, etc. Also, before you consider re-applying, it is a good idea to have more substantial work on articles behind you. Lots of little edits are great, as I've already said, but most of the editors commenting on an RfA would be looking for at least a couple of substantial contributions - that could be a new article of a decent length, a major re-write, etc. Also, knowledge of the procedures for dealing with vandalism and deletions is something which most editors want to see before giving the admin tools to someone!

In general, I think you are doing a good job - keep up the good work! I see that you have not done any editing in a month or so - I'm hoping that this is because of school work, rather than that you have given up on us!

Oh, and in the questions below, the "edit conflicts" question refers to occasions where you have had disagreements with other editors, not when you get the message "edit conflict" because someone else has just edited the page as well!

If you have any questions, or comments, feel free to post them here or (preferably) on my talk page. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I usually will contribute to Titusville, Florida. My best edits are also with Titusville, Florida.

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

   Yes, I have been in edit conflicts. (When you edit a page but someone already edited the page)

---

[edit] trakesht

trakesht (talk • contribs • count) Hi I am Rakesh- though I had an account for more than 2 years, I have become active only in the recent 6 months, as my edits go in frequency, every now and then I come across people who disagree with my view- thought I would request a review before I become more active in various projects-thanks in advance! trakesht (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

all right- just peeked in and found out that I am last in the line! :) trakesht (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews Hello, at first glance it looks like you are a very productive editor. You have started numerous articles, have a good user page, had one of your articles on 'Did you know', you usually explain your edits in the user summary (not 100% of the time though), you converse with other editors on their and your talk page all of which are some of the things that make for fantastic Wikipedians.

You often mention policy or guidelines in your edit summary, you might want to include the link also in the summary (i.e. instead of writing "removed original research" write "removed original research", this will hopefully lead to someone else (the editor who put in the original research perhaps) click on the link and learn more about the policy.

On User talk:Sshoaibfarooq2 you informed a newbie of a WP:CSD you placed. Considering that it was such an inexperienced editor (who you had welcomed only an hour earlier), it may have been more productive to send a more personal note explaining why it was being speedied along with an offer of help rather than using the templated message. There are other examples similar to this that could be seen as bitey.

I like that on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InEfficient market hypothesis you were not afraid to change your mind.

Overall, you show that you are trying to maintain the quality of Wikipedia. You may want to do some work on WP:AfD or some similar areas. Keep up the good work! J04n(talk page) 01:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions

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

   mostly India related articles, adding references, removing POV etc..the articles that I have started and have contributed significantly is given in my userpage

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 thing that comes to my mind is disagreeing on someone with the notablity of an incident about continent airways, I dealt it with what i believe is normal policy after i discovered this conflict of opinion- ie discussing in the talk pages

---