v · d · eNoticeboards and related pages (Dashboard) General Administrators' noticeboard / Incidents • Bot owners' noticeboard • Department directory • Editor's index • General sanctions / Editing restrictions  • Media copyright questions • Importing pages • Page protection • OTRS Content Biographies of living persons • Copyright problems / Contributor copyright investigations • External links • Fringe theories • Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts • Neutral point of view • No original research • Proposed mergers • Reliable sources • Requested moves • Spam User issues Abuse response • Conflict of interest • Editor assistance • Editor review • Help desk • Long-term abuse • New user help • Open proxies • Oversight • Sockpuppets • User page help • Usernames • Vandalism Noticeboards Arbitration: Requests / Enforcement  • Content and conduct disputes  • Drawing board • Edit warring & 3RR • Mediation: Formal / Informal • Requests for comment • Requests for feedback • Wikiquette assistance

Request an editor review

Before requesting a review, please understand the following: Shortcut: WP:ER Editor review is a process that allows users to have their behavior and contributions to Wikipedia evaluated by peers, who will provide constructive feedback on areas for improvement. Anybody may request a review, regardless of their tenure at Wikipedia. While an editor may remove comments about them that appear to be off-topic or simply personal attacks, it is important to remember that the editor review process may produce comments that the editor may not like or personally agree with, and the editor being reviewed should make every attempt to use this collaborative process to communicate with others. Editors should not refactor comments they dislike. These should either be simply removed or discussed. Administrators requesting a review of their administrative actions should see administrator review. This page frequently gets backlogged, so requests may wait up to several weeks for a response. If you have less than 300 edits (or your last request was within the last 3 months), your request may be removed without notice. Please consider reviewing another editor when you request a review Users requesting feedback on their newly created article should do so at requests for feedback.

If you would like to be reviewed, please follow the steps below: Create a subpage using the box below, replacing USERNAME with your username. Please make sure there is no space after your username, as this makes it hard for reviewers to reach your request. Do not save the page yet! Follow the instructions in the box above the request page. Please remember to fill in the requested fields. Optional, but highly recommended: You may put the {{Editor review}} template or the {{Editor review sticker}} template on your user page to advertise the review page. Optional: It is possible to add a userbox onto your User page (after the review is finished) by placing {{User Editor review}} at your user box section on your User page. Instructions on how to use templates may be found here. Optional: As only admins can see your deleted contributions, these admins have volunteered to perform editor reviews focussing on deleted contributions (this will probably be of most interest to newpage patrollers)

Request form

Replace USERNAME with your username.

Instructions for reviewers 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. When you have finished reviewing, consider notifying the user with the {{ER done}} template. Please substitute this template. Archives Sections with at least one review will be archived at Wikipedia:Editor review/Archive (2010) or Wikipedia:Editor review/Archive (2011) thirty days after they have been created. If you are searching for an archive from before 2010, it will be in the 2006–2009 archive.

Click here for unreviewed requests

Contents 1 Current requests 1.1 Hurricanefan25* 1.2 Jonjonjohny* 1.3 Ebe123 (2)* 1.4 Nolelover 1.5 Giants27 (2)* 1.6 Goldblooded* 1.7 Fltyingpig 1.8 Hallows AG* 1.9 Tom Morris* 1.10 Cerejota 1.11 SwisterTwister* 1.12 Falcon8765 (2)* 1.13 Rohith goura 1.14 Mike28968* 1.15 Lukep913* 1.16 Nathan2055 1.17 Avenue X at Cicero 1.18 Surajt88* 1.19 Yellow Evan 3 1.20 MarcusBritish 1.20.1 Review by GB fan 1.21 Comments by Beeblebrox 1.22 Lithistman 1.22.1 Review by Fuhghettaboutit 1.22.2 Review from Fastily 1.22.3 Discussion of reviews 1.23 Island Monkey* 1.24 Reaper Eternal (2) 1.24.1 Deleted pages review 1.25 White Shadows (4)* 1.26 Soxrock24 1.27 The High Fin Sperm Whale* 1.28 Σ 1.28.1 Review of speedy/prod tagging by ErikHaugen 1.28.2 Review of speedy tagging 1.28.3 Brief review and question 1.28.4 Comment by Kudpung 1.28.5 Brief Review 1.29 Crisco 1492 1.30 Sodacan* 1.31 Sp33dyphil 2* 1.32 CHAK 001 1.33 LoveUxoxo* 1.34 Jsharpminor 1.35 Buggie111 (3)* 1.36 Bulldog73* 1.37 Strikerforce* 1.38 Uirauna* 1.39 Mobile Snail* 1.40 Simply south* 1.41 Catchthedream* 1.42 Neckername* 1.43 Thebirdlover*

[edit] Current requests

[edit] Hurricanefan25*

Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs · count) Hi, I'm Hurricanefan25, and I am primarily an article editor, and I'm interested in tropical cyclones. HurricaneFan25 15:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I made large contributions to Tropical Storm Debra (1978), which was featured on DYK in July and passed GA status this month.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I have had no conflicts; as an article editor, I would probably rarely get into disputes.

Reviews
Just quickly, thanks for going to participate in the Jan 2012 MtC drive. You have a nice concept of copyright and that will come in helpful. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
Contribs 21:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

---

[edit] Jonjonjohny*

Jonjonjohny (talk · contribs · count) I've created this nice little review board. I want to see how i'm doing around here. Any type of feedback would be very helpful to me. Jonjonjohny (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   My primary contributions focus on editing music-related pages, bands that recieve little attention and develop them to a good level. Articles that I have perticularly built from the ground up are La Dispute and The Eyes of a Traitor. I also restored the article for Bring Me the Horizon after a majority of the text was removed for being original research and poorly written.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   The main issues i've had on wikipedia is genre disputes. I prefer to avoid people having edit wars on the page and go to the discussion pages. There was an example where the argument for stylistic origins of a genre were taken to my talk page after the other party made unexplained removals of sourced genres. So bottom line, genre warriors, not cool.

Reviews

---

[edit] Ebe123 (2)*

Ebe123 (talk · contribs · count) Hello, I'm Ebe123. It has been around 5 months since my last ER, but I thought that it would be good to re-apply. I have really changed my focus here compared to last time. I'm an bureaucrat and importer on incubator:, and autopatrol on meta:. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
Contribs 22:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I used to do lots of NPP work. Now, I do MfD things, MtC drives, sometimes Vandalism works. I do errors, but I try to revert.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I do get vandals vandalize my user and talk page, I just ignore it and revert. I do get some uncivil comments, but all is fine. If I were in a content dispute, I would discuss the change on the talk page and possible go on WP:DRN.

Reviews

---

[edit] Nolelover

Nolelover (talk · contribs · count) Well, its been a little over a year (and 7k edits) since I became really "active" on the 'pedia, and I'm realizing that I've definitely been slowing down lately - if not in actual contribs, then in the amount of time I put into this site. This isn't a curtain call by any means, but I would like to see what other editors think of my work here in the last few months. I really can't remember how and when exactly I got started on WP, but it was working with User:Vyeh on Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri that first got me hooked, and where I really realized the amount of work that goes into this site. Since then I've started a couple stubs, patrolled many a page and been the butt of many geek jokes from my RL friends, but I've loved (almost) every minute of it. All comments, whether glowing or absolutely damning are appreciated, but please note that I have no interest in RfA so there's no need to frame your reviews that way. This is not a precursor to my attempting to pass that great institution, but simply an honest request for any and all feedback. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   Other then the aforementioned SMAC, which went from this to GA, I've never done any major content work. Obviously I've worked on many articles, but I seriously doubt I've added more then a couple paragraphs of prose to any of them. Like I say on my userpage, I'm better at getting article from really bad to OK, rather then OK to GA/FA. However, I am happy with the work I've done on articles like Ehsan Sehgal, not because of any major content work I've done, but because of the work that goes into teaching a new editor the ropes. I'd also like to think I do a decent job at NPP; my CSD log, which only shows the latest month (where I became more inactive anyway) is here, but that's probably fairly representative of my overall work there. In the Project namespace, I am extremely happy with the work I have done at WP:WWF, where I am assistant coordinator, and currently the day-to-day manager with a couple of other editors inactive for various reasons. Other then that, I tend to gnome around, fixing whatever crops up in my path. I also do a bit of College Football related editing.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   Well, as much as I would like to be like other editors on this page and say that I haven't been in any, but that I would work with the other editor to achieve consensus (linked, ofc) on the talk page, I've been around the block a few too many times for that. I can't say that I've really been a participant in any major editing disputes, but I have seen firsthand how hard it can be too work with someone when you believe their mindset is wrong. However, I looked for something to show how I do operate in those situations, and I found this one in my talk archives (second diff) and this one. There is probably also something in the SMAC archive between me and User:Dream Focus, and there are a few things in my second talk archive that I won't link individually. I have done some minor mediation/resolution/been the bad news bearer, and that landed me in rather hot water here. (Note that I am not the editor Pedro is referring to in his edit summary, and here are more diffs. All this revolved around User:Guoguo12's ill-fated RfA.) I think that's about it on that front.

Reviews

• His edits are related to these points,

He is polite

He assumes good faith

He avoids personal attacks

He welcomes new editors

He does not bite

He is helpful and good teacher

He is very fair and neutral

He is the real" Editor"

He is worth and proud of Wikipedia

• That's why I decide to remain in wikipedia to contribute.

Thanks to Nolelover

Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ehsan. I really appreciate that. :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• You deserve it.One of my quotes,
• To display ones talents is not objectionable.How ever denial of other's

talents is tantamount to denying your own." Thanks you too.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

---

[edit] Giants27 (2)*

Giants27 (talk · contribs · count) I've been here for almost three years, have almost 40,000 edits, 8 GAs and probably around 70 DYKs now. It's been over two years since I was reviewed and almost two years since I took a stab at RfA, which failed due to an incident where I called someone an "asshole". Since then, I went inactive and came back in April 2011. When I returned, I returned to editing roster templates for the NFL, updating player pages, and expanding the occasional article here and there. I also nominated two articles for GA, which in all honesty, were not entirely ready. I'm contemplating another run at RfA in the coming months and basically, I would like to have some reviews on how I am doing since I returned. Cheers, Giants27(T|C) 02:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   Looking back on my previous RfAs, I believe that Joey Hamilton or Nathan Horton have been my best contributions to the encyclopedia. While I have six other good articles, I just feel as though those two were my best piece's of work. Sean Bennett and Andy Hedlund would be two that I'm not ecstatic about, but yet, know that it took some work to dig up some references on those two, which I am pleased about. Primarily, I spend my days editing roster templates for the NFL nowadays and updating pages based on recent transactions. Occasionally, I'll welcome a new user/IP or hop on Huggle and revert some vandalism.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   Recently, no. However, as shown in the RfA I linked to, I have been in the past, but I like to think I've learned from them.

Reviews

---

[edit] Goldblooded*

Goldblooded (talk · contribs · count) Just like to check on how im doing; and its reassuring to know how im getting on, Paticulary since im a fairly new user. Goldblooded (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   As ive said ive only been on here a few months and i've already had a big impact and ive been interacting well with many other users + admins, paticulary since i am relatively young yet i already have an immense knowledge of History + Politics. Ive already created several articles with images If you look on my user page you'll see the articles ive made , plus a bit more about me. Also , recently i have been doing a lot of new article patrolling too :)

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   Like everybody people make mistakes , However when i first joined i did feel i was treated a little bit unfairly after some admins treating me as "just another newbie" which ultimately led to some disputes and i got banned for a day or so , Even though i was swore at by an admin and a multitude of other things ; To be honest i cant really remember it was several months ago now. These days as i did a few days ago , to settle a dispute i'd ask a freindly admin ( i know a few) or the user who "adopted" me for a third opinion and then settle it diplomaticially.

Reviews

---

[edit] Fltyingpig

Fltyingpig (talk · contribs · count) I have been editing for around six months and I would like to know about what other Wikipedians think of me. pluma Ø 04:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   My primary contributions have been reverting vandalism, correcting typos, regulating redlinks, and doing other wikignomish activities

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I got a page I written turned into a redirect page without consensus from an other editor with around 80,000 edits when I was still a signator, but I didn't know what to do about it, so I just got into a big edit-war, but since then I haven't got into any edit wars because I have been pretty timid and wikignomish because of that.

Reviews

• Non-review comment I have moved everything here from Wikipedia:Editor review/Thebirdlover where it was improperly added to the end of another editor's review. Monty₈₄₅ 18:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Review by Trevj:
  1. Userpage is informative and organised.
  2. Talk shows civility.
  3. Edit summaries are welcomed, but could in some instances be more meaningful, e.g. this could have stated reword: 'to a zoo and some other attractions' -> 'to some atractions like zoos', although this is a matter of personal preference. There's also no need to state "I [...]" because they're your edits we know it's you who's done them!
  4. Your fights against vandalism are noted.

I hope the above is useful. Happy editing! --Trevj (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

---

[edit] Hallows AG*

Hallows AG (talk · contribs · count) Hi, I'm Hallows AG and I want to know how I am doing. Hallows AG (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   My primary contributions are mainly copyedits and edits to articles connected to South-East Asia

• Additional comment I have also done a number of vandalism reversions since I submitted my review request.

1. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I have not yet been involved in any disputes, if I was in an editing dispute, I would calmly post a message on that user's talk page saying that my edits were constructive and that Wikipedians should work together

Reviews I have put in over 800 edits on Bert Bell. He reverted my edits without even checking anything. I am awaiting his unrevert of my edits. I put a merge request in on the article, which noone contributes content to but me, and then I made the merge. He unmerged it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

He unreverted my edits. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

---

[edit] Tom Morris*

Tom Morris (talk · contribs · count) I've been on Wikipedia for a while and would like to find potential ways to improve my editing, possibly find new strengths or areas to explore editing, and uncover potential weaknesses so I can undo those. (Oh, and maybe I'll run for admin someday.) —Tom Morris (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   My main content contributions have been Black Bear Ranch (5x expand DYK on a topic I came across completely by random while reading an unrelated book) and the history section of Dignity in Dying. I've created some images and put them on Commons and added them to the articles (Bournemouth University, Søren Kierkegaard bibliography, Sex shop, Abortion in the United Kingdom, Mayfield and Five Ashes).

   But the vast majority of my edits are gnomish: vandalism reversion (with Huggle and Twinkle), deletion sorting, categorisation, new page patrolling and participation in the deletion process.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I haven't been in any editing disputes. When an article is going in the wrong direction in my humble opinion, I'll chime in with a comment, but I don't get into revert wars or have massive disputes over things. If I were to somehow find myself in an editing dispute, I'd try and approach things calmly, seek consensus in a civil way. If I'm unable to do that, I'll disengage and have faith in the community to sort things out without me making it worse. I think I'm reasonably able to detect the limits of my patience and disengage before reaching them. Thankfully, I haven't had to deal with those kinds of situations. I have been accused of being an administrator (which I'm not) in a shadowy cabal that involves getting paid off by the CIA and Microsoft, but that was more funny than enraging.

Reviews

---

[edit] Cerejota

Cerejota (talk · contribs · count) Well, I have been here for a long time, done a bit of editing, etc. I have, for some reason, always been attracted to controversial/current event topics as an editor, while as a reader I tend to be more attracted to science/milhist stuff. Since that time of editing can lead to a lot of drama, I would like to see evaluations from people that don't have a beef - often times even good criticism is ignored depending on the source, after we are not robots (that we know of!) Cerejota (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   Current events tend to be the focus of my article work, and perhaps the most visible in this sense is 2008 Mumbai attacks, which was featured centerfold on the Wikimedia Foundation's annual report. In the past I participated strongly in WP:ARBPIA topic area, but havent in a while, mostly on Gaza War and 2006 Lebanon War. I also started the 2009 Icelandic financial crisis protests article which was on the main page ITN section, and more recently started Anders Behring Breivik, the perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks. But my favorite will always be my first, because it was a small contribution that has been improved greatly, and in terms of milhist was a terrible omission, Tula Arms Plant, it is still a stub, and one day I will get around to it. I often do RC patrolling, mostly New Pages, and have rollbacker permissions. On the WP name space, perhaps the most significant is starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, I also wrote a small part of WP:BITE, started the widely read essay on incivility An uncivil environment is a poor environment, have put bits here and there in other policies/guidelines that still remain, and participate in different noticeboards and XfDs, not always because of self-interest or involvement. I am also a long-time member of WikiProject Puerto Rico.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   Hell yeah, some epic arbcom-level stuff too - inevitable if you are editing in ARBPIA. Never been sanctioned/blocked for those - of my two blocks, one was for edit warring (with tags! I really think the admin misjudged that one) and another was quickly reversed because it was essentially a hilarious - in retrospect - misunderstanding. I try to be frank and open, and also separate the behavior from the content issues and deal with those in the appropriate fora. I think I have gotten better with age, but I have not always been successful. I do have a hard time dealing with bad faith, real or perceived, and most of my DR is geared towards seeking a third-party view. I can and often accept criticism (why would I be here otherwise!) but also react negatively to what I consider patronizing or bad faith criticism, so tips on how to handle that would be awesome.

Reviews

• in response to "tips on how to handle (what I consider patronizing or bad faith criticism) would be awesome" here are my suggestions.... and disclaimer, I don't know your edit history well enough to comment.... the following is just abstract tips for anybody per your request .... Always assume its possible there's an ambiguity in the text that makes sense one way to you and makes equally good faith in a completely different way to someone else. Don't shoot back. When others try to make it personal work very hard to avoid saying "you" and instead say "I" and "me" and stick to the subject matter. If someone else is in good faith but not in control of their emotions, or alternatively is in bad faith in control but faking an emotiona response (hard to know), just say to yourself "all the other editors are forming a negative opinion of this person, and that's the best possible sanction". Then you don't have to get hot yourself. Hope something there helps. When all else fails, find the scene in Executive Orders where VP Jackson tells Pres Jack Ryan to yell at staff, not the troops. Even if it lesson doesn't ring your bell it'll get your mind off of "stuff". Another good tactic is to neutrally rephrase the other party's position, even if you don't agree with it. Once you can so clearly state what they are trying to say that they confirm your understanding, most of the time (A) they will cool off unless they are really OCD or in bad faith, and (B) you'll likely find basis for some sort of misunderstanding. 'cheerioNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• I haven't done a review of your work, but I thought that I would say "thank you" here for the help you have given at WP:BLPN. I think that your comments in response to my question were helpful and clueful, so thank you for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Having made the comment above, I've started paying more attention to your work when our paths cross. I'd like to make a suggestion based on what I see at the WP:V discussions. I think you are a very smart editor, and I tend to agree with a lot of what you say. But I do think that you tend to be kind of pushy and bossy towards those who disagree with you. In the past 24 hours or so, I've seen you tell some other users there that they are heading towards being blocked or similar. As to what they are heading towards, you are probably right (in my opinion), but it ends up backfiring on you when you actually come right out and say so. Better to be less confrontational, no matter what is going through your mind. If you decide to pursue RfA someday, this is the kind of thing that is sure to come back and bite you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• I've already voiced my concerns regarding your unsubstantiated charges of wikistalking against Damiens, which you've made in multiple fora[1][2]. In these discussions you acted with considerable malice toward Damiens, and inflamed an already difficult situation. Note specifically comments of uninvolved editors William Connelley, Figureofnine and Atama in the last discussion. Atama's two comments in the second diff are especially on-point. While I've tended to agree with you on matters of substance in articles we've mutually edited (climate change) I think that your contributions are marred by combativeness and tendentiousness, and that you need to heed the warnings by these three editors and not make flip and irresponsible accusations against other editors. I think that Atama's comments concerning your accusations of wikihounding are especially pertinent to your behavior, and that you should read, understand, and act upon his valuable guidance. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC) To be fair, to amend my previous comment, the vast bulk of Cerejota's contributions have been constructive, and he is a valued user. He does need to exercise more moderation in dealing with the editor mentioned above, who seems to stick in his craw. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• The editor's work on the Workers' Socialist Movement (Puerto Rico) introduced apparently promotional material from the group. The page continues to lack references to reliable secondary sources. Similarly, for Communist front a dozen edits all seem to protect totalitarian "Marxist" organizatons from being labeled "totalitarian", in distinction to non-totalitarian socialist organizations that may have been Marxist. In summary, based on my brief review, I would suggest that the editor first work on finding secondary reliable sources for the Workers' Socialist Movement (Puerto Rico). It would be good to be more vigilent in upholding WP's neutrality and reliability with respect to Marxist–Leninist organizations, whether in Vietnam or Puerto Rico or America, etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC) The editor made some good NPOV edits to several articles, also removing redundancies, in an article on anti-Zionism and in the Vietnamese Trotskyism article previously mentioned.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Another update: User:Cerejota's development seems more like a character from science fiction, progressing from infant to child to promising adolescent (not above a bit of horseplay) to a mature editor in a matter of weeks. This development has been amazing, and I wish that Cerejeta maintains enthusiasm for the project and continues to edit with integrity and with consideration of even poorly expressed criticism, if further development is possible. Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Congratulations for having the courage to invite feedback. Let's get the sticky bit out of the way first; a while ago, I thought a couple of times that you reprimanded another editor at Talk:2011 England riots needlessly and speechified too much over an issue that didn't warrant it ([3][4]). However, it was an isolated thing. For the most part I've valued your clear thinking and well thought out contributions to discussions (for example: [5][6][7][8] ). I also liked your willingness to take constructive action over an individual who has really created hell for everyone; thank you for your recent efforts regarding the difficult situation there. If you can just stay at your crisp and succinct best, and try always to give people the benefit of the doubt, then you'll be doing fine. Rubywine . talk 04:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

---

[edit] SwisterTwister*

SwisterTwister (talk · contribs · count) Hello, I'm David also known as SwisterTwister and I'm curious what other users think of my contributions. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   Well, I don't concentrate on specifically one contribution as I think many of them have been helpful, but I suppose I would say vandalism reverting

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   No editing wars yet, fortunately. The way I deal with users pressuring me about my edits or anything like that is I simply let it go and concentrate on the better things. Well, I think if I were in an edit war I would either give them my point of view why or simply ignore them. I believe it would depend on the situation, but on a good day I would prefer the second option (letting it go and focusing on better things).

Reviews

---

[edit] Falcon8765 (2)*

Falcon8765 (talk · contribs · count) I've been a bit introspective regarding my editing habits lately, and as I rarely get feedback I thought this might provide some valuable insight into my contributions. I was just starting out in the previous review of 2+ years ago, and quite a lot has changed since then. If I have made any glaring errors recently, having them pointed out to me so I can work on rectifying them would be helpful. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 08:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I largely do anti-vandalism work. When the mood strikes me however, I'll venture over to Special:NewPages and do some patrolling/tagging/categorizing. I try not to spuriously tag articles for deletion, and would like to think that all of the ones thus tagged were tagged correctly. I have created a couple of stub articles (Norman Albert Mott) but they aren't anything to write home about. Article creation isn't particularly stimulating for me unfortunately.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I was involved in one dispute recently that did annoy me, which is part of the reason I'm seeking this review (Talk:Planned_Parenthood#See_also_section_._Inclution_of_Eugenics_in_the_United_States). After trying to explain my position and relevant policies etc. a dispute broke out and I ended up getting a bit annoyed with another editor. Instead of escalating it though, I took a step back and let more patient editors take over.

Reviews

---

[edit] Rohith goura

Rohith goura (talk · contribs · count) I would like to know how i progressed throughout my editing wiki. Roh^G ??· 16:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I have very good CSD work and i have started my contributions to wiki with this edit which are usually done by the beginner and have added to this article with this edit which is constructive and then i have taken a break for long time after my reentry to wiki had quite good edits 1

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   Probably not!But i don't know.But i have warned several times by s/he for my misuse of the anti vandal tool because my brother who is blocked for a while in commons and i have over come this issue recently with the help of Quadell of course this is my fault letting him to go through my account.Never loose my cool if i get disputed with another editor if it gets too far then i prefer going to ANI who always have there reviews or else contacting a wiki admin personally to help/intervene to make balance for unnecessary dispute,lighten the mood, defuse conflicts, and make Wikipedia a better place to be.

Reviews

• Roh G is an enthusiastic Wikipedian who wants to work well with others to improve Wikipedia. As a beginner, he still has much to learn about the way Wikipedia works, but he seems willing to do so. He had problems with someone else using his account, but he asked for help and the problem seems to have gone away. He did a few GA nomination reviews, which helps with the backlog -- he wasn't terribly good at it, since he's just starting out, but he seems to take suggestions very well. When he found himself over his head in a review, he asked for help appropriately. When I asked him to wait before doing more reviews, he was happy to hear the advice. When I brought the Manual of Style to his attention, he linked it from his userpage and used it in a review. He seems to have the right attitude, and is learning quickly. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Quadell! thanks for your review.Positive review really makes me happy and to work out more on those which I haven't work on the other part of wiki.This brings me more energy to me.regardsRoh^G ??· 13:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

---

[edit] Mike28968*

Mike28968 (talk · contribs · count) Hi! my name is Mike and the reason I want to be reveiwed is to see how I'm doing Mike28968 (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   My main contributions are to the tech field. I am particualy pleased in my contributions in MyTouch 4G Slide because, it is now (in my opinion) a more reliable article.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I have never been in an editing dispute but, I will respond to one peacefully and without verbul abuse.

Reviews

---

[edit] Lukep913*

Lukep913 (talk · contribs · count) I want to be reviewed because I want fellow editors to comment on my contributions. I also want constructive criticism on what I should do better. -- Luke (Talk) 21:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   Most of my contributions to Wikipedia is reverting vandalism and warning/reporting vandals. My other contributions consist of adding/removing citations and fixing grammatical mistakes where I see fit to do so. 1

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   Fortunately, I have not been in any editing disputes or edit wars. If I was in one, I would calmly explain my stance on my edits and collaborate with other editors on what everyone thinks is right for the article.

Reviews

---

[edit] Nathan2055

Nathan2055 (talk · contribs · count) I've been here for a few weeks now. I've tried to contribute as much as I can. I've focused on AFC, vandal-fighting, copyediting, and wikifying articles. Nathan2055^talk 22:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I'm very pleased about clearing the AFC backlog completely once.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   No, I haven't been in any disputes. If I was, I'd take the matter to a talk page and discuss it until it's solved.

3. Maybe this will get an answer here because two talk page inquiries have gone without a response. What motivated you to nominate C++ as a good article? When notified that the review had started, did you feel any urge to participate or give a heads up to an editor who might want to participate? When informed that the review had closed without comment did you feel that marking the talk page section as {{Done}} was sufficient? I'll admit writing this in a fit of pique but I'm genuinely curious. Protonk (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

   It looked like it was really close to GA. I really have know knowledge on the subject. I did think about asking for help at Wikipedia talk:Computer science, but I got really busy and forgot to. I thought you meant the talk page message as a notification, so I marked it with {{Done}}, which is my signal for the bot to archive the section now. --Nathan2055^{talk - review} 00:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

   Ok. I'm less upset about the GA nom (not your fault that there wasn't enough active interest in the article at the time) than I am about the lack of communication. It sucks to spend a few hours on a review, leave comments on a talk page and have them dismissed with a "done" a week or so later. Protonk (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Additional important question. Are you a sockpuppet? jorgenev 23:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Additional important reply: Nope, and you can checkuser that if need be! --Nathan2055^{talk - review} 17:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

• You do do a lot at AfC and it hasn't gone unnoticed. You say you completely cleared the backlog once, but I'm sure you've taken a mighty chunk out of it many more times than that ;) Keep up the good work! joe•roe^t•c 20:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

---

[edit] Avenue X at Cicero

Avenue X at Cicero (talk · contribs · count) I have been editing here for around 3 months and would like to know about my loopholes from other editors so that I can serve Wiki better. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   My primary contributions have been mainly creating articles relating to West Bengal, a template of the results of WB2011, politics related articles, reverting vandalism, patroling new articles, and tagging articles.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I have been in content disputes mainly with newly auto-confirmed users, where I revert their unsourced info. Most of the time, disputes are resolved but when not, I request for an admin to interfere and amicably mediate.

Reviews

• You now have a piece of featured content that is within the area that you work :) --Guerillero | My Talk 22:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

---

[edit] Surajt88*

Surajt88 (talk · contribs · count) I have been in Wikipedia for a little more than a year. I would like to know how I have progressed and I would very much appreciate any feedback. Thanks in advance. Suraj T 06:01, 26 July 2011 (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 include creating articles related to photovoltaics and sometimes related to tourist spots in and around Ooty. I also do a bit of vandalism fighting by patrolling recent changes. I am particularly pleased with my contributions to Category:Photovoltaics and organizing them into Template:photovoltaics, because of the effort I put in.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   All I can remember is here, which reflected here and here, but I'd rather call it misunderstanding than a dispute. And I believe I was pretty cool throughout. I wouldn't be unnecessarily losing my cool if I get into a dispute with another editor provided it doesn't get personal. And if it gets too far, there's always WP:ANI. I understand that both sides of most disputes which are approached civilly support improving wikipedia content but with different views and it would be unnecessary to heat up.

Reviews

---

[edit] Yellow Evan 3

Yellow Evan (talk · contribs · count) YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   Mostly article writing on tropical cyclones such as this. Prior to my last ER, I was invloved in a crap load of drama (i.e. Talk:Hurricane Darby (2010)). In January 2010, I reutrned to writing WP:EPAC articles. Since then, I've gotten a bunch of GA's. I also occasionally revert vandalism. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I have never been in a major editing disputes since my last Editor Review on wiki. However, the IRC can be funny but also dramatic. No offence to the user, but Darren23 (talk · contribs) has caused me minor stress over the years. IRC has had debates over everything from notability to level of detail in articles. It should be noted that I am an inclusionist. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

• I said it last time, and it's not quite as bad as then, but be sure every single time you click "Save page" that there aren't any typos in your writing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

---

[edit] MarcusBritish

MarcusBritish (talk · contribs · count) Just curious, really.. nearly 6 months contributing (1 month IP/5 registered). Might as well check in. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   Small edits all over, gnoming, copy-edits, originally. Created a few small articles on some local hills, and uploaded some photos for them and other nice places: MarcusBritish/Gallery_1. Contributed a whole load of edits, citations and tweaks to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington which seems to have gone unnoticed. Working mainly on WP:MILHIST Project things at the moment: creating a couple of articles the working them through Peer Reviews, BCR and ACR (not interested in FA level yet). Gave a first Peer Review which I think was taken well, mostly. Also found a range of articles (SSSIs in UK) that lacked consistency and took it upon myself to organise a "format" for them and created a table checklist for keeping track of these articles - I probably won't update them all myself as there is literally 100s of hours of very dull copy/paste work required - but over time they may expand, although many appear to have been abandoned half-way through. Most of what I've contributed to the SSSI lists already involved regex copy-editing to get things done in bulk. I am pretty thorough and organised, so it shouldn't be too much trouble to keep an eye on this as a minor side-editing project when I'm bored or lacking other things to do.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   More a 'review dispute'. Had issues with the attitude of a ACR reviewer, who was pushing his luck and became pretty obnoxious, imo. Led to some coordinators trying to get all "Freudian" on me, but not wanting to take sides. Regardless, they seem to realise it's better to take me for who I am and take my frank attitude with a pinch of salt than to take offence. :) Have continued with the review, regardless of that incident, and hope to get a couple more articles up to ACR over time that are in development and will inevitably require more work from review feedback.

Reviews

Interaction with other editors vastly needs improvement. Gerardw (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I waited 3 weeks and you could only comment from my last day or so on 1 conflict from 6 months history..? See my Contrib history, please.. I would like feedback on my edits, work, articles, submissions, etc, not my disputes.. which I am blissfully aware of. Thanks. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk]

[edit] Review by GB fan

I started out by looking at your edit count, to see where you edit at. Since we are here to make an encyclopedia, I like that most, almost 60%, of your edits are to the article space. The next highest space is userspace, which in most cases would be a little off. But since well over half of your edits in user are to a draft article, you are only adding to the encyclopedia. It is great that you are not getting involved in the drama areas.

Next I decided to look at the article you have made the most edits to, Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. This article does bring up a couple of concerns.

1. I noticed at least in one instance you made a lot of small edits in rapid succession. In the history I saw this series of five edits in five minutes to basically add one image to the article. It would have been better to use the "Show preview" button and make all those small edits in preview mode prior to actually saving the edit to the database.
2. The other concern is the lack of edit summaries. I think they are important to let other editors know what you are doing. In the last 50 edits to the article (if I counted right 41 of them are yours) 15 of them have no edit summary at all. Six of the edit summaries you used tell us you edited the article, I think everyone knows that already. The rest I think are fairly good, I personally would have been more descriptive of what I did.

You have done a great job overall on the article in the last 3 months.

Finally I looked at you interaction with other editors. I saw your interactions concerning the Good Article Nomination. I am not assigning any blame on how the conflict started or anyone else's part of the conflict, just reviewing what I see of your side of the conflict. I apologize in advance if this comes out negative. Your interaction leaves a lot to be desired. You were rude, aggressive, called people names, none of which are helpful to improving Wikipedia. Your interactions appear to be improving, I saw your latest message to George SJ XXI where you explained in a very good way your concerns with the edit they made and explained how to improve their editing. I believe if you continue communicating like that you will do much better and be happier with your participation here. p.s., I wrote this before I saw your comments above as I have been working on this in my userspace.

If you want anything more or any clarification let me know. GB fan please review my editing 17:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, GB_fan (talk · contribs). I wondered what "It is great that you are not getting involved in the drama areas" meant. If I take it literally it could mean articles on TV/film, etc.. if I take it socially it could mean not getting involved in areas prone to debate, such as AfDs. Could you clarify which you meant, please? Oh, and you were right, I have a lot going on in Sandbox atm, hence the high number of edits there. As for the 5 edits for the image, I think that may have been before I got wikEd, not sure - I use preview more now, as the options and two types of preview with it are much better for editors, plus I tend to cut large chunks and work on them in Notepad++ before pasting them to Wiki to preview then publish as a bulk submission rather than many tiny edits. Cheers for the review. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 18:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, I think this is the first one I have done. The drama areas as I see them are those areas where people complain all the time. A couple of the worst are, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. There are some of the threads that are important but a lot of them are useless just people complaining about each other. I watch them some but am very picky about the things I get involved with. Some AFDs can get to be drama filled but I most are fairly calm. Hopefully this clarifies my comments. GB fan please review my editing 19:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that, thought it might mean something like that but wasn't sure, as I have seen a few comments by editors who do not approve of fictional "drama" articles and think they should be left to dedicated wiki sites. Good review though, shows much experience and enlightenment - would never have guessed it was your first. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 19:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Beeblebrox

Not a full review, just focusing on your interactions with George SJ XXI (talk · contribs). Did George do some things that were obviously wrong? Yes. But some of your comments on his talk page were needlessly inflammatory. You seem to be very offended that someone dared to contradict you and revert your edits. You shouldn't allow yourself to become so invested in your contributions that a newer users misguided edits to an article unleash the type of hostility reflected in your edits on George's talk page and on your own. This [9] is not acceptable, as it is essentially a death threat. I can assure that if this admin had seen that remark at the time it was made you would have been blocked for it. I've quickly discovered that George is a somewhat frustrating person to deal with, and that he does not listen well but your attitude is harming rather than helping the situation. Both I and another admin mentioned to you that you were being needlessly confrontational and unhelpful, and your response in both instances was condescending and, well, arrogant. I see from your talk page that you recently were criticized by a user who perceived your remarks as being arrogant, and your response to that user was to tell them that they were "arrogant and belligerent" [10] and that in a previous remark you referred to them as a hypocrite [11] apparently because you did not like their findings at an article review. Don't take things so personally and I thnk you will find it much easier to get along with others in this environment. And don't ever, even in jest, suggest that another user you are in a disagreement with be taken outside and shot. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't a review, it was a rebuke - and not a very subtle attempt. I'm not sure what country you're from, so I'll assume not mine, and you'll find that such a "jest" is common-place in England, it's a cultural in-joke, mainly due to the fact that we have no personal guns, executions or such in this country to perform such acts - therefore it is called "irony", not your misconstrued interpretation. You suggest that I am "needlessly inflammatory" - since when does "bring back firing squads" (note: a form of judicial execution) transpire into "taken outside and shot" (note: probably murder)? I think you'll also find that accusing someone of making a "death threat" is paramount to slander when your analysis is clearly flawed and essentially that's your own fault by not being culturally diverse - perhaps in a gun-wielding country like America it would be deemed a threat, but not mine, and not in my country's Courts which have common sense and know the distinction between a likely threat and a sincere joke - especially when the supposed "victim" is 9,000 miles away and such a death threat, as you claim, holds no credence. Your interpretation is in bad faith, given that with a little imagination you might have applied some good faith humour to the comment. We don't all share the same "politically correct" ideals, nor should you seek to impose it when the comment was made between Brits who get the joke. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 06:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you've certainly shown me the error of my ways. Nothing arrogant or condescending in that reply, keep up the good work! Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm doesn't become you, nor is it clever. When you try to manifest your own ideals on others you stop becoming a responsible admin, and step into the realms of dictating. Don't be upset that not everyone is going to respect your "authoritah". Arrogance is subjective - my reply is like your review - take it or leave it. Have a nice day. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 17:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If I didn't know better I would think you were being deliberately ironic. Good luck with that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

---

[edit] Lithistman

Lithistman (talk · contribs · count) STATEMENT LHM 03:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I've done some recent changes patrolling, and have attempted to improve many articles across subjects that I find interesting. I'd like to think I focus mainly on literature and history articles, but in all honesty, I don't. I get easily distracted by the multitude of articles we have here, and find myself wading into the ocean of information with some regularity. I've recently decided to attempt to bring more focus to my editing efforts, and have created several sandbox articles, two for rewrites of existing articles, and one for a new article.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I had managed to avoid any major kerfuffles until I stumbled across Generation of Youth for Christ, while doing some RC work. Ironically, I restored an unexplained removal of content with my first edit to that article. I say "ironically" because eventually I became the target of much ire from people who actually agreed with my first action there. This has been, by far, the biggest "editing dispute" I've found myself in to date. During it, I've tried to remain calm, and express only my views on policy and the article. I would like feedback relating to how I've conducted myself in this particular dispute, but also in all areas of my editing in general. I highly value improving the encyclopedia, and interacting with other editors in a civil and collegial manner. I feel like I've tried to accomplish these goals over my time here, but have begun to question myself somewhat. I'd like an outside view of my contributions, particularly since I'd like to stand for adminship at some point. Best, LHM 03:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought is might be useful to place my Soxred93 edit counter here, for easy access, if people value such things when reviewing. LHM 23:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

[edit] Review by Fuhghettaboutit

• Some good participation at AfD, with considered points raised. If you want to stand for adminship people will look for AfD participation so keep that up. I do notice that a few people have managed to get you a bit riled. Nothing way over the top that I saw, but some. Most people struggle with this and I am not guilt free but if you let it all wash over you—just make good points on your own behalf or address the logical flaws in other people's points and completely ignore the rancor, bad tone or ad hominems in other posts—you will look better and your argument will be stronger.
• I see only a few article ever tagged for CSD. I am pointing this out because again, you have stated you want to stand for adminship, and experience in this area with proper tagging is often central in passing AfD. However, there is a two-edged sword here in that bad tagging is a common oppose reason. There are many sand traps in the area and you fell into one with SRAM si DRAM: CSD A2 is only for articles that are not in English and exist on another Wikimedia project. The tagging was declined on that basis. As a side note, if you had searched Google you would have discovered that the article was a copyright violation and could have tagged under CSD G12. I'm thus saying, experience in the ares is important but make sure you understand the criteria very well. Consistently notifying creators is also important (suggested notification markup will be in the deletion template for you to copy and paste; if you use Twinkle it will notify automatically). A smattering of other common pitfalls: CSD A7 (the most common criteria), does not require topics within its ambit to have shown notability, but only requires a mere indication of significance or importance. It only covers a very specific subset of things, viz, real persons, individual animals, organizations (e.g. band, club, company, etc. but not schools) and web content. Many people, when they start, go outside this list. CSD G4 is only for articles that were deleted after debate, such as at AfD—it does not apply to articles that were deleted after prior speedy deletions or prods. Do not tag articles under A7, A1 or A3 moments after creation since the person may not have finished adding the initial content. A minimum of ten minutes is suggested. This is just a few pointers. Check out Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion.
• People will look for consistent edit summary usage and you have 100%!
• Moves are a bit of a specialty area for me. You don't have many, and few people would notice this, and it's minor, but (you knew there was a but coming) when you moved Billy Ray Smith to Billy Ray Smith, Jr. you did not fix the category sort. This is a good place to learn about cleanup procedures upon page moves. Oh, I just noticed: are you sure that the move of Ell Roberson to Ell Roberson III should have been made? Our canonical article titling policy is WP:COMMONNAME. Quick Google Book and Google News Archive searches indicate that this move was against the common naming policy and pretty clearly so (43 verses 3,560 news hits).
• I have not looked at your article edits in depth at all, and I'll leave that for someone else. Just note that some people like to see significant mainspace contributions at RFA.
• If you have questions or need assistance and think I might be able to help, feel free to drop by my talk page anytime. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Review from Fastily

Fuhghettaboutit said it well: good participation at AfD, you're off to a fantastic start learning the ropes of WP:CSD, and you're using edit summaries well.

• I would like to compliment you on some of your RC work - looks good, keep it up!
• I read one article you started, Song of the Trees, and I found it to be fairly cohesive, especially for a stub.
• If you're interested in adminship, my advice to you - start actively !voting in WP:RFA, put that page on your watchlist and try to comment in every new RfA/RfB, if you don't already.

I think that's all I have to say that hasn't already been said. Keep up the excellent work, and happy editing! Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of reviews

I just wanted to leave a note here thanking Fuhg and Fast for their reviews. I think the most difficult thing for me to implement will be participating at RFA. I lurk their a lot, but it's hard for me to sit in "judgment" (for lack of a better word) on other editors, which is what RFA feels like to me, but I understand the advice, and will do my best to implement it. I've already had some discussions with Fuhg about his review, and areas where I can improve. LHM 19:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

---

[edit] Island Monkey*

Island Monkey (talk · contribs · count) Well, hello. I'm Island Monkey, I've been here for two months exactly now and I'd like some feedback of how you think it's going. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 20:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   My primary edits to Wikipedia are mostly cleanup. Cleanup. Cleanup! CLEANUP! This cleanup is usually vandal fighting, frivolous tagging (especially CSD tagging) as well as general housekeeping. I sometimes to content editing.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I've got into 2 edit wars now, number one I was blocked and number 2 - well - nobody was blocked, it was just some stubborn and rude IP who kept adding OR on Private career college.

3. Did you edit Wikipedia previously under another account? Hans Adler 12:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

   No. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 12:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

---

[edit] Reaper Eternal (2)

Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs · count) I have been working on patrolling new pages and countering vandalism on Wikipedia for around eight months now. I would be interested in a review of my work, and thoughts on how I handled the situation described in answer #2. I am interested in eventually being able to help block vandals and delete the new pages I find that clearly meet CSD criteria ("my best friend" A7s, G1s, G2s, G3s, G5s, G6s, G7s, G8s, G10s, G11s, G12s, U1s, U2s, R2s, and R3s). I would not be interested in deleting A1s or A3s, as I regularly see users add content after the page is tagged, thus averting deletion. So...fire away! (And say what you think of me, even if it is only "You are an ass!"—I have thick skin, and won't get angry—however, telling me what makes me an ass would be much appreciated!) Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I do have a CSD tagging log (current one here, and archives here (1), here (2), here (3), & here (4)) and a PROD log (only one here).
  • Would an admin please review my deleted contributions? :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2011 (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 my three GAs, Worlebury Camp, Hurricane Danielle (2010), and Cirrus cloud. I am particularly proud of the cirrus article, which I expanded 5x for DYK in the same time I spent building it for GA status. I also like Worlebury Camp, which is my first article and first GA, and I am glad to have had Rodw (talk · contribs)'s help getting it to GA status. I am confident that without his help I could never have gotten any of my articles to GA status. I have eight DYKs, although I have to admit to creating a copyright violation (I closely paraphrased a source on Trawscoed fort) that appeared on the Main Page. A month or two later, I realized what I had done and substantially pruned and cleaned up the content.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   As I have been on Wikipedia doing NPP for around eight months now, it has been impossible for me to avoid conflict. I try to respond politely to angry users who are requesting why their page was deleted, and direct them to ways they can contribute constructively (rather than writing about their friends/whatever). Recently, however, I was told by Drmies (talk · contribs) that I should be welcoming the vandals I was warning via Huggle or Igloo. I replied that the {{uw-vandalism1}} already assumes good faith on the part of the recipient, and that the edit in question really warranted a level-2 warning for intentional disruption. He then implied that I was being too BITEy. Eventually, MuZemike (talk · contribs) replied, stating that the edits I was reverting were blatant vandalism and should not be welcomed.

Reviews

• Review by Alpha Quadrant:

• Initial thoughts The first thing I noticed when I looked at you contributions is that you are a vandal fighter. You also have majorly contributed to several articles, most notably Worlebury Camp, Hurricane Danielle (2010), and Cirrus cloud.

• Antivandalism This appears to be your primary line of work, I haven't gone over all 13,000 or so reverts, but from a random sampling, you are very consistent with reverting and you are very good at maintaining civility.

• New Page Patrol For such a high number of articles tagged, your CSD log is one of the most consistent I have ever seen. Excellent work here.

• Namespaces Most of your edits are in the Article and User talk namespaces, clearly demonstrating that your devotion to vandalism fighting. You do however have a good number of edits in the Wikipedia namespace.

• Content building Excellent work here as well, three featured articles, 33 articles created, and 26 redirects. I do notice that quite a few of the articles are stubs (example 14 Sagittarii), but you still do good work here.

• Policy knowledge You have a clear understanding of the antivandalism/new page patroll policies such as WP:VAND, WP:CSD and WP:PROD. Through your content creations I see that you understand the style guidelines and WP:IRS.

• Overall You're doing a very good job, I had a bit of trouble coming up with finding something you could improve on. Even your AfD work is accurate. The only thing I might suggest is getting more involved in talk page discussions. That will demonstrate that you can work with other editors. Collaborating on a GA is great, but you might consider getting involved a bit more often. You would make a very good admin candidate. I would suggest waiting until at least October though, as I have seen that there are some users that will oppose simply due to less than one year of editing. Keep up the good work. Best wishes, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 05:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review! (I don't have three featured articles though—they are good articles—but cirrus cloud is at FAC.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted pages review

I checked your deleted contributions and I wanted to point out some things I noticed. By no means was I able to do an extensive review, so I mostly picked them at random (approx. 50 taggings). That said, your deletion taggings are mostly spot-on, so those examples are exceptions, not rules:

Effort Administrator

You tagged this article as A7 and G12. I think A7 was incorrect since it's about a web application, not a web page or web content. As for G12, please remember that just sounding like a copyvio is insufficient. To be blatant copyvio, you have to specify where it came from and a quick Google search reveals the source to be [12]

The Living Fields

Tagged as A7, although it claimed that the band will release an album on Candlelight Records, a notable label, so I think that was incorrect. That some admin with no real grasp on the deletion policy deleted it, does not make it better.

• Hmm...I thought I had replaced the speedy with a PROD after seeing the mention of a future album release. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Robinson (Canadian football)

Only content was "Alexander Robinson 97", tagged as A3. Is actually a case of WP:A1

Editing Portal:Bihar/Selected biography/15

You tagged this redirect to Portal: namespace as WP:R2. Sure, that was a redirect to be deleted but R2 explicitly excludes redirects to Portal: space. If someone mistakenly creates something at the wrong place, remember that R3 and G6 are there to clean it up.

Regards SoWhy 20:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll especially try to get the correct source of the copyvio next time! Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

---

[edit] White Shadows (4)*

White Shadows (talk · contribs · count) Hey everyone! For those of you who do not know me, I am White Shadows and this is my 4th Editor Review (I believe it is at least...I had a name change last year so it could be my 5th!) Now the reason that I'm requesting yet another editor review is because, after re-stumbling across my failed RFA from last summer, I realize just how unprepared I was in running for the mop. Aside from the obvious fact that I simply was not ready for it due to my character on Wikipedia, my answers were chock-full of typos, and my comments looked like they were written in broken English, which no doubt contributed to my failure. While I personally think that I've addressed most of the issues that were brought up in the RFA, I would like a fresh set of eyes to give me a honest assessment (hopefully) regarding my improvement over the past year and even beyond. To be entirely honest, looking back to edits made last year, January of 2010, and 2009, I cannot believe that I am the same person who made these edits. I almost chuckle when I read through some of my archives and past edits, seeing how immature and childish they were. Hopefully, I've changed and matured for the better as both an editor, as well as a person, since I made that first edit on July 22, 2009. White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 03:56, 11 June 2011 (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 have been my work on Austro-Hungarian Battleships and other naval craft such as U-boats (I consider List of battleships of Austria-Hungary and SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand to be the best examples of my work). Outside of the article space, I am a contributor to DYK as well as a regular Huggler. Recently though, my edits have gravitated towards behind the scenes work rather than article writing. In the past few months, I have been very inactive on Wikipedia. As an uprising Senior in High School, I've been very busy recently, taking AP tests, as well as studying for (and taking) the SAT. However, with the onset of Summer, I hope to return to my normal editing levels and get back to working in the areas of Wikipedia that I love to edit in.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   Anyone who has had any sort of extended contact with me on Wikipedia knows my checkered past. I have been in several disputes, both relating to editing controversies, and otherwise. Despite these setbacks, I personally believe that I have made great strives in eliminating these almost daily issues from my editing pattern. I have been engaged in very few editing disputes/augments for quite some time. I used to deal with the stress that this caused in the worst way possible; In the past, I held grudges toward editors. This tension built up and occasionally exploded in rather childish rages towards other editors. Having ended this chapter in my Wiki-life, I have not been engaged (Almost all of these incidents were ignited by me, not other editors) in such disputes that used to cause me so much stress (or they simply do not effect me the way they used to). With that in mind, I try to handle (and will continue to handle) any possible future disputes of any kind on this project with a simple sentience in mind: It's just a website. I realize now that not everything is personal on Wikipedia and there will always be different points of view out there, you simply need to deal with them and not let them go to your head. Taking that into mind, I try to remain cool and calm in editing disputes now. However, we all make mistakes, as easily shown by my extensive and heated discussion with another editor regarding the American Civil War. That was the last editing dispute that I've been in to my knowledge. I came out of that episode with the determination to no longer engage in politically heated articles that breed anger between all parties. I've also learned (finally) that Wikipedia is not about winning and losing. Rather, if cooler heads prevail, and teamwork is applied to write neutral, balanced, articles, rather than argue about their content, we're all winners.

Reviews

---

[edit] Soxrock24

Soxrock24 (talk · contribs · count) I've been on Wikipedia for two years and have pretty active for 1. I have under 500 edits and am looking on suggestions for what I can do better and any potential criticism. SOXROX (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I primarily contribute to political and sports articles, as these interest me the most, and I have the most knowledge in these fields. The only four articles I created were stubs about athletes- 3 about rookies in the NFL, and another about a basketball player entered in the NBA draft this year. Politically, I've been involved greatly in the 2012 presidential election article. I'm a member of the United States presidential election, NBA, and NFL wikiprojects. I am also a reviewer (as of april, not anymore now that it is gone), and had my rollback request declined rcently.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I'm actually in the middle of one right now at Talk:United States presidential election, 2012. Me and another editor have been pushing to remove certain minor candidates from the republican section, and another editor refuses to compromise. The editor that I agree with won't compromise either. We finally got a straw poll up the other day but I don't think that will resolve it because the request for comment hasn't made a consensus.

Reviews

• I do not have the time to write you a full review, however I did go over your work at AFD. Its good that you are working there, AfD always need more hands on deck, however (this goes for pretty much everyone) I think a review of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions would be good. You make some solid votes, but then other times just listing policies is not as good as an argument as to why a specific policy is not met. jorgenev 15:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

---

[edit] The High Fin Sperm Whale*

The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk · contribs · count) Hi, can some people please tell me what I'm doing wrong and what I'm doing right? I just want to know how helpful I am to Wikipedia and how I could be more helpful. I also plan to run in RfA again one of these days, so what am I doing and not doing that would affect a run for adminship? thank you for your time in reviewing. Yours, -- T H F S W (T · C · E) 02:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I have created over 126 pages, most of them science-related. Lately, I have also been involved in CVU and CSD. I recently created WikiProject Biomes, which I hope to really get off the ground soon. I have also made over 5,000 edits to Commons, were I have also uploaded 272 images.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   No, I haven't ever been involved in any major conflicts here. If I did ever get into one, I hope I could resolve it peacefully on the appropriate discussion pages. Wikipedia rarely causes me stress - in most cases it actually relieves stress.

Reviews

---

[edit] Σ

Σ (talk · contribs · count) I would like to know the quality of my deleted edits, if I'm making a mistake, if I can write or not, and if there's anywhere I need to improve. CSD log and PROD log. --Σ ^talk_contribs 06:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   Destroying vandals, creating redirects, expanding USSR-related articles, Runescape when there's a new update, and NPP. I am currently working on an article about coal balls.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   Being a new page patroller and vandal fighter, it's nearly impossible for me to avoid a dispute of some sort. One discussion where I was contacted by a new editor experiencing a difficulty understanding notability and verifiability.

Reviews

[edit] Review of speedy/prod tagging by ErikHaugen

I've looked through a few of your speedy deletion tags and deletion proposals, and they look great to me. I appreciate the courtesy blanking on the one A7 that was a little dodgy. One small nit is that in one of your prod "concern" notes you mention that the article is unsourced: being unsourced is not a reason to delete, so it would probably be better to say "there aren't any sources" or "I couldn't find any sources" or something; that would be a more interesting and relevant claim. I'll try to check some more soon. Great work! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This A3 tag is in error, I think, since there is some content explaining what the subject is. Also, it was applied very soon after creation. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not an admin, so naturally I have no idea what was on that page. Could you provide a copy of the article somewhere? Thanks, --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 04:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Tagged WP:CSD#A3 within a minute of creation. The entire content of the page was:

'Previously called SoapBits. Used for testing Web Services. Found on Codeplex under http://storm.codeplex.com/'

What you should preferably have done was to check for any previously deleted articles under STORM (Web Service Test Application) - because it looks like a potential spam page and such pages often get repeatedly recreated until an admin finally salts them. Run the same checks for articles under "SoapBits', check the creator's contributions to see if they have also created other dubious or spammy articles that may need bringing to administrators' attention or tagging, and check the creator' s talk page for warnings about any other policy infractions and escalate the warning levels if necessary. By the time these checks had been carried out, enough time would have lapsed to see if there was any intention on the creator's part to expand the article and if not, it could then have safely been tagged A1 or A3 as appropriate. Help understanding the principles involved in patrolling new pages is available at WP:NPP with further details on policy at WP:DELETION, and detailed descriptions of deletion criteria at WP:CSD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Review of speedy tagging

Overall everything looked well tagged. I looked through about 20 of your speedy tags, focusing on A7 but not being overly picky, and the worst I could find was Avi Vinocur where you tagged A7. Avi Vinocur claimed to be the songwriter behind a song featured in an advertisement. While this wouldn't survive an AfD, I think it was an "assertion of significance" and would have been better as a PROD. Really not a huge deal as I tend to be more strict than others on what qualifies as A7. I feel the intention of A7 is to cover the generic "I wanna be on Wikipedia"-type of articles with zero significance. Again, everything else looked great.--v/r - TP 17:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Brief review and question

Well, I've seen you here and there, and a quick look through your contibs shows a classic vandal-fighter set-up. Lots of mainspace and user talk edits, but not a whole lot of edits to any single article. Still, you obviously know what vandalism is ;), and you've done a good job there. I do have one question for you though. In the discussion you just linked to, in Q.2, you told the person this. Very true - FB, Youtube and blogs are not considered RS's. However, just a few days later, you created an article which relied heavily on Facebook: two of the sources, and almost half of the footnotes were sourced there. I'd like to know your thoughts. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 11:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If I may comment here, the problem—not that it's that big of a problem!—is Σ's unqualified claim that facebook and youtube are not reliable sources (disclaimer: I work or have worked at both). The about page hosted on fb is just as valid a reference as any game's official website, I think. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 13:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, I see what you mean. Having looked it up, I confused FB being a RS with FB being strongly discouraged as an external link. My apologies to Sigma. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As a note, the article in question was about a Facebook application. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 02:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if it's appropriate to reply here to ErikHaugen, but I will nevertheless. Facebook and Youtube are not considered reliable sources because they are mostly used for user-submitted content, and do not have any editorial control whatsoever. The same applies for blogs, IMDb and Wikipedia. All of these are generally not reliable as sources per WP:RS. What defines a reliable source is its editorial control over the content it publishes. All of the above sites do not enforce editorial control or in some case any control whatsoever (Youtube, Facebook), therefore, as a general rule, they cannot be considered reliable sources. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, the unqualified claim that they are not reliable is incorrect. Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites has more, and see the relevant policy about using a self-published source as a source about the publisher. You note that Facebook and Youtube do not exercise editorial control. This is mostly true, but the owners of the channels/pages on Youtube and Facebook may, and if those owners are, for example, reliable news outlets, then those channels/pages might be reliable sources. Saying that the medium is unreliable is like saying that TCP/IP does not exercise editorial control, and therefore internet-based sources are inherently unreliable. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Facebook is reliable, so long as the publisher is controlling it, but it's not a 3rd party source, and therefore does not show notability. I must've confused the two in the response User:Nolelover linked. My mistake. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 05:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Kudpung

There was a time when I used to be very skeptical of your attitude. However, since you began stalking my work and talk page, I have noticed not only a marked improvement, but a distinct increase in the number and quality of your contributions to policy matters. Hoever, don't let my Wikipedia opinions on policy development and change influence you, but do consider further deepening your knowledge of fundamental policies - you may even be a suitable candidate for adminship in the not too distant future. Be sure to read WP:NPP over and over again until you either know if off by heart or are sick of it, and also read this, and this, and recommend the essays to others wwhen you're on patroll. Keep up the good work :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Brief Review

Σ is probably one of the most helpful editors on Wikipedia, suggesting new ways of using Wikipedia and answering all my questions and helping me out when i was a newbie. I'd certainly recommend him to become an admin of some sort. (Unless he is already)  :) Goldblooded (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

---

[edit] Crisco 1492

Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs · count) Hi, I am here to get a review of my editing habits in preparation for a possible RfA within the next few months. I have been a Wikipedian since 2006 and have roughly 4000 edits, mostly within the last few months. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I contribute to a lot of different parts of the encyclopedia. I mostly do stuff at WP:RFF, WP:AFD, and T:TDYK, but I also write my own articles, improve some I see, fight vandalism, review articles, translate Indonesian language articles already here, welcome new users, and so forth. I have also uploaded numerous pictures to the Commons as well as pictures and a sound file to Wikipedia. The most pleasing of these is my work at RFF; not only do I feel like I am helping new editors find their footing, I am also pleased that this feedback has been recognized as good by User:Bob House 884.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   The one that stands out most in my mind is when I did a major revision of Sleman Regency. User:Merbabu and User:SatuSuro posted some comments on my talk page that I took offense to, but we worked it out in the end. We discussed it thoroughly and I referenced everything as they requested. I learned to do my best to cite whenever I can, even though the guidelines are to cite contentious material. There may have been some other, minor conflicts but nothing serious.

• Note. I have reviewed Eleassar (diff) and STATicVerseatide (diff) as suggested above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

Hello there. After an evaluation of your editor's review, as well as your talk page and other things, so far, your edits are so far good, as well as your intro page, which I believe is mostly (not completely) organized. The good thing is that you are committed to editing articles that matters to you, which I am very pleased so far. There are only a couple of improvements that you could change, but you do not have to take my word for it:

First of all, it would be helpful if you developed your own talk page policy if you do not want users to misuse your talk page. Additionally, I saw that you only have one archive page of your own. I do recommend that you create a yearly (or a monthly) archive page with the specified dates (e.g. 1/1/11 to 12/31/11). You can search those up on Wikipedia if you like, as the formats may be different from others.

Second of all, for privacy reasons, I think your personal information is a tad too much, as I felt that such things like the date of birth that you have written should only be for your personal use that many sites verify, but only when asked. If you wish, you can use more templates than what you have already. You can keep it as it is if you like, but I strongly suggest that you limit your personal information whenever possible. I will not say what else needs to be improved due to my commitment to my own privacy while on Wikipedia, but I hope those will help you be more secured when people visit your page or your talk page. CHAK 001 (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

---

[edit] Sodacan*

Sodacan (talk · contribs · count) I have been an editor since December 2008, this is my first Editor review. I would really like to get an opinion on my work and continued role in Wikipedia. Sodacan (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I contribute on a few, but quite varied set of subjects; these included: Thailand (politics and history), History and Heraldry. From the beginning of 2010 I voluntarily decided to exclude myself from editing all articles concerning Thai politics. I took this decision because I felt that I could no longer maintain my neutrality on the subject, and that any edit I made would be detrimental to the content of the project. Furthermore I was sure that I would eventually end up being in a conflict with someone from the community, which I would rather avoid. As a result my activities on Wikipedia since has been less varied and mostly surrounds my contribution of media files on Commons, almost all concerning heraldry. However ever since then, I have felt that my self-imposed exile was a mistake, and I could have at least ensured some sort of impartiality in the articles instead of allowing them to be so controlled by few editors with strong views of either side. However by this stage the articles are too big and the task too momentous for me too attempt, all of which have made me lose faith in Wikipedia as a platform for neutral facts. My current concern now, is whether the current path that I have taken, to become a media contributor (all of which I enjoy, don't get me wrong), has been correct. For I now feel that my value as an editor on the English Wikipedia, has been greatly diminished as a result.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   As a person who has an aversion to conflicts in general, I sometimes find Wikipedia to be quite a stressful place. I now feel that it is no longer an academic platform for the presentation of facts. But a debating and fighting platform, where the most extreme and diligent users win. Almost always by gaming the system and by being the most aggressive with their prejudices. I find this quite appalling. I can no longer step anywhere on Wikipedia without being on someone's turf. Although I am not completely guiltless of this, I have always feel that I have been fair in my discussions with others and that I have always respected their opinions. In light of these feelings I was wondering whether my continued presence on Wikipedia is needed, or should I just simply give up altogether?

Reviews

---

[edit] Sp33dyphil 2*

Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs · count) Hello. I'm here again to for any constructive critisms or compliments about my editing since August 2010, when I had my first editor review. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 08:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   My contributions primarily revolve around aviation, since I'm an aviation enthusiast. I mostly perform constructive edits to airline(r) articles, my prowess, and I take a lot of pride on my contributions to Airbus A330, rapidly expanding the article from late-January to late-February. From there, a number of editors had helped my promote to GA status, and it is now on its way to receiving the star. I also fight vandalism through patrolling the recent changes page, especially since my receipt of rollback rights from user Toddst1. I'm also a reviewer. I participate in RFAs, and I'm now beginning to have more dialogue with other users.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I've never had a great dispute with any editor because my work doesn't evolve a lot of communication with other users. I've had a few minor nudges with other Wikipedians, although I can't recall any from the top of my head.

Reviews

---

[edit] CHAK 001

CHAK 001 (talk · contribs · count) As an editor on Wikipedia, I do specialize in focusing on my favorite edits, which is not limited to just television. I also like to read other articles that are of my own interest, but sometimes, something may not be right. As a user, I felt that a review is needed since there are some areas that I would need improvement after one year being on Wikipedia. Although I have enjoyed editing on Wikipedia, I am also not sure if I am ready to become an Administrator. CHAK 001 (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   Most of my primary contributions focuses on articles that needs to cite sources, verify articles, or revert edits that are not appropriate to add to the article. While I only have created a couple of pages, I am usually pleased with the results to ensure that the article is relevant. Most commonly, I like to focus on articles as a local TV viewer, but I also like to read other articles that are of my interest. Most recently, I have started to be more familiar with the templates as time passes by, supported by users that gave me some advice. I will still allow anyone to continue accepting areas of improvement at my talk page, which I will most likely take into consideration.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   For editing disputes, I relatively have very few. In general, when I am in a dispute, I do ask the question to users, and that user and I would chat for a while. As for stress, I usually get a bit annoyed if anyone tries to add something that either does not meet the guideline, has unnecessary information, or anything that deems inappropriate. In that case, I usually give courtesy notices to the user that does such things, followed by other actions. If the actions were to happen in my talk page, I do take it seriously in the form of a one-time warning, followed by a referral to an administrator if such behavior continues.

Reviews

Hello CHAK. I dare to review you. You say "...I am also not sure if I am ready to become an Administrator...." Well, have you looked at others' user pages? This is a collaborative project where editors work together in a friendly atmosphere. Your user page is beyond bizarre. I have never seen anything like it. Warnings? Punishments? Terms and conditions? Mandatory this, and one-time warning that? All restrictions apply?

Here's a suggestion: Totally blank your entire user page and talk page. Replace all that stuff with a picture of a bunny, and "Welcome to my page. I hope you're having a good day." Don't worry CHAK, nobody will bite you. Nobody will breach security and send your user page into defcon 12.

Your user page smacks of paranoia and hostility. It's totally, totally unnecessary. We're a friendly bunch here. And any vandals who do encounter your pages the way there are now, will absolutely not hesitate to, with a huge smile of satisfaction, vandalize it to antagonize you.

Consider yourself reviewed, my friend. Oh, and your edits? Fine and dandy. Good stuff. bunny. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

One more thing. In case you didn't know, here at Wikipedia bold is kind of like raising your voice, and all caps is like yelling. Bold and caps? Deafening. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Seconded on that review!! LOL! I'm sorry CHAK.. but I completely agree with Anna here.. your userpage is one of the most hostile and unwelcoming I've ever come across. You needn't be so worried about people posting unwanted things in your userspace, anything can easily be reverted. Relax a little, don't be so contractual and pedantic, people are not out to get you. If I may say though, with your style of writing, you should consider a career as a legal writer. -- œ^™ 18:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I third their reviews. A lot of bold and italics may be frightening to people who wish to talk to you. Other than that, your edit summaries need a little work; you only do them maybe once every 15 edits. Your communications with other editors is quite terse and can be offsetting for new editors, like at this IPs talk page. Also, without knowing the context of your comment I cannot tell for certain, but it looks like you are saying that someone owns the article at that page. As for administration, I don't think you would be accepted just yet; from what I've read, they judge you by your number of edits (you have 1300), balance of where you edit (you have not participated in many things, like AfD), and interactions with other editors. I am not an admin either, so I do not know for sure how an RfA would go for you if you made one now.

I honestly came here to remove the asterisk, then stopped to read the whole thing when I saw "bunny". hop hop

I hope that helps. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Could I fourth all that? I'd say as well that you don't need to worry about all of that. If your page gets vandalised or personal attacks get posted well firstly; its a wiki - so you or somebody else could just get rid of them on sight and secondly; admins are likely to take action regardless of whether there is anything written on your user page about that, it's against wikipedia policies: WP:NPA and WP:VAND. Another point is that you have made clear that it is your intention to report any breaking of your talk page rules to administrators - whilst some people choose to have some talk page 'house rules', they aren't binding or enforceable and I doubt any administrator would be willing to impose sanctions in such a case.

Also just to say, this reason for reverting: "Permission not authorized by the editor that watches the article closely" is totally unacceptable per WP:OWN. It is never ever appropriate to remove content added by another editor simply because 'the regulars' don't like it no matter how much you've contributed to the article or how new the other editor is. Please don't ever revert for that reason. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

---

[edit] LoveUxoxo*

LoveUxoxo (talk · contribs · count) I have been editing off and on since 2007, I have previously editing under a different username, User:Lipsticked Pig (edit count here). I changed my name for a "fresh start" and to be 100% civil for then on (I don't believe I was necessarily uncivil before, but wanted to be much better). However my first real experience with an emotionally charged topic, in the case Bloody Sunday (1972), didn't bring out the best in me. Along with civility issues, the articles I have most worked on have been kinda solitary experiences. Most of my edits have been on the TWA 800 article, and there hasn't been much collaboration. Also, I ramble. So I would like feedback on how you would view/deal with me if I was involved in an article you were editing as well, and opinions on my edit summaries/editing style and talk page comments. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   TWA 800, I give myself a lot of credit from changing it from this disaster to its current state. However, I am trying to make a conscious effort to back off and let other people push it in a direction they want. Don't know if I have been successful or if temptation gets the best of me from time to time.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I really did want to avoid conflict, but broke down and started to get involved in an article involving The Troubles, and wow, that area of WP is crazy. Having followed the talk for a while I "knew" it wasn't going to go well, but I pretty much ensured that by starting off with a whine stating my opinion that the editors and article had a strong-POV, and the article was very poor quality. All of this to me isn't just true but blatantly obvious - but so what?!? All I did was make life harder for myself, and I can't imagine doing it again. Also I went crying to teacher (AN/I) like a petulant child, I embarrassed myself. I'm rationalizing it as if we all have to have one frustrating experience to learn to deal with it well(?) - or should I have been more prepared by now?

Reviews

---

[edit] Jsharpminor

Jsharpminor (talk · contribs · count) I have recently started using Huggle. Before that, despite considering myself a fairly active editor on-and-off, I had a grand total of 700 revisions. Since starting using Huggle yesterday, I now have 1500 and counting fast. Although I have never vandalized or otherwise made a single edit that wasn't in good faith, I want to get an editor review, possibly looking on some of the feedback I've received on my userpage, before a hundred angry editors come and slam my userpage with "Why did you revert this???" and "What the $!@# do you think you're doing!?!?!?" Jsharpminor (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   Mostly I poke around, often contributing a small edit when I see a grammatical error when I had intended to come to Wikipedia just for research. I've occasionally patrolled recent changes, and now with rollback and Huggle, that's a major part of what I'm doing.

• I contributed greatly to the Kentucky Mountain Bible College page, taking it from a [stub] with no images and little useful information to the page it now is. (Yes, I did attend there; the article is still mostly NPOV and very well cited.) I also added the Disambiguation pages, and greatly improved accessibility for folks who might be searching for KNBC, or KMBC-TV.
• I inserted an extremely useful (but probably unread and unloved) FAQ on the Presidential approval ratings page to help clear up a few errors and quash an edit war, without contributing to the fighting.

1. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I have been in several editing disputes. Recently, two of them have gotten people blocked. I try to avoid actually contributing to the edit wars, as is extremely evident in those two incidents.

• I was attempting to add sourced material to a page when another editor reverted it. I stopped, double-checked everything, and a good revision to the page is in the works.
• Other than being screamed at for reverting vandalism and unsourced material, I really don't find myself in too many edit conflicts any more. When I do, I tend to look to policies for guidance, checking both the other editor and myself.

Reviews

Review of RC Patrolling by Monty845

I have a couple comments on your recent changes patrolling. You may want to AGF more when reverting material, for instance this, while maybe not a great question, doesn't seem to rise to the level of something that needs to be reverted when it is on someone's talk page, in one sense it could even be thought of as a compliment. The second point is that you may want to make use of the drop down list of edit summaries that huggle provides (both on the revert and the revert+warn options), for instance it is not clear to me why this was reverted. On this revert, it may well be a proper revert if you think the changes are factually wrong, but I don't think the change is so crazy that it is unambiguous vandalism, an edit summary would help a later editor figure out if you thought it was just intentionally wrong, or perhaps the editor who changed it had committed other vandalism and so it was clear this was just more of the same. Finally on this edit, while I would probably revert it, I would make sure I gave a good reason in my summary (you can enter a manual one too) along the lines of: "too much coverage of the music video, WP:UNDUE, also hard to follow" and then do a revert only without warning. Don't get me wrong, your counter vandal efforts are overwhelming positive, and while many editors don't do it, I think it would be best practice to use informative edit summaries in all but the most obvious cases of vandalism (and may as well then too, its only one extra click in HG). I hope this doesn't discourage you from continuing with your recent change patrolling, keep up the good work! (I left the not yet reviewed tag because I only covered one aspect of this editor's contributions) Monty₈₄₅ 19:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

---

[edit] Buggie111 (3)*

Buggie111 (talk · contribs · count) ...and here I am again. It's been just over 1,000 edits and two two month hiatuses since my last editor review, and I have come back for more advice. I know that there is a backlog here at editor review (which I'll get to work on tomorrow), but I'll continue without delay. Since my last WP:ER, I have managed to help User: White Shadows and User:Parsecboy bring and article I created, SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand, to FA, and two others, Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) and SM UB-50, to GA. With the help of White Shadows and Parsecboy, I managed to create a GT (Battleships of Austria-Hungary) and have started to move old user subpages from my userspace into the mainspace. Along with that, I have been trying to do more XfD !voting and page patrolling as said to me in my last review, but it never seems to materialize on any given day (I'm thinking about making it a daily habit). Along with the normal volume of CSD tagging for me, which has already been reviewed by Rossami nothing else new has happened. I would like to know if there is anything else that I should do to become a better editor, or if I should just continue down my current track. Older reviews are here and here Buggie111 (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   Put shortly, SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand, SM UB-50, Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) and Wikipedia:Featured topics/Battleships of Austria-Hungary

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   Besides some conflict with User:Hyperhippy92 over a section of Roller Coaster Tycoon 3, which we resolved peacefully with some outside help, I haven't been in any. My attitude is te same from the last review. Treet everyone as you want to be treated.

Reviews

---

[edit] Bulldog73*

Bulldog73 (talk · contribs · count) I am a good-natured editor and have changed Wikipedia's content for four months. Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 00:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   Primarily, I fix references and adding information to stubs. I am particularly pleased of my work on Pillow Pets. Because of my edits, no one has considered nominating it for speedy deletion. I even had it peer reviewed.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   Not too long ago, I made the mistake of nominating USS Chesapeake (1799) for FAC when it still needed to be copyedited. Fifelfoo, however, attacked my nomination, calling it a "procedurally malformed request." I made a comment about this situation on its talk page before it was moved to my talk page. I will now be careful by waiting for an article to meet the FA criteria before nominating it for FAC.

Reviews

---

[edit] Strikerforce*

Strikerforce (talk · contribs · count) As a registered Wikipedian of just short of three years, I am very interested to see what other editors have to say about my work around the project, particularly in the past six weeks or so since I have really started editing on a regular basis. At some point in the future (I would say at least six months from now, but probably longer), I may consider making a run at adminship. Given the state of the RfA process at the moment, I am particularly interested in commentary from regular contributors at RfA in regard to the "usual arguments" that have been popping up. Overall, however, I am mainly looking for commentary that I can use to help make better contributions to the project. Strikerforce (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   My primary contributions have been in the form of new page patrol, as well as patrolling the new user log. In both arenas, my goal is to catch problems before they become a headache, while also assisting new users to the best of my ability. As a result, a large percentage of my edits are to user talk pages, rather than the article space. I can, however, contribute constructively to the article space. My highlights there include B96 Pepsi SummerBash, which was recently mentioned at DYK, and random work around radio station articles. I also have a strong interest in pages about media personalities (particularly given that I am one, myself, in real life) and sports articles. I am currently working on Paul Lusk, an article that I just created earlier this evening about a basketball player that I watched as a young child who is now the head coach at Missouri State University. While it is just a stub, as of this writing, it is my goal to bring it to GA status, at the very least, at some point in the future.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I can't say that I have been in an edit "dispute", necessarily, but I have been involved in a couple of rather headed AfD discussions, most notably WP:Articles for deletion/G-WAN (Web server). In that discussion, an editor became very agitated over the fact that I - along with several other editors - believed that the web server that he appeared to be a major contributor toward the programming of did not meet the guidelines for notability. He began attacking other editors using both his registered account and a dynamic IP address, even going so far as to accuse us all of being one person and having some sort of conspiracy against his program that was backed by the U.S. government. As my comments in the discussion show, I try to approach situations like these with an extremely level head and explain things in a calm manner. My weakness, in that regard, is that I can be a bit "wordy", but I try to error on the side of caution and hope that a detailed explanation can help a distressed editor "see the light", so to speak. With the exception of a couple of comments toward the end of the discussion (which also spawned an RFC and a sock puppet investigation) when the situation was clearly a lost cause and the frustration of dealing with someone who blatantly refused to take constructive criticism and suggestion to heart and improve their article, I feel that this discussion is a good example of how I would continue to approach things in the future.

Reviews

---

[edit] Uirauna*

Uirauna (talk · contribs · count) STATEMENT Uirauna (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   When I have free time (rarely) I tend to do some random patrolling and recent changes checking. Most times I just keep a watch on my watchlist pages. I decided to choose a topic to which I have no personal relation at all and work to keep it sharp and free from POV and vandalism. After a while I chose middle east history and politics, on which I believe I´ve been able to keep a fair standing, even on issues where I disagree.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I´ve been on some editing disputes recentyl on the Iran-Iraq War, mostly over POV-pushing from other users. I've always tried to be civil and when necessary I tend to take a few days off from the article to avoid getting overheated. If necessary, I try to go through the formal dispute resolution process.

Reviews

---

[edit] Mobile Snail*

Mobile Snail (talk · contribs · count) Well the posting of myself for review will be my 2,000th edit. I began editing in July 2009, and edited for about 3 months. I got my first DYK in Auguest 2009, and went on a sudden hiatus. I did not edit until I returned in mid-March (the 11th? can't remember for sure. A couple days ago I obtained Reviewer and Rollback rights, which has allowed my number of edits to explode by using Huggle In the time from my hiatus to now I have upped my edit count from about 700 to 2000. Anyway, enough blather. If you would like to read more about me or what I do, just check out my userpage. MobileSnail 03:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   By far my best article work is Boone Kirkman, while it is not "my article", I have been the primary editor of it and managed to 5x expand it to DYK upon my return. Some of the other things I am proud of are my vigorous vandalism reverts with Huggle. I am a little heavy-handed, as I try to dig a bit deeper, reverting factual errors and NPOV stuff quite frequently. But I am rapidly learning Huggle from my mistakes, and my goal is to gradually decrease my number of mistakes on Huggle and to identify and undo them when they happen. I currently do my best to fix my mistakes immediately.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I have never been in a moderate editing dispute (that I can recall), just a few very minor ones, so why don't I talk about my approach to conflicts. The main thing you want to do is remain respectful and calm when it comes to confronting an issue with another editor. I have found that in my experiences and reading other users' experiences that the one thing that consistently gets a negative response from the other side is disrespect and resentment. I always at least try to come off as the "nice guy" when I am pointing something out to someone or approaching them on a disagreement. This way it is almost always taken as constructive criticism or at least that I am not trying to attack them.

Reviews

---

[edit] Simply south*

Simply south (talk · contribs · count) I have been here for nearly 5 years. Coincidentally the 30th March did mark this anniversary. Anyway, I am a veteran user with over 24,000 edits. I would like other peoples' opinions and feedback on my current editing and my history. What can i improve on and what is okay? Simply south...... 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I contribute to a lot of articles under transportation, especially rail transport. I also run the newsletter at WP:LT and am possibly the most experienced editor of the MOTD project. I enjoy interacting with other users. I have also found that a large proportion of my edits have been article and template maintenance edits. I also enjoy contributing to geographical articles.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I have been in a few minor arguments such as at Talk:Chesham branch but nothing recently or too serious. They have never really caused me stress. I have dealt with them by talking to the editors involved calmly until we can reach an conclusion or consensus by others has been made.

Reviews

---

[edit] Catchthedream*

Catchthedream (talk · contribs · count) Hi! I'm just getting back into Wikipedia editing after a long hiatus and I'd like some feedback about how I can improve my edits and how I can contribute more. Thank you :) Catchthedream (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I wrote nearly the entire Ida Crown Jewish Academy article, and now I'm working on an article on my userpage -- User:Catchthedream/Issamar Ginzberg. I loved my ICJA article for my ability to keep neutral even though it's my alma mater, but I'm struggling with the second article -- I'm a little paranoid about writing about a living person, esp. when some of the information I have is from blog posts. That said, I'm pleased with my efforts thus far to do appropriate research.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I haven't had a recent editing dispute in some time. I generally let things go unless an article is particularly important to me -- or, alternatively, if that editing dispute involves something that directly attacks my ethnicity, gender, or religion. However, I would always try to be as civil, balanced, and reasonable as possible.

Reviews

---

[edit] Neckername*

Neckername (talk · contribs · count) STATEMENT Proud Gamer (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2011 (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 in the technical field, specifically in PC related subjects (hardware and software). I stay on top of recent technological changes through a few magazine subscriptions and newscasts/pod casts. Therefore, I have invested in my hobby (of PC building) and am willing to contribute as much as possible to spread the information for easy access over Wikipedia. I am particularly pleased with Wikipedia in the area of catching and removing vandalism. It used to be horrible on here (in terms of educational research), but now, literally within seconds most vandalism is caught. That is why I am very satisfied to be part of one of the most well known hosts of information and information sources.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I have been lucky not to be involved in any editing disputes. I try to add information that is backed by multiple credible sources, which helps avoid these situations. I may have never had to deal with an editing dispute, but I have ran the scenario in my head many times on how I would handle such a situation. First, I would try and contact the editor in a non-hostile fashion, then I would ask why he or she feels the way they do. After, I would explain why I edited how I did. After this I would consider the other side of the dispute and do some more research to verify my information. If my information was true, then I would show the other editor this information and the sources to prove my information is correct. If not, I would easily admit where I was wrong and show them the reason why I posted that information. Then, if it had not been done already, I would remove my edit.

Reviews

---

[edit] Thebirdlover*

Thebirdlover (talk · contribs · count) I have been a user for about a year and hve been editing with 2007. On my anon years I focused by articles but now I have basically switched to vandalism removal. I tried to get review rights but I was denied and specific concerns are expressed there. Thebirdlover (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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

   I am pleased how I was the first one to find the AshleyBird ring of sockpuppets. Search User:AshleyBird1 for more.

2. Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

   I have been in one with a user who kept blanking his talk page and if I would be in that situation I would try be concerned and a little bit of a psychyratist.

Reviews

I'm unsure quite how one should review an editor's contributions but I have looked at Thebirdlover's last 100 edits (back to January 29, 2011) without finding any actual edits of Wikipedia articles. What I do find is many comments on his own and other peoples' talk pages, various investigations into sockpuppetry and a couple of reversions for vandalism. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)