Home Page - YouTube Channel



Wikipedia:Editor review - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Editor review

From the Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can change

Shortcut:
WP:ER
The place to ask to be granted adminship is on the Requests for Adminship page

Editor review is a way that users can have their changes to Wikipedia reviewed by others, who will provide tips and pointers on areas for improvement.

Anybody can ask for an editor review, regardless of the amount of time they have been at Wikipedia.

Please note an Editor Review will not necessarily translate to a successful RfA.

When asking for a review, please consider reviewing another editor.
Purge page cache if reviews haven't updated.

Contents

[change] Guidelines

Editors are asked to remain civil and assume good faith.

When reviewing, consider:

  • User conduct:
    • Using the edit summaries correctly
    • Constructive comments on others talk pages
    • Any problems indicated on user talk page
  • Number and types of edits:
    • Is the editor doing a lot of the same type of small edits (if so, why?)?
    • Is the editor getting rid of vandalism accompanied by the right level of warnings and by reports to WP:VIP?
    • Is the editor contributing (constructively, not by voting) to RfDs?

Users with an asterisk next to their name in the subheading have not been reviewed at all yet. Users may still need further reviews even if they do not have an asterisk.

[change] Requesting reviews

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

  1. If you have had a previous editor review, don't edit it. Either:
    1. Repost it (if it was recent and received little feedback)
    2. Create a new one with a number after your username (usually, 2 if it is your second review, 3 if it is the third, etc).
  2. Do not save the new page! Replace "STATEMENT" in the edit box at the bottom of the page with a brief message about yourself and why you want to be reviewed.
  3. Save the page.
  4. Next, answer the questions accurately.
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:Editor review/USERNAME}} to the top of the list on the Editor Review page.
  6. You will then be reviewed. Once you are happy with the feedback received, remove your section and archive it here.
  7. Optional: you can put the {{Editor review}} template on your user page to tell other users about your review.
  8. Optional: Please add your editor review page to the archive before you are reviewed. You will still be reviewed, but doing this makes it easier for us.


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

[change] Archives

Sections with at least one review will be archived at Wikipedia:Editor review/Archives 30 days after they have been created.

[change] Current Reviews

[change] RyanCross

RyanCross (talk ▪ changes) Hello, I am RyanCross. I'm new here at the Simple English Wikipedia. I've been very active since I made my account. I would just like to know how my editing has been and where I should improve in my areas of editing.

Yes, I would like to become a Simple Wikipedia administrator. It would be a good way to better help the community. Just to let you reviewers know, I have an account on en-wikipedia. But looking through the archives of WP:RfA, I don't feel I should nominate myself. It would be better for a trusted editor to nominate me. But if I feel that I am ready, I would nominate myself. Of course I would wait a few months of quality and constructive editing, meeting the Wikipedia:Criteria for Adminship. By the way, I'm not saying all this just so I know how to pass an RfA, I just would like to know what others thought of me becoming an admin in the future. I generally know all the policies also. Reading through all of them showed me that there similar to en-wikipedia, just not as strict.

Anyway, most of my information is located here. Any review would greatly be appreciated. Oh, and feel free to ask me more questions. I'll answer it thoroughly so I can get a good response on how I should edit. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

  • From your first day here (oh wait, a few hours ago), you have done nearly perfect. You have caught on quickly of the whole "Simple English" concept, and have been a good copyeditor. Of course you've only been editing a day or so, so aren't fully experienced. But you are fastly becoming an amazing contributer here. Given some time to learn more, and get experience and trust, I think that you will be part of the future of the Simple English Wikipedia. Cheers -- America †alk 05:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "New" is kind of an understatement. Your first edit was only 28 hours ago and you already have 331 edits... Cassandra (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Hehe, I'm guessing that was a compliment. Thanks, I think. Do you think you can be a bit more thorough? Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The first time that I saw your name on the Recent Changes, I thought to myself, "Who the heck is this user? I've never seen him before?" As I started investigating the edits that you have made, though, I have come to realize that you are probably one of the most prolific editors ever to come onto this site. Even I didn't make 331 edits in my first day here and I sure don't think that it will be long until you break my 1,000 edit in 1 week record, too. Every single one of your edits so far have been of a benefit to this Wikipedia and you have done an excellent job so far. You have dabbled in every single category that is necessary to make this Wikipedia a better place: Mainspace, Template, and Category, not to mention User and User talk. You have created many good articles already and as American Eagle has stated above, you are by far one of the better copyeditors that I have seen in my tenure here on the Simple English Wikipedia. I nearly forgot to mention the fact that this user has also been a great help in keeping the Simple English Wikipedia vandal-free. Not many people can say that on their first days :P Keep it up! Cheers, Razorflame 05:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the kind words Razorflame! I really do appreciate it. Everything of what you said, I will continuo doing. Best, RyanCross (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Not a problem. Just a quick note, but do you really think that answering a question from March of 2007 is a good idea? I highly doubt that the original poster will even be looking for a response to his or her question over 1 year later. Also, not everything requires a reply :) Cheers, Razorflame 07:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, thanks for the tip. I wasn't really looking at the timestamp. I won't do that if it's been posted there for a long time. -- RyanCross (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Excellent edits so far, just try to break the En Wiki habits like External Links to Other Websites. I'm especially impressed with your Barnstar collection! It took me months to get my first one. --Gwib -(talk)- 15:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Hehe, well, that's because I already have experience in editing and someone noticed. You should see my barnstar collection on en-wikipedia. I have 59 barnstars there. And yeah, when I first came here I was confused weather you use "Other websites" other than "External links". Thanks Gwib! -- RyanCross (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I haven't got to know you that well but from what I be seeing here and there you doing good...don't steer from that path.--  † ChristianMan16  03:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll try to stay on the right track. ;) Best, RyanCross (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • 932 edits in 4 days! (about 233 edits/day) Very good copy-editing work you have done, though you might want to consider making more major edits. P.S. What is your enWP username? Chenzw  Talk  02:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I asked him that also. -- America †alk 02:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there really a need to know? I don't think it matters much to know other user's user names on another wikipedia. Is there? Anyway, thanks Chenzw, I'll try to make more major edits. -- RyanCross (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright. For now, I'll trust what you say, and sorry to be nosy. Just don't expect to become an admin with it hidden. But I trust you, and I am not worried about it at all. Cheers -- America †alk 03:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
And why is that? I should hope that Da Punk '95 or ChristainMan16 are not blacklisted from becoming admins here solely beacuse of their actions over on the English Wikipedia. A rather hasty check of Special:Listuers shows that no active admin here (Creol, Chenzw, Cometstyles, Lights, Archer7) is an admin on the English Wikipedia; their successful candidacies stemmed solely from what they did on Simple, not on English. Cassandra 03:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean it like that. I just meant that, this is strange for we talked about this on IRC, I didn't think that you should say that you are hiding things (and Ryan knows more about what I mean), and expect to be trusted by many. But I trust him well already. I didn't mean to say he couldn't without giving up his identity there. Thanks -- America †alk 03:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, let's not get into a big fuss about this. American Eagle, if you really want to know that badly, than I will be happy to email it to you. So if you want to know, just ask me. I just don't want to reveal my identity yet to the community, and trust me, I'm not blacklisted. :D There's nothing wrong with that. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
No, that is fine. As to show that I trust you, I'm asking just to forget it, I don't want (or need) to know. Cheers -- America †alk 03:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Chenzw  Talk  10:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems odd you want to be an admin from the outset. Why is that? Remember adminship is not a goal or trophy. Majorly talk 11:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, it's not. It's absolutely "no big deal" either. The reason why I would like to become an admin is so that I can better help the community. It would be odd if an entirely new user creates an account and then wants to be an admin. Entirely new users have no idea what admins actually do. I ,on the otherhand, am very familiar with the tools already. I've learned what admins can do, when it would be appropriate to use the tools, and when not to use them. I'm not necessarily a "entirely new user". I've been doing most of my editing at en-Wikipedia and have learned quite a lot about admins there. I've gone through and read many of the polices here, and I think I've got them all down. I'm not eager to become an admin, I would just like to better help the community, and of course, the encyclopedia. -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think in the short time you've ben here you've done an excellent job here. I don't think there's too much for the community to worry about should you go for RFA in a couple of months - your edits so far show you have nothing but the best interests in the project in mind. And adminship is no big deal. However, I would advocate that you start article building rather than just article tweaking. Getting to grips with creating good articles from scratch is the best way to understand the whole process here and would stand you in good stead if you went for RFA. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Rambling Man. It's true, I do a lot of article tweaking. I do create articles and expand articles at times. A list can be found here. I'm trying to get baseball uniform to WP:GA status, but it still needs a lot of work, mostly referencing to do. Well, I'll try my best in GA areas. -- RyanCross (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

RyanCross (talk • changes • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    My best contributions would be creating pages such as templates, categories, and of course articles. I list of what I have created is located at here. I do watch recent changes for any vandalism. I use popups to revert which is what I use on en-wikipedia. I'm generally accurate in reverting vandalism and giving the appropriate warnings. While RC patrolling, I sometimes notice articles that are nonsense, test, vandalism, no content or little content, etc being created. I of course tag them with the appropriate tags. Oh, and I would participate in WP:RFD more but there's only one debate open right now. But when there is a new debate, you can expect me commenting and voting on it. Well, now to general article writing. I do a great deal of copyediting and wikifying article, improving them further. I create mostly baseball articles. I recently created WikiProject Baseball so it can help just for that topic. My best articles I have created thus far would be Derek Jeter, baseball glove, and baseball uniform. The rest of my articles are mostly stubs. I've also created a good list called List of Major League Baseball teams by payroll.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    Being here for a short time, no, none at all. I never get frustrated as what others tell me. I'm generally a nice person. I've actually been thanks for my contributions a few times in my time here at Simple Wikipedia. But if I did get into a conflict, I would really just try to stay cool and try to solve the problem. As for stress, I would just take a small break, a few minutes or hours just to think. I would than come back and try to solve the rest of the problem. I can't really answer the second question since I haven't been in any conflicts.

[change] American Eagle

American Eagle (talk ▪ changes) - This is not an RfA, nor do I (myself) intend to start one based on the result of the reviews here. But I would like to be considered to be granted the Sysop tools in the future. I have been on for two months+ (a few weeks under the advised timeline). I would ask that you add a review with any comments, questions, or otherwise things you would like to say regarding my edits or otherwise. Thanks a lot -- America †alk 03:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

  • You are an excellent user with a strong commitment to the mainspace by percentage of edits (58%) and the 100+ stubs you have created. You also demonstrate diversity in working on cities, universities, people, films, and sports. I wouldn't hesitate to support a future bid for adminship. Cassandra (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've kept an eye on your edits since your start and I have to say in my eyes your well on your way towards Admin status. You change your sig ALOT which gets distracting cause after we get used to one you change it and we don't know, or at least I don't, know it's you until the sig is clicked on...you need to work on that. Helping others clear their sand box sometime wouldn't hurt even if you need help (hint, hint). And while I love, for lack of a better term, the Christian part about you it wouldn't hurt to branch out to other areas , like I need to do. In short...your on the right path.--  † ChristianMan16  04:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops, forgot about that. I'll also try to keep this sig for awhile. Cheers -- America †alk 04:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A look at your edit count and your article, your doing pretty good so far, and well on your way on a WP:RfA passing. I noticed you've created a lot of stubs. Try to get one or two of your articles you've created to WP:GA, and even WP:VGA. Over 500 edits to the project space means you have a decent amount of experience in administrative pages. All I would suggest is do to some recent changes patrol. I don't see you revert that much. I know I've only been here for about 28 hours, but I haven't seen one revert. Vandal fighting seems like a good trait for admins. Try it. So overall, do some vandal fighting and article expanding. If I think I se your ready for RfA, I'll ask to nominate you. Best, RyanCross (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
A note to RyanCross, I've already said that I would nominate him over email and on the IRC channel that we both go to, but if you would like to nominate him as well, feel free to nominate him as well :). Cheers, Razorflame 05:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Can I be nosey and ask a) which channel and b) why are you not in irc:#wikipedia-simple?
I have reverted hundreds of vandalism (for example, see here). And if you look at what links to my page, have warned hundreds of vandals. But I haven't done much vandalism reverting today. And I both started and did a ton of work to Charles Spurgeon and Billy Graham, both are WP:GA's. I also wrote John Piper (theologian), George Müller, and Bill Gothard. But I know I should try to expand articles more, it's just hard to focus on. I thank you for your review and comments. Cheers -- America †alk 05:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well I guess I wasn't here long enough o see you revert. So basically, there's no problem here. Just don't get into any big disputes. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • To tell you the truth, I believe that you are one of our most improved editors that we have here on this site. After being taught how to both revert vandalism and make articles, you have completely taken in all that information, and have converted that into some amazing feats. You are one of our best article simplifiers that I know (up there with Lights and Gwib) and I believe that you are near a successful RfA. All you need to do now is continue with what you have been doing and all should fall into place in the future. Cheers, Razorflame 05:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Very high edit count in just a mere 3 months. A few more months, and you will be ready. If you don't want a self-nom, we will do it for you! Chenzw  Talk  02:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought you were an admin when I first came here, looking at your editing and how helpful you were. I think that says something. Staeiou (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    160+ pages created (but some were just some stubs), 2400+ article edits, and started - Charles Spurgeon and - Billy Graham.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    I may been in minor conflicts, such as this and this, but those were easily resolved, plus I'm not that kind of person.
  3. Is there an area of the wiki you wish you dedicated more of your time to and if so where? (Question from ChristianMan16)
    Hmm, starting out, all I did was try to create the Books of the Bible, but got tired of that. I have created many articles on Christians (see here), and have gotten on kicks to redo things (like redoing all the pages in this category to this just from seeing it wrong). And also I have zoned-in to making 100's of edits to make a VGA/GA (see here). But have edited more 2,000 pages in total. I have also just clicked Show any page and edited those pages a lot. And also I have added categories, interwiki links, infoboxes, etc. to articles at random. But as I just go through (and see that you changed your question as I was writing) this category, I wish that I had the time to fix them all, but aren't able to do them all. Hope that answers your question. -- America †alk 04:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[change] Microchip08

Microchip08 (talk ▪ changes) Greetings. I'm requesting this editor review to see how much of a user I am. I accept that I am a metapedian and do not edit many articles, as well as a semi-low edit count. Any chance of any pointers you can give me in order to further my edits, both on simple.wikipedia and cross-WMF. Microchip 19:21, Friday, June 6 2008 Utc 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

  • I have thought that you were a good editor. I haven't seen you editing much lately, but there's probably a reason. I would say you should defantly pick up your edit count, even if it is just clicking Show any page and editing that, before trying an RfA. But otherwise, I'd say that you've done a good job. -- America †alk 04:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
:-D. My computer died, so I'm pretty much stuck with IE (*sigh*) and computers at school. Off to edit at lunch time... Microchip 07:49, Tuesday, June 17 2008 Utc
  • Your very experienced with templates I see, and a little bit of categoriies. That's good, but where are those mainspace edits? That is the whole reason why we are here, to improve articles. Try copyediting a few. Clean up one. Create an article. We love to see good article writers. I myself am I good article writer if it's appropriate to say. Only about 20%? Try getting it up to at least 50%. Maybe every few weeks, you can set a goal for yourself and edit mainspace as much as you can. Just keep them quality edits. That's really all you need to work on from here. -- RyanCross (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    As I am a definite metapedian, there aren't many namespace edits that I am that pleased about, simply as there aren't many. Wikipedia namespace related, though, there are a few. My EveryWiki template. This guideline. And I like my userpage... Microchip 16:25, Thursday, June 19 2008 Utc
    Actually, what happens when you click the big yellow box here is quite good. Took me a while to do... Microchip 16:39, Thursday, June 19 2008 Utc
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    Apart from a bit of tension with Razorflame when I started editing here properly, no. Microchip 16:25, Thursday, June 19 2008 Utc

Can I have some reviews, please? I seem to have been missed out. Microchip 10:36, Sunday, June 22 2008 Utc

[change] Maxim

Maxim (talk ▪ changes) Me. :-) Maxim(talk) 01:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

  • I've only known you a little, but I think that you have been a pretty good editor. I didn't like the GA/VGA situation, but I think that you've done good since. Cheers -- ApEtSIG 03:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • We've had our differences in the past, and I think that given time, you will make a decent administrator here. Considering some of the bigger conflicts that both me and you and other editors have had with you in the past, I am a bit tense when conversing with you, but you have seemed to alleviate these concerns with your recent behavior. There is only one real thing that you need to work on now, and that is the vandalism reverting. I know that you know how to revert vandalism, but I just don't see enough of that currently to warrant a support vote from me in the RfA. Cheers, Razorflame 20:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I personally find vandal reverting a bit boring, and someone usually beats me to it. I'm not too in the mood to admin here, as I think I would inevitably get into conflicts with other admins over rules interpretation; most admins here seem to follow rules rather strictly, while I don't. Maxim (talk | editor review) 20:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • To tell you the truth, I wasn't saying that you wanted adminship. I was just stating that I believe that you would made a decent administrator. Cheers, Razorflame 01:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Please try to chill out a little more here. You always seem so angry. Majorly talk 00:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • But, Majorly, isn't it his...maxim to be angry? *is shot* (I've been wanting to make a maxim joke for a long time). Cassandra (talk) 05:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank god it's not a joke it's not about this, that one has crept up much too often (as Maxim is my real life first name). As for chilling out a bit more, I think I've done that a bit, and hopefully through time I wouldn't see so angry anymore. Maxim (talk | editor review) 11:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That's your name? Huh. for the longest time I thought your real name was "evilclown" ;) Cassandra 07:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I've written a good article, Giant panda.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    I have a bit different views on things like bureaucracy/process/et cetera. I certainly have been in conflicts here. For example, I attempting to eschew some process at PVGA which escalated into a conflict. I used to not archive my talkpage; I honestly believed that no one would read them at that time; I was asked to archive but I still refused. Eventually, I restored a bunch of my talkpage and recently made a first archives. Feel free to ask me more questions, though.

[change] TerryfaeScotland

TerryfaeScotland (talk ▪ changes) I'd like a review before I have another RfA. Terry Talk - Changes 08:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

  • You are on the right path towards Adminship City, but the road is very rocky and the terrain is very droll and is pretty much lifeless. In other words, I would like to suggest that you take another look at the Vandalism Policy and the deletion policy here on the Simple English Wikipedia, along with doing the followings:
Improve your activity by being on here more. The reason why you need to be active as an administrator is because things can happen on a Wikipedia very quickly, and one must be certain that there is someone there to help take care of the issue before it spirals out of control. Also, an administrator needs to be informed of all the latest sockpuppet creation attemps and of things posted on the WP:AN. If you aren't very active, then you aren't really doing that good of a job helping to keep the Simple English Wikipedia afloat, eh?
Increase the amount of vandalism that you have been fighting. While I admit that you have been doing an excellent job at this as of late, I would like to see more QD tags from you so that I can be certain that you fully understand the deletion policy.
Edit articles more. While a good portion of the articles that you have created in the past have been very well written, the fact of the matter is that you don't edit the mainspace as much. Administrators need to be well-versed in every aspect of a Wikipedia, and good mainspace editing is a must-have for that area of adminship.
  • If you follow these three things that I just pointed out, I can see you becoming an administrator fairly easily in the future. You have the right demeanor and the right attitude, you just don't have the motivation yet, but you are getting there. Cheers, and good luck, Razorflame 23:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You've been doing pretty good lately. And I (as Razorflame stated above) could seeing you become an Admin, but I'd also like to see your mainspace (article creation, expansion, simplification, etc.) rise a bit before that (you only have about 300 right now). But otherwise, so far, you're on the right tract. Cheers -- ApEtSIG 03:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am pleased with my contributions to the Pokemon articles. I did a lot of work on some of them.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    There was a user clearing my talk page. I reverted the page and warned him.

[change] Runningblader

Runningblader (talk ▪ changes) What do I need to fix? Runningblader,In Anti-Vandlism Project 23:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

  • So far, your edits are good. You edit a lot in the mainspace, you create articles and follow other people's advice. The only thing you should change is your spelling. When you write an article, you could write it in Word, then use the spell checker to correct any mistakes, then copy and paste the new, fresh article into the mainspace! --Gwib -(talk)- 10:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

 Comment-I'll start using word then paste the articles  Running  talk  23:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • You have been doing a good job so far. I feel that you might need to read over WP:MOS a bit. You have been notified about your spelling a few times. It appears you have fixed your misspelling of vandalism. Other than vandalism, please remember this: article, not artical, remember, not reimber. Keep up the good work.--♠  Lights  talk  22:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You have been doing fairly good as of late, and you now have some good edits, but I think you still have some things to improve on before another RfA. Besides, that is, other then the ones stated above. Try to get more edits to articles, revert more vandalism, etc. But overall, I think that you've been doing better, but stay patient. Cheers -- ApEtSIG 03:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Yes creating OGame, Mineral, Mineral (disambiguation)
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    I'm mostly calm but when users tell me to stop or things like that I follow

[change] SwirlBoy39

SwirlBoy39 (talk ▪ changes) I would like to see how I am doing and what I should do before I accept another RFA. SwirlBoy39 14:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hmm... I don't know you very well, but I do think that you have been a good editor. I think that before trying for an RfA, you should get more mainspace edits (you now have only about 300). If I were you, I would wait a little bit before tying again (unless you want to be Razorflame2). And get maybe 100 more good edits. I have noticed you reverting more vandalism and warning vandals. The OYU4Me incident was a little strange. Anyway, for now, I'd say you should wait and edit articles, build trust, and revert vandalism. I will probably support you for Admin soon. --  ✰AmericanEagle  04:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This user has been trying hard to acclimatize to this Wikipedia, and I believe that it is paying off. You have been very active in helping to revert vandalism, and that is much appreciated. I have also seen you participate in many different discussions, and that is always a good thing. The only problem here that I see now is the lack of experience and the lack of mainspace edits. Cheers, Razorflame 15:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
RF, I'm a little confused. What do you mean in mainspace? Reverting vandalism is in mainspace. Thanks! SwirlBoy39 14:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Creating articles is what I mean in mainspace :P Cheers, Razorflame 21:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I feel that if you continue what you're doing, along with some article writing, and increase you activity here, you will be ready for an RFA.--♠  Lights  talk  22:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I revert a lot of vandalism, and list pages for QD. I do that mostly. I've done article creating and article fixing, and minor edits like spelling or grammar.
  2. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    I don't think I've been an any. But I would kindly talk to the user via email (if enabled) or on the talk page and see their view first.

Wikipedia HTML 2008 in other languages
100 000 +

Česká (Czech)  •  English  •  Deutsch (German)  •  日本語 (Japanese)  •  Français (French)  •  Polski (Polish)  •  Suomi (Finnish)  •  Svenska (Swedish)  •  Nederlands (Dutch)  •  Español (Spanish)  •  Italiano (Italian)  •  Norsk (Norwegian Bokmål)  •  Português (Portuguese)  •  Română (Romanian)  •  Русский (Russian)  •  Türkçe (Turkish)  •  Українська (Ukrainian)  •  中文 (Chinese)

10 000 +

العربية (Arabic)  •  Български (Bulgarian)  •  Bosanski (Bosnian)  •  Català (Catalan)  •  Cymraeg (Welsh)  •  Dansk (Danish)  •  Ελληνικά (Greek)  •  Esperanto  •  Eesti (Estonian)  •  Euskara (Basque)  •  Galego (Galician)  •  עברית (Hebrew)  •  हिन्दी (Hindi)  •  Hrvatski (Croatian)  •  Magyar (Hungarian)  •  Ido  •  Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)  •  Íslenska (Icelandic)  •  Basa Jawa (Javanese)  •  한국어 (Korean)  •  Latina (Latin)  •  Lëtzebuergesch (Luxembourgish)  •  Lietuvių (Lithuanian)  •  Latviešu (Latvian)  •  Bahasa Melayu (Malay)  •  Plattdüütsch (Low Saxon)  •  Norsk (Norwegian Nynorsk)  •  فارسی (Persian)  •  Sicilianu (Sicilian)  •  Slovenčina (Slovak)  •  Slovenščina (Slovenian)  •  Српски (Serbian)  •  Basa Sunda (Sundanese)  •  தமிழ் (Tamil)  •  ไทย (Thai)  •  Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)

1 000 +

Afrikaans  •  Asturianu (Asturian)  •  Беларуская (Belarusian)  •  Kaszëbsczi (Kashubian)  •  Frysk (Western Frisian)  •  Gaeilge (Irish)  •  Interlingua  •  Kurdî (Kurdish)  •  Kernewek (Cornish)  •  Māori  •  Bân-lâm-gú (Southern Min)  •  Occitan  •  संस्कृत (Sanskrit)  •  Scots  •  Tatarça (Tatar)  •  اردو (Urdu) Walon (Walloon)  •  יידיש (Yiddish)  •  古文/文言文 (Classical Chinese)

100 +

Nehiyaw (Cree)  •  словѣньскъ (Old Church Slavonic)  •  gutisk (Gothic)  •  ລາວ (Laos)