Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Reviewer

(add request • view requests)
Shortcuts

User:Anand.Hegde

I have been editing Wikipedia articles for over 5 years now. I watch several pages for vandalism and copyedit articles. My aim is to provide the right information to the readers of Wikipedia and clean up things that do not have supporting data or reference.|*| Anand.Hegde|*|Talk to me 19:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Recent mislabeling of edits as vandalism worries me that constructive pending changes could be rejected. Otherwise no huge concern here. Passing on to another administrator. — MusikAnimal talk 02:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheQ Editor

I have been on Wikipedia for quite a bit and is trying to help out here. I have familiarized myself with WP:Vand, WP:What Vandalism Is Not, WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:NOR. I have rollback rights and is in a recruitment process of becoming a GA reviewer. TheQ Editor (Talk) 01:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You have plenty of edits, but have only been here since the end of February. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 01:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User has rollback Palmtree5551 (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Comment 1: Yes, I have been around since February. But I had been very active, and a quick learner too.TheQ Editor (Talk) 11:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thank you for your work so far! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Winkelvi

WinkelviHave been around for a while, do a reasonable amount of recent changes patrolling as well as looking into articles that seem to need help in the way of referencing. Also look for articles that need help paring down on extraneous verbosity, POV content/wording, and the use of unencyclopedic prose -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 14:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) User has rollback rights, and over 2000 edits to the main namespace. User seems vigilant at differing from vandalism edits vs constructive ones, and actively uses the 'rollback (good faith)' function of Twinkle quite well. Endorse. Tutelary (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn endorsement. Leave to any reviewing admin.[reply]
Is this a joke? I wouldn't trust this user to review anything for accuracy. Argumentative, and wrong so many times I can't count them. See discussion at 2014 Oso mudslide article. He argued about a fish and even when corrected by the author of the featured article on that fish about his erroneous assumptions, persisted in providing out of date and unreliable "evidence" to support his claims. Under no circumstances should this editor be trusted to review anything here for reliability.--MONGO 16:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from MONGO's obvious attempt here at sabotaging my request based on the personal attacks and edit warring he started and perpetuated until he left the referred to article in a huff, there is a thing called learning from your mistakes. Which I did. It's my understanding that editors are expected and encouraged to learn along the way, not demonstrate perfection from the jump or even at the time when they request additional permission statuses such as reviewer. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewers should be able to know the difference between what is and what is not a reliable reference. There was no evidence in that article you had any intention of working colaboratively with others, nor with accepting that the references you presented did not stand up to scrutiny. Others tried to reason with you such as here, but you insisted that you were still correct, when you were not. All I can do is examine contributions and arguments made and at present, I do not see that granting you reviewer rights is the best thing for the pedia. This isn't a past thing...this was an argument within the last 90 days. I would wait another year and try again.--MONGO 17:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One can learn from mistakes made 90 days ago, a year ago, a minute ago. I stated I learned from that incident, and I did. I'm asking for permission to be a reviewer, not anything as weighty as an administrator. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm basing my judgement on the issues that face reviewers. Based on my experiences with you on that particular page (2014 Oso mudslide), I do not feel you are yet trustworthy enough for reviewer status. Perhaps that article is the only one where you may have had this difficulty...I don't know as I have not been following you. I do know that on that article prior to the fish argument, that we also tangled about whether the mudslide was a mile-wide or one square mile in area...the more recent references I had indicated the latter, but you kept arguing for the former even though that was based on slightly older references. This earlier issue was minor since it was a current event and the news was constantly updating the storyline. But you did not seem to want to examine the dates and references in this matter either, so the combination of these things gives me worry. If any admin adds this feature to your wiki-resume, then that's their decision.--MONGO 17:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and this is still plenty weighty; we'd appreciate evidence that you've learned. Perhaps an especially good diff? Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 17:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Origamite:I don't have a diff to demonstrate I have been and will continue to be looking more closely at policy in regard to references, MOS, and the like. I don't have a diff to prove my personal resolve to look more closely at policy and be certain of it before making any decision in a reviewing (and editing) capacity. I freely admit I was wrong in my approach at the Oso article regarding the issue MONGO brought up. I have not only admitted I was wrong regarding policy on references coming from "locked" sources (those only available at subscription archives) at the the Simon Collins article, but I demonstrated my admission and understanding about being wrong by doing what was asked without hesitation: returning the locked references I removed as well as the associated content (seen here in the following restoration edit at the article in question: [1]). That's the best I have for you in response, Origamite. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lixxx235

Hi there! I am an active Wikipedian and would like reviewer rights to help review articles. I am watching over 300 articles, some of which are under pending changes. I have read almost all Wikipedia policy and guideline pages, including but not limited to WP:VAND and WP:REVIEWING.Lixxx235 (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You had under 10 edits until earlier this month, and about half of your 500 were yesterday. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 19:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comment Yep. Is that a problem for me? Also, I wanted to point out that I got rollback granted to me.--Lixxx235 (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked with Lixxx235, he has some good knowledge of wiki guidelines, whether he has got active recently we can still agree that he made some important contributions. I think he can be trusted with the reviewer right. OccultZone (Talk) 03:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:001Jrm

Hi! I have been editing actively on Wikipedia since 2012, have made over 4000 contributions, and have created 79 articles excluding talk pages (all have sufficient information and sources). I have a good idea on what constitutes vandalism and what does not. I am also helping fight vandalism in pages, but also helping new editors by fixing their common mistakes (e.g. adding references) at the same time. With my experience, I would ask for the permission to grant me reviewer rights. Thank you! 001Jrm (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PARAPHRASE concerns. The first substantial article creation I looked at, chosen randomly, has He directed shows that are now considered iconic in local television, including Chika Chika Chicks, Palibhasa Lalake, Tonight with Dick and Carmi, and Abangan Ang Susunod Na Kabanata, where the source has exactly the same wording with only the word "like" instead of "including". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good point! Whenever I edit, I have the habit of copying the sourced article to my workspace before editing them (paraphrasing paragraphs, deleting unfit words, translating...) I accept my mistake and I'm sorry for that. Thank you for pointing that out and I'll try to re-edit those. 001Jrm (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No objections. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:AbHiSHARMA143

I love Wikipedia editing and I'm experienced user. I'm finding vandalism and copyright articles in Wikipedia, I watch several pages for finding this. I have experience in Wikipedia policies , I would like to be able to review pending changes on my watchlist to help create a better Wikipedia articles. Thanks in advance!  :) AbHiChatMe!ReadMe!! 05:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You have 52 edits. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 11:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done With only 52 edits you don't have enough experience for me to know that you understand how to use this userright. Please get some more experience and request the userright when you have at least a few hundred edits. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&oldid=609943735

Leave a Reply