Nascar1996

Diego Grez

Diego Grez (talk · contribs · count) Hi, I would like to know what do the Wikipedia community think about my work as a Wikipedian since my comeback in April/May of this year, after a _sadly Community Ban. I even got a Pichilemu during this time. I've been also working hard on Wikinews. Every comment is welcomed! (except bad faith ones :-)) Diego Grez (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

   Pichilemu and all of the articles in its category, and most importantly History of Pichilemu.

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

   Well, I don't remember any editing dispute. Yes, in Guitaret back in late December 2009. I remember to have removed most of the content of the page because I thought DiarmuidPigott's content was useless. The article was later protected, and Pigott did not edit anymore. :( If I had to deal with them in the future, I would try to keep calm and try to do what would be the best.

• Additional Questions From White Shadows

1. What do you plan on accomplishing here on Wikipedia? Working in DYK, INT, the MAin Page, Vandal Fighting or just plain old writing are just a few to mention. (Answering this will help me make a better detailed review towards you)

   It makes me feel very satisfied to create new articles, and to help build a great and with a good quality, free encyclopedia. That's my accomplishment. :)

3. You've made a spectacular turnaround in the past few months, with this in mind, what do you plan on doing with your mentorship by the end of the year? I would support you staying in close touch with HJ for the forseable future but I just would like to know :)

   If it is not necessary and if HJ Mitchell agrees, I would like to keep him as mentor for some more time. It has been a good time to have worked with such a great person.

Reviews

• Diego, I'm sure you'll recognize me from WN. I think that your content work is outstanding (especially improving Pichilemu/Chile related articles). You seem to be well balanced between content and other work, definitely a plus. My only suggestion for you is to try and possibly bring Pichilemu up to FA, and maybe write one or two more GA's (if you want to focus on content work more) on whatever interests you; perhaps some history of Chile related articles (I'm sure you could think of some). Overall, you appear to be a great, valuable contributor. Good luck, Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I was unaware you were previously banned. Regardless, you are a fantastic asset to Wikipedia and a good writer. Tommy! 01:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editor review/seaotter6

Wikipedia:Editor review/showmethedata

Sjones23

Sjones23 (talk · contribs · count) I had an editor review nearly three years ago. I am considering another review here because I just passed my 18,000th edit count and it has been three years since my last editor review. I would also like some feedback on how I have been since I had my last review, which can be found here. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

   I work on video game articles, tokusatsu articles, music articles, film articles, anime articles, and now game show articles. I am particulary pleased with the Final Fantasy series and Kingdom Hearts. I also report vandals at WP:AIV and participate in WP:ANI and WP:AN. I have also reverted unsourced content, vandalism and I have also created a few articles in my sandbox as well. Recently, I was granted rollbacker and reviewer rights, and I am most pleased with how they work along with Twinkle.

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

   I have been involved in one BLP dispute back in 2008 about Eriko Tamura, but I am usually polite about it without becoming any incivil. However, I am concerned about dealing with vandals by reverting edits, whether they are vandalism or unsourced content while maintaining good faith.

Reviews

• Good edits, nice use of edit summary. Your anti-vandalism work is good as well, but I'm curious on why you don't use automated tools? Although automated tools are not necessary, they would make your work go a lot easier. Also, would you mind opting-in to X!'s edit counter be created User:Sjones23/EditCounterOptIn.js? As a side note I would also suggest archiving your talk page as it dates back to 2006/07. Derild4921☼ 19:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikossskantzos

Nikossskantzos (talk · contribs · count) I am a quantitative analyst and I have contributed to Wikipedia an article on a popular financial derivative pricing method Nikossskantzos (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

   The Vanna Volga method. I considered it concise, accurate and totally absent from the literature

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

   I have not been in editing disputes

Reviews

• Wow. This is highly technical stuff. I'm not close to being qualified to review it, but just to give a little input: it looks like excellent work, and it's apparent that the Vanna-Volga method is notable and worthy of an article. So thank you very much for contributing this article. This is just the sort of thing we need. There are thousands of editors (like me) who are qualified to contribute articles on places and events and people etc. but qualified technical editors like you are very valuable. Now, let me point to Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable - this is a general encyclopedia, and to the extent possible it's good to make it articles useful to non-experts. For instance, I edited just the first sentence of the article, to make terms such as "exotic option" and so forth be internal links, so readers can quickly look them it. I wonder if it is necessary to use a term such as "FX" instead of "foreign exchange" and so forth. I would recommend beginning the article with an even broader definition, such as "The Vanna-Volga method is technique used by stock analysts [or whomever uses it]. It is..." Although the article will never be accesible to people like me, it'd be good if, should we stumble across it, we have some idea generally what it's about, I guess. But these are quibles, and other editors can fix some of this. If you want to achieve the highest Wikipedia excellence in applying your talents to future articles, though -- and I hope you do -- something to consider. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TheClerksWell

TheClerksWell (talk · contribs · count) I am curious about what Feedback I'll get Clerkenwell TALK PAGE!" Contribs 22:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

   Correcting Typos, spelling and grammar errors, occasionally fixing links from disambaguation pages to the intended page, creating articles sporadically.

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

   Yes, yes, I have dealt with it by arguing, which didn't work and got be blocked before, in the future I will use discussion.

Reviews

• I can't say I've seen your username before, so nice to meet you! A quick look at your talk page shows that you are receiving plenty of feedback and suggestions already; please use that to help yourself become a better editor. I also stumbled upon Wikipedia:Administrator review/TheClerksWell, which you created by accident and then asked that it be deleted. I have tagged it accordingly under speedy deletion criterion G7; you can request deletion of something you created and want deleted yourself next time by using {{db-g7}}. All speedy deletion templates add the page to CAT:CSD, where an administrator will review it and decide the page's fate (delete or keep). Your last 100 contributions show that you hardly ever use an edit summary. I would advise using them all of the time, as they explain your edits and help avoid confusion over what you have done. Other than that, keep it up; you're on the right track. Airplaneman ✈ 03:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sp33dyphil

Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs · count) Hello, I'm Sp33dyphil and I'm looking for peer review because I would like to know how contructive my edits have been during the last 6 months. My signature has a phrase at the end that indicates I'm lloking for feedback, but that hasn't happened yet. So, that's why I'm here, looking for all the feedbacks, including negative points, in order to keep up my work on Wikipedia. Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page)} 23:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

   My specialty is aviation and Australian rules football. I also edit biographies.

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

   I haven't had any disputes with any editor, since most of my edits these days are articles.

Reviews

• Review by VictorianMutant:
  • Civility towards the community: As you said , no problems here. Your use of edit summaries as impressive and that helps other editors out tremendously.
  • Article contributions: I see footy and airline articles are your focus. If that's your niche than go for it!!! Seems like you've done a good job with a large number of articles.
  • Edit count analysis: Wow, a higher percentage of edits in article space than me (85%). That impresses me. Some of the AfD crowd (if you are interested in that) would tell you that you need to broaden your wiki experience and I won't argue with that. You could use some more experience with templates and categories.
  • RfA-worthiness: I would support you in RfA, but there are those who would say you don't do enough vandal fighting and aren't experienced in various other areas of Wikipedia, plus 2000 edits would be too low for many people.
  • Final thoughts: Normally, I think many users do too much vandal fighting- it shouldn't make up the bulk of a user's edits, but in your case I would try to fight vandals more often. Why? Most vandals are ugly Americans (and I say that as an American) and since you live in Australia, your evenings occur during the second big "vandal wave" (when only drunks and stoners are awake and decide to vandalize pages- the first is when the American kiddies vandalize at school). So you have the opportunity to help fight vandalism when vandal fighters aren't as active, but vandals are. In any case, keep up the great work. You are an asset to the community. Thank you. VictorianMutant (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ

Fæ (talk · contribs · count) I'm passed my 18,000 edit milestone (>10,000 since my last review), so some feedback on my conduct and contributions might give me some direction for improving my Wikipedia skills. I have found that keeping WP:5P in mind rather than derivative, if well known, guidelines has helped when asked to justify my edits (or reversions). Fæ (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

   My largest recent contributions to Wikipedia are:

   • Welcoming new users. I use some tailored templates to welcome users in different situations (Userspace/talk page only, possible POV or problematic editor, etc.) and sometimes this means editing or rolling back their first contribution and explaining what happened. I aim to use welcome templates rather than warning templates for a brand new editor unless they are a blatant spammer, sockpuppet or attack account.
   • Collaborating on WP:GLAM/BM. This involved some innovative workshops with British Museum staff and long term collaboration on articles to get them to a higher standard and in some cases to Featured article status (see Talk:Hoxne Hoard and Talk:Gebelein predynastic mummies). I was quite pleased with the helpful templates I created such as {{British-Museum-object}} and upgrading of {{British Museum}} as well as templates for use on Commons. A number of artefact photographs used in articles such as Royal Gold Cup (now FA) and Burney Relief (now GA) were taken by me.
   • The alumni problem. There is an ongoing issue with embedded unsourced and sometimes non-notable lists of people, particularly evident in lists of alumni of organizations but also with lists of people possibly from or born in a certain place. I have created User:Fæ/Alumni as a helpful summary and use some handy scripts/regex to mark uncited or red-link entries on these lists. The consensus is that any such list should include citations in the article though many users believe that this is excessive if the list has linked articles for each list member. An example list I have tidied up is List of Syrian people.

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

   Handling disputes. I try to avoid lengthy disputes, however examples of how I handle these debates are:

   • Talk:Johann Hari where an editor with a known potential COI repeatedly objected to mention of pro-Israel organizations in the article and I proposed a neutral version. I made good use of the WP:3O process to gain an independent perspective. I think the debate went on too long and it may have been more efficient to use WP:COIN.
   • After raising Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mico Apostolov, the creator of the article 8MA8 became rather problematic and it appeared likely there was some COI issues (I raised the relevant advice on their talk page) and that they may have been using sockpuppets. Luckily another user raised Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/8MA8 and I added some of the other likely puppets that started to cause problems removing the article AfD notice and attempting to lobby the deletion discussion. Particularly after one of these puppets attempted to accuse me of being a puppetmaster in retaliation, I gave enough time for other editors to intervene rather than being tempted to react to problems as they occurred.

   Dealing with vandals.

   • After the new user list, my second largest source of vandal identification comes from my watchlist. This is mostly just simple user warnings and welcomes if a first contribution. I make reasonable use of WP:AIV and WP:RPP when this fails. I pick up quite a few commercial organizations using Wikipedia for free advertising, with the relevant warning most go away, some ask for help (I often point to WP:COIN as a place for further discussion of what they want to do) and a few get abusive and I ignore them as it's not long before someone else gets around to blocking the account.
   • The long term puppetmaster Amandabilliot was originally identified by me and I raised a second round of accounts for blocking using the SPI process. This is a rather subtle misuse of Wikipedia to host dummy user pages using copied articles. The motivation for this person is still unclear and they have refused to explain why they do it. As there is little pattern between the accounts it is likely that the majority are still out there unblocked. I have helped and reported other sockpuppet issues but this has not been a major component of my time.
   • Talk:Yolanda Soares has suffered problematic long issues with hoax sources and apparent tampering from an anonymous IP that recently claimed to be a writer for the same artist. Researching the sources (using 'whois' website checks and reviewing details of the terms and conditions) revealed a number of them to be suspect and were removed. For the recent challenge of defamation, I applied the advice of WP:NLT and raised the matter for attention on WP:AIV even though the claims appeared to have little substance.
   • Repeatedly reverting - it worries me when my reversions may be correct (such as reverting someone adding disputed personal information) but I end up re-reverting the possible vandal. I try and leave it to others to intervene when I have reverted twice already, a clear edit comment helps and sometimes a talk page comment when the text is blatantly problematic. Anytime I realize I have reverted 3 times I always feel guilty and vow to rely on discussion and help from other editors rather than baiting another editor into a potential edit war; I do not believe that just because I am supported by existing consensus or policy means I have a mandate to side-step civil behaviour.

Reviews

• I'm not really the best person to comment, as I'm quite new here. However, I wanted to say that your quickness and dedication to vandalism-fighting is really impressive. I only have a few pages watchlisted, but you're usually the one who reverts the vandalism in most of them, and I see you warning on the talk pages of many anonymous vandals, and from a quick look at your talk page, you seem to be usually quite civil. :) I just want to thank you for all you do here and ask you to keep up the excellent work. Sincerely, → Clementina [ Scribble ] 12:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elfwood (2nd nomination) was a poor nomination. Fae should please review WP:BEFORE to improve the quality of future work of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strike old comment, see below.Fæ (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I return to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learned pigs & fireproof women and find that I have been here before — tsk. I shall not repeat myself and User:Drmies seems to think that User:Fæ is well aware of such WP guidelines and policies. To take a different tack, I suggest that Fæ make some civil approach to the author of that article. This might be an apology or perhaps an offer to help with the article now that its bona fides are well-established. This might then offset the bad impression made by the templated warnings and attempts to delete this notable topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Colonel, you have been here before. Unfortunately you refused to answer my follow up questions back in August, hence I removed your comment (diff) and now I find you trivially grieving me here about old issues long dead. Please take some time to dust the chips from your shoulders and do something more useful. You will note I have never approached you on any matter apart from responding to some of your complaints about me and I respectfully request that you leave me alone and let other experienced Wikipedians advise me. Fæ (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You complain that I don't talk to you and then you complain that I do. I shall do as you suggest and invite other experienced Wikipedians to advise you. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Access Denied

Access Denied (talk · contribs · count) I have been at Wikipedia for a little over two months,mostly to revert vandalism, but I am thinking of expanding into other areas, like copyediting and wikification. I'm not much of a content creator though. I am using this editor review just to hopefully gain a little feedback on how I have done so far. Access Denied^(t|c|g|d|s) 22:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

   As I said, I am a vandalism reverter and I have reverted hundred of vandalism edits using Huggle, which is what I am most pleased with for the time being.

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

   Not sure if this counts, but a while back me and a few other editors were repeatedly reverting edits to Talk:Mel Gibson because we suspected the IP we were reverting was a sock of a banned user. The admin EyeSerene removed the rollback of me and one other editor for using rollback to edit war. But when it was confirmed that the IP was a sock of banned user HarveyCarter, our rollbacks were reinstated. I think that I stayed civil during that incident. I always try to stay civil and have never attacked another editor.

Reviews

I can tell you, from my personal experiences with you, that you are an outstanding vandal fighter and Wikipedian. On the contrary, I would like to see a little more content editing. I understand that you love combating vandalism; so do I. However, content editing is much more important than vandal fighting. While vandal fighting is extremely important, the encyclopedia cannot grow on vandal fighting. But it can grow on content editing. You are doing a terrific job, and if you would like my personal opinion, in about a year, if you focus on content editing and maybe a couple other fields, you could successfully apply for adminship. Good luck. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 22:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure of whether writing this is a good idea or not, I ran into the effect of what seemed like an incorrect reversion you did to the Roland Sound Canvas page last week. I realise my edit style on the page may have appeared unusual (an hour of many small changes to the same page) and perhaps malicious. But an afternoon spent changing the 'External Links' on a page to references would seem to be a good thing from verifiability point of view, so to have a reversion based on that I was *adding* external links was surprising. In my own anger I quickly un-reverted it, but was not the happiest of people for a while, however above all I'm very glad it didn't deteriorate into an edit war. There are many things wrong with that page (dry technical detail only, informal text has been added to notes sections, someone's added advertising speak and probable issues with referencing) but people are much less likely to work on fixing them if they find their work in progress (though still improved) pages reverted. This isn't actually a criticism of you, but I've run into issues of editors reverting improvements for perceived stylistic reasons, reducing the accuracy of a page, instead of fixing the stylistic issue. It's better to flag a page as needing improvement (e.g. ^{[citation needed]} or page wide or section 'improve' boxes), if it seems there is an editor working on it in good faith on the page, rather than a revert. Anyway, goodluck with your future editing, maybe, as you've said you've not done much content editing, perhaps find a topic that interests you and let loose :) --Flibble (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slight tweaks for better understanding.

--Flibble (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Best user name EVER, nice vandal fighting and some good contributions, I would agree as above try edit some articles more often (I am very guilty of not doing it enough myself) look forward to interacting with you in the future. Regards ZooPro 07:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It struck me as incredible that such a wonderful name was not claimed until 2010 (compare to the multitude of User:Login*'s and User:Password*'s). May I suggest Access Denied to claim other permutations of these words (like User:Access denied) ... just in case. However, I'd also suggest NOT using red in signature - red is for red links. Besides, on some cheapo monitors red appears too faint to be comfortably readable. East of Borschov 06:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Liefting

Alan Liefting (talk · contribs · count)

I stumbled across the Editor review process by chance. I may have had an inkling of its existence but made myself busy as an exopedian! I have been on WP for over six years (exactly 20 years, 4 months and 16 days in fact) so it is high time my performance was evaluated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

   I predominately carry out categorisation. This includes corrections, and the creation of new categories to accommodate the increasing size of WP. My latest categorisation edits in the Category namespace only can we viewed on my filtered user contribution history. I quite like creating new pages but this is quite time consuming and we all have a finite amount of time to dedicate to WP. I also split articles into sibling articles as a way of improving the content of WP. This pleases me since I take pleasure in improving WP for the reader.

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

   Disputes are inevitable since not every edit is guided by policy,and policy is not set in stone. Some of my disputes are at:

• Talk:Brian Tamaki#Criticisms heading now removed
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environmental organisations topics (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental issues with energy.

I think most of the disputes I have had are better characterised as disagreements on judgement calls. Other users have caused me stress on the odd occasion but I now deal with it by keeping an unemotive tone to my responses.

Reviews

• I mainly wanted to thank Alan for the much more informative user page he has now, and especially for the "Declaration of confict of interest" statement made there. Some of us knew this anyway, but it is good to see this out in the open.

My only suggestion is that Alan may wish to consider bringing some of his favourite articles up to GA standard. It is always good to see experienced editors contributing recognised content, even though this can be a time consuming task. Johnfos (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest that removing a category from a page requires an explanation, e.g., Wikipedia policy is to not add categories to user pages.

I would suggest that when editing pages for policy violations, the change made should be the smallest needed to bring it into compliance, e.g., instead of removing [[Category:foo]] from a user page, add a colon to make it [[:Category:foo]]. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No more book burnings okay?:) Marcus Qwertyus 20:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Alan. I have noticed that you have nominated a lot of articles about books at AfD. I also note that the AfD page starts with the following language:

"Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:

• For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately."

WP:BK lists several criteria for notability for an article about a book. Among them (and probably most common) is that the book has received significant coverage such as reviews in several independent, reliable publications. My experience is that, often, I can find several reviews of books you've nominated in a minute or two of searching through Google. My request to you, then, is to avoid nominating articles about books for AfD unless you have checked for reviews and verified that they are lacking, and that the book is truly non-notable. We should consider deletion when the appropriate references are altogether lacking, not when they are lacking in the current version of an article. The article should be expanded with better references rather than deleted when that is a practical option. I will support your AfD nominations when your sincere search shows that the article "requires deletion", but will oppose your nominations when the article is about a notable book and simply needs improvement. Thank you for asking for an editor review and considering my observations. Cullen328 (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is helpful to explain why something is "unjustified" in XfD rationales, so everyone involved better understands your view and so your opinion is given more weight in the closing. — Bility (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion by the backdoor

Alan Liefting has been blanking some articles by replacing the content by redirect. This has the effect of deleting an article without going through the usual process. He argues that what he has done can easily be undone but I say this is disingenuous at best. The readers of the encyclopedia, including any editors not involved with the article in question, would have no reason to suspect that the redirection had blanked an entire article. Even if an editor came to the subject of the article anew, with additional material that may sway even a deletionist's heart as to the value of the article, he would have have to be a regular Hercules Poirot to suspect that the redirect hid what his new material might make a good article, if it were not already good enough when blanked by Liefting: Who is to say? No discussion is entered into by him. Slam dunk, gone.

He alleges his actions have popular approval on the basis that the complaints are few. No, absence of complaint does not imply approval. There may be no groundswell popular outcry but I believe many regular experienced editors of WP would object if they had a look at what he has been doing. By blanking articles without entering into proper discussion or using the proper mechanisms review of his actions is not prompted.

Blanking by replacing an article with a redirect has the same effect as a speedy delete. The only difference is that such improper actions can more easily be undone but only if detected. People watch for improper speedy deletes. There is no easy tool to monitor blanking by replacing an entire article with a redirect. As if under the cover of darkness pages are being torn out of this encyclopedia by Alan Liefting.

A way Liefting could demonstrate good faith when blanking one article and re-directing it to another would be by merging the content of the two articles. But he makes no attempt to do that in the examples I have found. Any good content just gets lost.

Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The merging of the content of a redirected page with the target is not always necessary and in some cases should not be done. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases. Perhaps you could indicate those cases where you have performed a merge before blanking the article by overwriting it with a re-direct? I could not find any. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am now aware that there are likely scores and scores of articles scores of redirections by Alan Liefting where either merger or deletion should have been requested. I only went back a few weeks and I found ten. I have reverted to the version just before the redirect, and explained why in the edit summary and/or the Talk page of the articles in question. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will reiterate that a redirect is in no way comparable to a speedy deletion. With regards to the redirects that I have set up I can only find two in article namespace over the past five weeks:

• A Good Keen Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - an unreferenced article that cannot easily be merged with the Barry Crump article.

That is why the article should not have been blanked! There was no need for a re-direct here! You just tore the page from the encyclopedia without debate. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Racci Shay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a bio about a person of questionable notability

Possibly this person is non-notable (although I perhaps disagree), but that is immaterial. The point is that you have appointed yourself judge, jury and executioner. You decide the article needs to be deleted. Then you blank it. No debate. There is a procedure for removing non-notable pages from the encyclopedia. That needs to be followed. Pending the outcome of the normal process there is no need to blank the page with a re-direct. Indeed, this is NOT desirable as it has the effect of not making it obvious the content *you* dislike exists, thus denying the opportunity to improve the article pending a deletion decision - this opportunity is given as part of the standard procedure. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give details of the others? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been sifting through your change log. To give you the list I would have to do that again and that is a tiresome process. I have done numerous changes to revert the damage you have done. They are in my change log. Please feel free to have a look. Please just follow the procedures laid down for deleting questionable / non-notable content. Do not do this by the backdoor by blanking the article. Thanks, Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare

GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · count) I would love to receive feedback on my editing history mostly because I eventually may request adminship. However, I'm not entirely sure I'm ready for adminship yet and would like to get feedback regarding that. I've edited Wikipedia for just over four years (for about a year with my account theunicyclegirl, and for about three years with this account) and mainly do vandal patrol. I've been trying to branch out more recently. I also was recently granted admin rights on enwiki. GorillaWarfare ^talk 17:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

   Like I said before, I mainly do vandal patrol using Twinkle and Huggle. I also do some content editing, but not huge amounts. Often my content edits have to do with fixing citation formatting, although I have created some articles such as Richard Riddell and Nigel Levings. I have experience with CSDs, AfDs, PRODs, new page patrol, etc. I also step in from time to time when I see editors being uncivil. I'm pleased with the articles I've created myself (more so with this account than my previous). I'm also pleased with my cleanup job of Stage lighting instrument because the article definitely needed an overhaul and I could provide that. Additionally, I went through, added to, and cited XOXO, Panda and the New Kid Revival after finding it on the list of pages needing citation cleanup.

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

   I've been involved in some disputes, but most of those were just blatant personal attacks that were easily dealt with. I haven't really had much trouble with 3RR or anything, although recently I got into a bit of a revert war with a user on a user talk page. As soon as I realized I'd violated the 3RR, I stopped reverting. I wrote on his talk page to try to figure out what was going on, and left a message on the talk page that was being warred over. I believe the sock has been blocked. Also, sometimes when I am going through recent changes, I see uncivil behavior and will step in to remind users to be civil. I always remain civil with users, and will remind them of policies such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:Don't bite the newbies, and other relevant pages. If it's something that can't be resolved between the users involved, I will report to Wikiquette alerts, RfC on users, or the admin noticeboard. I haven't really had to do that in the past, aside from blatant attacks, but I know to do so and will.

Reviews

• Note: Comments can also be found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare. Airplaneman ✈ 02:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations on becoming an admin. A comment rather than a full review... Yours was the only !vote in the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHealth. If you're wishing to spend a lot of time on AfDs, perhaps you might wish to consider why you were out of step with consensus on this one. Was everyone else wrong? Was the non-admin closure appropriate? Have you revised your understanding of policy in the light of the result? Have you changed your view of the article subject? Bondegezou (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Congrats on the adminship. You're doing great so far. :) œ^™ 02:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editor review/raul.swaroop

Anypodetos

Anypodetos (talk · contribs · count) I have been editing here for just over two years, and have switched a bit from content additions to more administrative tasks, e. g. cleaning up some subpages of WP:PHARM, over the past few months. I'd like to get some general feedback on what I could improve. Also, I have recently changed my babel box from en-3 (advanced) to en-4 (near-native) and would like to know whether I was being over-confident there. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

   Article creations and expansions, mainly at WP:PHARM and with Proto-Indo-European related topics; copyediting and cleaning up of random articles; creation of chemical drawings. Two GAs (although neither written completely myself) and a few DYKs. And my hobby article, Bogdan Bogdanović.

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

   Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-logy, User talk:Davidtfull/Archive 1#Ciprofloxacin: Thanks for your references, Talk:Medroxyprogesterone#Bioidentical progesterone shown to be more efficacious than synthetic MPA are my less pleasant contacts with other Wikipedians, the latter bordering on an edit war on my part. I try to learn. In general, I tend to back away and let people do what they like if I don't know how to handle a situation, which is a safe but suboptimal approach.

Reviews

• Review by VictorianMutant:
  • Civility towards the community: I don't see any big problems with civility. You've made 13,000+ edits, you're bound to have some conflict, especially when the edits are in two often contentious subjects like linguistics and pharmacology.
  • Article contributions: Linguistics is actually one of my favorite subjects to browse and so I have seen your work around(although I am sure your knowledge of the subject far surpasses mine). Pharmacology? Too many big words for me! Anyway, a quick glance of some of your most edited articles shows you have been a real asset to Wikipedia. Thank you.
  • Edit count analysis: Almost a perfect graph. If I were being really, really picky- I would say you need more experience with images...
  • RfA-worthiness: Absolutely!
  • Final thoughts: You are an asset to the community. If I could say anything in the way of advice I would say that while you are branching out into administrative tasks, remember to not forget your focus on article building- you edit in two areas in which a lot of people don't have the expertise that you do. As for your English, if you had not mentioned it above, I would have thought you were a native speaker judging from your edits. Sometimes I can tell when someone isn't a native speaker because it doesn't "seem" right, but you definitely contribute at a near-native level. Thank you for your contributions! VictorianMutant (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sm8900

Sm8900 (talk · contribs · count) Interested to get feedback from fellow editors. have done work on a number of topics recently. interested to hear some thoughts, comments, feedback. Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?Here are some: Performance art -made major contribution to definition. Valley of Peace initiative keep article current and updated. Robot#Social_impact; wrote this section, added much data and refs. History of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --revised article a lot in the past. (not so much recently). also: Projects working for peace among Arabs and Israelis, History of England, US Army Service Uniform. Generally I do edits on a number of articles, much of them in history, politics, etc. also do some pop culture. also have done a bunch of new categories in the past.
3. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   not much. a few years ago, was involved in dispute resolution at israeli-Palestinian topic area, in helping to resolve disputes. this was even though i am an involved editor.Also, around the same time, jan 2008, involved in editing dispute in climate change article.

Reviews

• Review by VictorianMutant:
  • Civility towards the community: Wow, no one could ever accuse you of steering clear of contentious articles. Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Ten Lost Tribes, and Global warming. And you've managed to keep a blemish-free block record. You are definitely a better person than most...
  • Article contributions: You are definitely here to contribute to articles. A quick glance of some of your edits tells me you are a good writer. So the one glaring area missing to me from your edit history is GA's and FAC's. I think it would be fairly easy to get a few of the articles you've worked on up to good article status, and even featured article status.
  • Edit count analysis: Your graph impresses me. Looking further into your contributions tells me you're very active in discussions, both in Wikipedia space and on article talk space. Keep up the good work.
  • RfA-worthiness: I would definitely support... don't know how many enemies have been made on some of the controversial articles, though.
  • Final thoughts: You are a great asset to the Wikipedia community. Like I said, I think you could get a few of your articles to be GA's really easily and if I were you and had your talents, I would... Thanks for all you do, VictorianMutant (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your great comments!! and thanks for your helpful ideas and thoughts. appreciate it. feel free to be in touch anytime. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chevymontecarlo

Chevymontecarlo (talk · contribs · count) Been a user for about 1 year now, have been making lots of edits but would just like to see whether my article edits have been useful. Chevymontecarlo 09:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

   Helping new users at WP:FEED, Occasionally answering questions at WP:RD, and answering requests in the live help chat. I'm pleased with all of those things because other users have been helped by me and got their articles improved significantly.

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

   Not been in really any editing disputes, probably because I'm not bold enough and tend to be very conservative and careful with my edits. I also try and be as kind and patient as possible with other users, particularly new ones.

Reviews

• Hi Chevymontecarlo! (great nick btw) I recognize the name from the great work you do at WP:FEED and AfC. You seem dedicated, polite, and astute judging by your edits at WP:FEED. I very much respect that you choose to help new editors in this way and commend you for doing it. I've seen nothing but good edits from you so I don't have much else to say except keep it up! :) œ^™ 12:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are so kind. Thanks a lot! Chevymontecarlo 14:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronk01

Ronk01 (talk · contribs · count) I began editing Wikipedia about five years ago as an IP. I made most of my contributions to medical articles (in real life I am a board certified cardiothoracic surgeon.) I first joined in March of this year, when I wanted to edit a semi-protected page. During the compulsory waiting period, I joined WP:MED and discovered an article that I wanted to work on, Cardiac skeleton. After a short Wikibreak, I returned, only to involve myself in a discussion over the title of epinephrine, I brought the case to mediation, discovering I discovered the Mediation Cabal, where I successfully mediated five cases. I've collaborated on Prem Rawat and other controversial articles. Additionally, I spend time reverting vandalism, and have the rollbacker and reviewer permissions. I am here to find out what the community thinks of my work, and to get some suggestions for improvement, before a possible RfA withing the next six months. Thank you in advance! Ronk01 talk, 22:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

   Most of my early work was behind the scenes, which isn't really that big of a contribution,(though I am particularly pleased with my mediations). I am rather pleased though with the merger of Cardiac skeleton, the ongoing work at Eosinophilia, and my page creations. Of course, my 1,300 vandalism reversions are a nice touch as well.

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

   I have been in only one true editing dispute, on epinephrine, which I promptly took to mediation when it became clear that help was needed, though the discussion was civil at all times. I believe strongly in the dispute resolution process here on Wikipedia, and I intend to continue my commitment to civil discourse.

Reviews

OpenFuture

OpenFuture (talk · contribs · count) I have the last months been accused of being a revert warrior, a vandal, and accused of personal attacks by User:Pmanderson and User:The_Four_Deuces. User:The_Four_Deuces raised an WQA, which concluded that there was no reason for the WQA [5], but still these two users and sometimes other use both this as arguments to not discuss things, and User:The_Four_Deuces uses it as an excuse for others bad behavior, basically saying that if I can behave badly, then others can. So I would like a review by non-involved editors to look at my edits and behavior and see if they really are that bad and what, if anything, can be done to improve them and avoid these types of criticisms. OpenFuture (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

   I think my best contributions have been in cleaning up various articles related to North American runestones, like Kensington Runestone, Heavener Runestone, Spirit Pond runestones and related to that Newport Tower (Rhode Island). My edits there center on getting rid of pseudo-archaeological theories with no reliable sourcing.

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

   The most stressful in editing disputes is when people stonewall or in other way simply ignore arguments. I try to deal with it by taking a deep breath and continuing like it didn't happen.

Reviews

• Looking at the WQA, I think it would be fairer to say that the result was indecisive, with a result of "stuck" rather than "resolved." I haven't read all the discussions you've had at Talk:List of wars between democracies and Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes, but for the most part I would characterize your comments as good-faith attempts to engage in the discussion ... until you become frustrated. Then I would say you squint toward incivility, oftentimes crossing the line. I don't think anyone defended your use of vandalism warning templates during what was an edit war at the WQA. Here you "resolved" a WQA after taking part in the discussion, which was heated; I would not say that discussion had come to a consensual conclusion, and so that too was a bit tendentious. After being blocked for a nasty edit, and having the appeal of that block denied, you entered into a long argument on your talk page. Looking to the articles you reference in your statement, I would say that you are on solid ground on the content issues, but your tone on the talk pages is derisive straight out of the gate. I would suggest keeping in mind that just because you have explained the same elementary point countless times does not mean that the person you're speaking to has heard it explained well even once, and that nobody chooses to be ignorant: jumping down the throats of people who have been misled will not enlighten them. The fact that 44% of your edits are to talk pages, and another 13% to user talk pages, with only 25% to the mainspace suggests to me that you might be squandering your energies arguing with people who will not be persuaded when the project could be better served if they were directed toward expanding and providing citations for its articles. Your current wikibreak is probably a good idea. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RJC

RJC (talk · contribs · count) I have been an editor for a number of years now. My edits are increasingly restricted to routine tasks (vandalism reversion, AfD, etc.), so I am thinking about applying to become an administrator and would like some feedback first. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

   I am mainly involved in articles relating to the history of political philosophy, deletion discussions regarding academics and philosophic concepts, and some policy discussions. Two Treatises of Government and Epistles (Plato) are representative of pages I have contributed significantly to; I restructured the philosophy section of Friedrich Nietzsche to address persistent NPOV issues.

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

   I think editing disputes of some kind are unavoidable (whether to call Friedrich Nietzsche a "German" recurs with some frequency, for example). The only disputes that have been stressful have involved insulting or tendentious editors. I hew to the 3RR and hash things out over the talk page.

Reviews

• Review by VictorianMutant:

Sorry it took so long to get to this review. I actually started it a few weeks back, but somehow got destarcted in real life and forgot about it. As for whether you are ready for admin... I would support you. You have been here for 5 years which shows a huge amount of trust. Some who might oppose though would do so because: (1) The most edits you have in any month is 259. (2) You have less than 5000 total edits and less than 2500 article edits. (3) You have a ton of "B" articles to your credit, but don't seem to have any GA's or FA's. Personally, I think you are well-rounded and the kind of candidate we need running for Rfa- you have a good knowledge of policy, you seem to be mature, and aren't likely to ever abuse the tools.

• Civility towards the community: I don't see any huge problems here. Editing Nietzsche is a tough area. I wouldn't want to do it, but someone has to.
• Article contributions: You have a ton of edits to a lot of articles- 5 articles you've contributed 100 or more edits to and at least 10 you've contributed 50 to. I would try to bring a few of those articles to GA status which would help you in an Rfa.
• Edit count analysis: You've spent the majority of your time on articles which is a good thing, but you also have ample experience vandal fighting and in Xfd discussions. You are a very well rounded user.
• RfA-worthiness: As mentioned above, I would support (probably Strong Support), but there would be those who would oppose because of editcountis(as if it's a bad thing to have a real life outside of Wikipedia. I suspect if you went to Rfa right now (and this is just a guess), you would probably get more supports than opposes, but not enough for consensus.
• Final thoughts: Regardless of whether you go to Rfa or not, I would like to thank you for being a very valuable asset to the project. What would improve your chances at Rfa? (1) Try to have one or two months with at 500 edits if you can. (2) Get rollback, even if you are content with twinkle for vandal fighting. (3) Shepherd a few articles up to GA or even FA status. (4) Get involved in a WikiProject of some sort. Good luck and hope to see you out there! VictorianMutant (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fbifriday

Fbifriday (talk · contribs · count) STATEMENT Fbifriday (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

   Patrolling New Pages and Recent Changes and informing people of their mistakes when they make them. Reporting vandals, nominating pages that don't meet the GNG for AfD, CSD tagging articles that need to be speedy deleted, requesting page protection for pages that need it...just in general doing all kinds of housekeeping thing. I don't do much in the way of actually contributing to articles, simply because I'm not too good at that.

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

   Never been in a real editing dispute. Have helped to solve a few, whether by requesting protection, giving a third opinion, etc. Never really felt stressed, just sometimes disappointed under by how many people vandalize, often just for fun.

Reviews

• Review by VictorianMutant:
  • Civility towards the community: No problems here...
  • Article contributions: You say you're not very good at writing articles. Well, you may be right, but I don't think writing is one of those things people are either good at or not good at; the more you write- the better you write. I personally think almost everyone here can write a featured article if they feel passionately enough about the subject they are writing about. My advice is to pick an article in a subject you are interested in which needs help, preferably one which is in a "low traffic area" in Wikipedia and work on it. I bet after 50 edits, it will be much improved. After 100 edits, you'll have it up to GA status. Give it a try... you really haven't given it a shot yet.
  • Edit count analysis: You are a great vandal fighter and it shows... I mean you fight with Igloo AND Twinkle at the same time
  • RfA-worthiness: I'm one of those people who tend to prefer seeing a lot of article contributions when deciding how to vote in RfA, so don't take it personal when I say it would be hard for me to support you right now. That of course could change. Find your FA- I know you have it in you.
  • Final thoughts: Okay, I've beaten the "article writing horse" to death already so I won't mention it again. One other way you can contribute is to copyedit to build your confidence. One way I do copyediting is to type common misspellings in "search" i.e. I'll type "beleive" and get a list of articles with that misspelling in it. Fix them all and you've made a major contribution, believe it or not without having to write a single word. Or go to random pages for a couple of hours- I find when I do that, I end up having to fix something on 50% of the pages. This will help broaden your contribution which is already very good. You are a proven vandal fighter already, you just need to branch out into other areas a little. Thanks, VictorianMutant (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acather96

Acather96 (talk · contribs · count) Hello, I have been editing Wikipedia since Christmas, and have made 10.3 thousand edits. I started off as a vandal fighter, gained rollback and used Huggle mostly'. I then moved into Afc and gradually started other things like NPP, allot of edits with AWB, and then started to 'patrol' the user creation log, welcoming and/or reporting users. I also work at SCV, and am currently trying to revive WP:BEDS. I am requesting a review to see if I can improve my editing, or behaviour as an editor in general. I am also feeling a little discouraged, as even though I have put in allot of time and effort I have never received a barnstar. Thanks in advance for all your comments :) Acather96 (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

   I am not a brilliant content writer, I have improved a few articles, but nothing to the point where I would consider proud. I am pleased with my work at SCV,I've got an awful lot of copy-vio's deleted. Also, I've created quite a few templates and a barnstar for WP:BEDS, along with member guides.

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

   Quite a few. Please see my talk page and archives for the actual disputes.I always try to remain civil and polite, as I beleive this is the only way you can have a productive discussion. In one recent conversation, I thought a user was insulting me, though actually they weren't it turned out.

Reviews

• I like what I see from you. Lack of content creation is not a problem for you, in my opinion, since you've supplemented the standard anti-vandalism work with a lot of other things--copyright work, looks like an increasing amount of image work, etc. You've really done a nice job in not getting constrained by the standard options of either writing or anti-vandalism. I also like what I see from your interactions with others recently, you seem to have matured and become a more level-headed person. You've also done well using edit summaries, good there. All in all, I'd say that you're on a good track right now; if you want to branch into content work, that's always good, but given how well you're doing elsewhere, I'd say it's hardly a necessity for you. Cheers, C628 (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]