Wikipedia:Editor review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:ER)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:ER" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Wikipedia:Expert retention, Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, or Wikipedia:Edit requests.
Noticeboards and related pages (Dashboard)
General
Content
User issues
Noticeboards
Request an editor review
Before requesting a review, please understand the following:
Shortcut:
  • Editor review is a process that allows users to have their behavior and contributions to Wikipedia evaluated by peers, who will provide constructive feedback on areas for improvement. Anybody may request a review, regardless of their tenure at Wikipedia.
  • While an editor may remove comments about them that appear to be off-topic or simply personal attacks, it is important to remember that the editor review process may produce comments that the editor may not like or personally agree with, and the editor being reviewed should make every attempt to use this collaborative process to communicate with others. Editors should not refactor comments they dislike. These should either be simply removed or discussed.
  • Administrators requesting a review of their administrative actions should see administrator review.
  • This page frequently gets backlogged, so requests may wait up to several weeks for a response. If you have less than 300 edits (or your last request was within the last 3 months), your request may be removed without notice.
  • Please consider reviewing another editor when you request a review
  • Users requesting feedback on their newly created article should do so at requests for feedback.
If you would like to be reviewed, please follow the steps below:
  1. Create a subpage using the box below, replacing USERNAME with your username. Please make sure there is no space after your username, as this makes it hard for reviewers to reach your request.
  2. Do not save the page yet! Follow the instructions in the box above the request page. Please remember to fill in the requested fields.
  • Optional, but highly recommended: You may put the {{Editor review}} template or the {{Editor review sticker}} template on your user page to advertise the review page.
  • Optional: It is possible to add a userbox onto your User page (after the review is finished) by placing {{User Editor review}} at your user box section on your User page. Instructions on how to use templates may be found here.
  • Optional: As only admins can see your deleted contributions, these admins have volunteered to perform editor reviews focussing on deleted contributions (this will probably be of most interest to newpage patrollers)
  • Optional, but highly recommended There is a large backlog at Editor Review, so take some time to review some of your fellow Wikipedians.
Request form
Replace USERNAME with your username.
Click here for unreviewed requests

Contents

[edit] Current requests

[edit] Yunshui*

Yunshui (talk · contribs · count) I've been around for a while now, and want to make sure that I'm a net positive for the project. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    I primarily deal with reverting and warning vandals. I try to make an effort to help new users (I'm an active user of the Feedback Dashboard), and I also do some intermittent copyediting, often (by necessity) on India-related articles. I occasionally create new articles, tending towards sourced stubs for other editors to expand upon.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    I have rarely been involved in disputes more heated than AfD, but would point to this as an example of how I deal with them - reference to policy and attempts to explain my reasoning, and of course, NPA.


Reviews

[edit] Dodger67*

Dodger67 (talk · contribs · count) Been here a few years, I would just like to know if I'm doing ok Roger (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    I'm one of the founders of WP:WikiProject Disability and an active member of various other projects, particularly WP:WikiProject South Africa
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    I've had my share of disputes, but nothing to get too excited about


Reviews

[edit] DCI2026*

DCI2026 (talk · contribs · count) I would like to see how ready I would be to submit an RfA. dci | TALK 20:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    My initial articles were of average quality, but I feel that my later work had improved greatly, and particularly enjoy working in Wikipedia's many processes and also enjoy working on reviews. I am particularly pleased by my work on Lewis Nicola, which I reviewed and helped to revise, and am pleased with my participation in various discussion areas. 1
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    I have not been involved in stressful disputes, per say, but have disagreed with other editors. I've responded by reviewing my actions, by apologizing if I've erred, and by explaining what I've done in a civil, calm way if I believe I'm right. If in an editing dispute, I'd do the same thing, questioning both the criticism and my own actions and making a decision on what is right.


Reviews

  • Before attempting RFA you should try out work connected with what administrators do. One important area is deletion. I see that you have nominated your own work for deletion, but nothing else at all. You can do new page patrol and find things that should be speedy deleted, and tag them appropriately (Of course after reading the policies and guidlines). You can look at what is in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and see if there are things there that should be kept, and remove the speedy delete tags. You have done a little bit at WP:AFD but you could try out more things, such as nomination, arguments to keep, and perhaps non admin closure.
  • You should mark more pages patrolled, I see you have one.
  • For the blocking capability you should prove yourself with reports at WP:AIV, and or comment on reports there.
  • You should at least try the upload capability to upload an image.
  • You can test controversy by getting involved with articles that are controversial in real life, such as abortion, religion, politics, and see if you can be fair and neutral.
  • You should use the edit summary more thoroughly so that people know what you are doing.
  • People will appreciate your content writing and improvement work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much for your comments; I feared I would get few responses, but I was fortunately wrong. dci | TALK 04:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I now see you had a speedy delete declined for being too quick off the mark. Well it is a learning experience for you. One motto is don't bite the newcomers. The only real hurry to delete is for harmful material for example vandalism, attacks, outings or genuine copyright violations. RFA voters will check for problematic nominations for deletion, but it is OK to have a few mistakes to start with. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Zhaofeng Li*

Zhaofeng Li (talk · contribs · count) I've been in Wikipedia for about 1 month now. I want to know what others think about me so I started this RfC page. I want to know if I did something wrong so negative comments are welcome. Thanks! Zhaofeng Li (talk|contrib) 09:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    I spent most of my time on patrolling new pages and dealing with the bare url citations. I also did some translations (from enwiki to zhwiki).
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    I've never been in an editing dispute. I'll stay clam and try my best to solve it if I'm in an dispute.


Reviews

[edit] JohnChrysostom*

JohnChrysostom (talk · contribs · count) General review of my editing practices to know of any glaring weaknesses, as I am about to undertake substantial revisions of a few pages, and would like to know what to watch out for, to know what suboptimal behaviors I am prone to, so I don't waste more time than I have to, make more mistakes than are avoidable, and have as little talk-pages wheeling and dealing as necessary!. St John Chrysostom view/my bias 13:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    Anything dealing with religion (lots on the Bible specifically), some philosophy, some random edits to pages that I come across and need it. Lots of copyediting. Few substantial content-adding rewrites. I've been here for years as various IPs, but I believe my current (edit: and only named) account gives a reasonable cross-section of my editing. My best series of edits? Probably on Books of the Bible, before I was aware of all of the intricacies of using the talk page.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    I have been in few disputes, which are generally resolved by my resolution to follow Plato's advice, "to follow the argument wherever it leads". I don't believe any have progressed (at least in my interaction with other editors, but some of the conversations in the same tree have become heated) to an unreasonable point, and none have required any form of arbitration, RFC, etc.: consensus is always gained on Talk itself. Edit: I was involved in one ANI case which was promptly resolved over the presence of polemic on my userpage; at the time I was unaware that there were any guidelines for userspace writing beyond "no copyright infringement"; the case-admin made me aware of the guidelines and policies.


Reviews

[edit] Bmusician

Bmusician (talk · contribs · count) I created my account on May 10, 2011, have been active as a rollbacker since June 30, 2011, and have made over 12,000 edits to the project. I'm willing to know the quality of my contributions, how I'm doing, whether or not I'm doing anything wrong or making a mistake, and what I need to improve on as an editor. Bmusician 07:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    I primarily work in Articles for Creation, Articles for Deletion, vandalism patrol, and new pages patrol. I have a CSD log and PROD log that can be viewed. As for content work, I've tried to refresh, clean up, and expand articles about Western classical music, particularly about the compositions of Frédéric Chopin, and am a classical musician myself. As for biographies about classical music, I've done significant work on Arthur Rubinstein. I've also created a few articles about classical musicians and compositions myself, but a majority of them are pretty short, and I've created nothing near good article criteria.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    A few editors have questioned some of my "non-admin closures" at AfD; a couple of them have caused controversy. Clearly, the worst closure I made was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poet Tree (closed when I was new-ish to closing AFD's), in which I closed as "No consensus". That was clearly wrong. An editor complained about the closure here, and I learned since then that "close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator". I have currently been trying to only close debates which are a "clear keep" or "no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination". If I am in a dispute, I always try to seek dispute resolution and stay cool (I however have a horrible temper and am sometimes very impatient, so at times I fail to stay cool.)


Reviews

  • This edit was a very helpful, thoughtful and valuable one. One slight issue I would raise with it, however, is that you directed an editor to an essay WP:CIR when that essay specifically says not to do so. It's worth familiarising yourself with the contents of essays before linking to them! (Not removing the asterisk as I haven't carried out a comprehensive review of the editor's contributions.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay, thanks for your advice! --Bmusician 00:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] A412*

A412 (talk · contribs · count) Requesting general review.

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    I do formatting of articles that look like they're in trouble. Especially ones at AFD, those tagged with wikify, etc. I guess you could call it copyediting, I think it's formatting. None in particular stand out, but you can look through my contribs :)
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    I don't remember any disputes, but if I was in one I would attempt to explain the relevant policies and guidelines.


Reviews

[edit] Elektrik Shoos*

Elektrik Shoos (talk · contribs · count) This is my second editor review. The first one was well over a year ago, so I felt I wanted to update. I am still in college, so my editing has slowed a bit. I'm also not nearly as afflicted with editcountitis as I once was, so keeping up a regular pace doesn't bother me as much as it used to. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    The bulk of my contributions hasn't really changed since my last editor review. It largely consists of Wikignoming and vandalism reversion. I see rounds at XfD, new changes patrol, recent changes patrol, and reviewed during the pending changes trial. I dabble with helping out the Welcome Committee. I can't think of any substantial article work I've performed at the moment, as I generally only work on subjects that interest me, and most of the subjects I'd like to work on either already have been improved substantially or aren't notable enough for the project.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    I don't think I've had any major editing spats at all since my last editor review. It's largely because I've matured as an editor. I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong and change my !votes or opinion likewise, something I wasn't able to do earlier. That said, I've been involved in a few discussions on controversial talk pages such as Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism, though I've done my best to keep a cool head, respect an inevitable difference of opinion and help steer discussion towards an eventual consensus.


Reviews

[edit] Klilidiplomus*

Klilidiplomus (talk · contribs · count) I've been contributing to Wikipedia for more than 2 months. After 4000+ edits, I'd like to hear what others think of me. ─═Klilidiplomus █ Talk═─ 18:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    Cleaning up vandalism and spam, and tagging pages for speedy deletion. I'm especially pleased about my CSD work, because I have managed to apply the proper criteria most of the time.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    None that I know of. I prefer to stay away from content disputes.


Reviews

  • You may have heard this somewhere else already, but if you intend to run for adminship in future, you will definitely need more than quantity of edits to get you through. Since you have worked on CSD, consider chipping in on deletion discussions and other maintenance processes, writing short articles or even making minor improvement on new articles on New Page Patrol. Good luck! - Mailer Diablo 11:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Alpha Quadrant*

Alpha Quadrant (talk · contribs · count) It has been about five months since my lasts editor review. I would like to know how I have been doing, and what I need to improve on. Thank you Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    As of late, I have primarily worked at Articles for Creation, Requested Moves, Possibly unfree files/Files for Deletion, and Articles for Deletion. On occasion, I have assisted in dispute resolution. When I am not active in those areas, I am usually working on link rot cleanup, disambiguating, recategorizing, adding references, and minor copyediting. I mainly work on Unites States related organization articles. I have written a handful of articles, a few of which I took to DYK, but nothing near featured or good article quality.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    I have only been the subject of one major dispute since my last editor review. Back in October several editors raised concerns over early AfD closures that I had made. I could have most definitely handled it better than I did.


Reviews

[edit] Jeff G.

Jeff G. (talk · contribs · count) Hello. Please review my edits.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    I think all of those contributions improved the project.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    Over two years ago, I misinvoked WP:EVULA (felt that I was right) in continuing to revert what I felt was vandalism, and got blocked for it[1] without notice. The duration of the block was 28 minutes. That block taught me to think twice before making a second revert, and to instead follow the WP:DR path. I have occasionally come into contact with users who I felt were not here to help write an encyclopedia, and I have been civil while encouraging them to either stay and be civil or leave.


Reviews


Comments

  • I really would like some input here, if you'd be so kind.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Review There's a daunting amount of edits here to look over from a highly prolific contributor, which may be why no-one else has attempted it yet! I've spent the last forty minutes or so looking at a random sampling of Jeff's contributions and talk history, and the overall picture I've obtained is of a competent, policy-aware editor who unfortunately occasionally jumps the gun in his eagerness to put the smackdown on vandals.
Jeff G.'s use of the twin-barreled Huggle/Twinkle shotgun has generally been accurate; but as a vandal-fighter he seems to have caused some collateral damage - this may be forgivable considering the volume of edits in this area, though. When he has accidentally sprayed anti-vandal buckshot in some innocent's face, he's often had the good grace to remove the pellets.
In his dealings in collaboration with other editors Jeff G. has, as far as I can see, generally been open to criticism and compromise, and whilst occasionally giving other editors short shrift (remember, IPs are human too!) he doesn't seem to have ever crossed into incivility. It would, however, be a good idea to remember that even if you're always right, "right" can be a subjective concept here.
This is the pot calling the kettle black, but more article contribution beyond anti-vandalism would be nice to see; copyediting and maybe taking some articles to GA or even FA would be positive projects.
Finally, it would be nice to see a fix applied to User:JeffGBot at some point; I think it was conceptually a good idea, even if in practice it seemed to have some issues with the citation template.
Hope the above was helpful, Jeff. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Sainsf*

Sainsf (talk · contribs · count) Hello. I wished to have a review for I wished to know how good or bad I am, whether I can be trusted, and what my peers think of me. I wish to get suggestions and ideas which can help me improve. Sainsf <^> (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    I am mainly a reviewer and a new page and help page patroller. I mostly write articles in and contribute to things related to fungi, plants and animals. I have developed a few many stubs like Common eland ( I am particularly pleased with it for I have done a lot to improve it from a stub to a B-class article ) and many others into better articles. I have removed vandalism and deleted improper articles often, too. I like things like userboxes and templates ( you know that seeing my userpage ). But, over all, I have always loved Wikipedia and simply help it as much as I can.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    I have never been in any edit war or dispute till today. If I ever face a war ( though I do not expect I will ) I would try my best to end it and pacify the user(s). I would contact an experienced user or protect the page if the war persists. I have made many a mistake mostly when I was new here - like making unnecessary edits, uploading copyrighted files and so on, if you count these as disputes.


Reviews

  • Tip : Try to use your edit summary more frequently. Doesn't have to be in detail, shorthands (like 'expand', 'sp' or 'reply') is perfectly okay. - Mailer Diablo 22:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


Please add more comments! I want to be reviewed, please add whatever you think would be proper.

[edit] TRLIJC19

TRLIJC19 (talk · contribs · count) I'm TRLIJC19. I've had rough patches on WP including 3 blocks for edit warring but I'd really like to get back on track. TRLIJC19 (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    My primary contributions are to Grey's Anatomy articles. I am a member of WP:WPGA and really try to help out with them. I am very pleased with the article I just wrote, Rebecca Pope. I added photos but they were removed due to CR violations. I would like to know how to add photos to her page without them being removed. I also like to work with WP:GAN.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    Yes I've been in several. I used to deal with it by partaking in edit wars but recently I've talked about it to the user directly. In the future I would continue to talk to the other user and try and work it out.


Reviews

By Ebe123 (talk · contribs)
You're a good editor, even though your 3 blocks for edit warring. Your vandalism warning was in error, and that happens to everyone. You know well the difference of AGF and vandals, thats in handy. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
Contribs 14:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
By Katarighe (talk · contribs)
You are a good editor, but you should stop edit warring becuase it's bad and may lead you a lifetime block. But you are still good! --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
By Mailer diablo (talk · contribs)
  • 3 blocks for edit-warring is an indication that you will need to improve on how you work along with other editors - co-operation with other editors is important. The talk page should be the first stop if you get into a dispute, not the revert button. Keep up your good work on the GAs. - Mailer Diablo 22:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Nolelover

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

Per my request to another user to review me, I am updating this page. It's now past a year and a half, and closer to nine thousand edits... Nolelover Talk·Contribs 16:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I should also note that I have an alt account. --> NLinpublic (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    Other then the aforementioned SMAC, which went from this to GA, I've never done any major content work. Obviously I've worked on many articles, but I seriously doubt I've added more then a couple paragraphs of prose to any of them. Like I say on my userpage, I'm better at getting article from really bad to OK, rather then OK to GA/FA. However, I am happy with the work I've done on articles like Ehsan Sehgal, not because of any major content work I've done, but because of the work that goes into teaching a new editor the ropes. I'd also like to think I do a decent job at NPP; my CSD log, which only shows the latest month (where I became more inactive anyway) is here, but that's probably fairly representative of my overall work there. In the Project namespace, I am extremely happy with the work I have done at WP:WWF, where I am assistant coordinator, and currently the day-to-day manager with a couple of other editors inactive for various reasons. Other then that, I tend to gnome around, fixing whatever crops up in my path. I also do a bit of College Football related editing.
    (Added at 16:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)) Note that since this was written, I have resigned at WWF, although I'm still active there.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    Well, as much as I would like to be like other editors on this page and say that I haven't been in any, but that I would work with the other editor to achieve consensus (linked, ofc) on the talk page, I've been around the block a few too many times for that. I can't say that I've really been a participant in any major editing disputes, but I have seen firsthand how hard it can be too work with someone when you believe their mindset is wrong. However, I looked for something to show how I do operate in those situations, and I found this one in my talk archives (second diff) and this one. There is probably also something in the SMAC archive between me and User:Dream Focus, and there are a few things in my second talk archive that I won't link individually. I have done some minor mediation/resolution/been the bad news bearer, and that landed me in rather hot water here. (Note that I am not the editor Pedro is referring to in his edit summary, and here are more diffs. All this revolved around User:Guoguo12's ill-fated RfA.) I think that's about it on that front.
    (Added at 16:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)) A much better (and far more recent) example occurred at Ehsan Sehgal, Ehsan Mehmood Khan and Babar Malik. There's more discussion at the article's talk pages, my talk, Ehsan Sehgal's (the user referenced above) talk page, and the talks of a couple Ips. The gist of it was that these and other Ips and a couple registered editors began reverting and removing info on those pages, and started an edit war with Sehgal and I. To be entirely honest, I did not handle that well. I'm pretty sure I broke 3rr and I should have asked for another editor to look in sooner; I'm just a little to personally involved with Sehgal to make entirely unbiased statements.

Reviews

  • His edits are related to these points,

He is polite

He assumes good faith

He avoids personal attacks

He welcomes new editors

He does not bite

He is helpful and good teacher

He is very fair and neutral

He is the real" Editor"

He is worth and proud of Wikipedia

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

Thanks to Nolelover

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

Thanks Ehsan. I really appreciate that. :) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 23:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • You deserve it.One of my quotes,
  • To display ones talents is not objectionable.How ever denial of other's

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


[edit] Fltyingpig

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

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    My primary contributions have been reverting vandalism, correcting typos, regulating redlinks, and doing other wikignomish activities
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    I got a page I written turned into a redirect page without consensus from an other editor with around 80,000 edits when I was still a signator, but I didn't know what to do about it, so I just got into a big edit-war, but since then I haven't got into any edit wars because I have been pretty timid and wikignomish because of that.


Reviews

  • Review by Trevj:
    • Note: Further reviews welcomed. Below is my first ever editor review, so the additional comments of others would be useful, please. Thanks.
    1. Userpage is informative and organised.
    2. Talk shows civility.
    3. Edit summaries are welcomed, but could in some instances be more meaningful, e.g. this could have stated reword: 'to a zoo and some other attractions' -> 'to some atractions like zoos', although this is a matter of personal preference. There's also no need to state "I [...]" because they're your edits we know it's you who's done them!
    4. Your fights against vandalism are noted.
I hope the above is useful. Happy editing! --Trevj (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Review by Mirokado:
    • My first review too...
    1. You are clearly enthusiastic and motivated to make high quality contributions
    2. I also noticed the edit summaries but would suggest differently from Trevj: this just illustrates what he said about personal preference. It is excellent that you always provide summaries but they could be a bit less verbose. I don't think there is much point in repeating the content change verbatim, that is what we have diffs for. You could ask yourself "how can I say concisely what I have done and/or why so that a reviewer can decide whether to look at my change in more detail and will know what to expect from a diff?" In the example above, I think "rephrase for neutral POV" would have been fine
    3. In addition to any comments here there are also various sections on your talk page which provide ongoing feedback on your contributions. I hope you are "paying attention" to what has been said there
    4. You mention one early problem with an edit war. Please don't be discouraged by occasional setbacks like that, they help us to learn, so while being careful to avoid edit warring do not be too diffident either when considering a change you think is necessary.
I hope you continue to enjoy editing. --Mirokado (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Rohith goura

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

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    I have very good CSD work and i have started my contributions to wiki with this edit which are usually done by the beginner and have added to this article with this edit which is constructive and then i have taken a break for long time after my reentry to wiki had quite good edits 1
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    Probably not!But i don't know.But i have warned several times by s/he for my misuse of the anti vandal tool because my brother who is blocked for a while in commons and i have over come this issue recently with the help of Quadell of course this is my fault letting him to go through my account.Never loose my cool if i get disputed with another editor if it gets too far then i prefer going to ANI who always have there reviews or else contacting a wiki admin personally to help/intervene to make balance for unnecessary dispute,lighten the mood, defuse conflicts, and make Wikipedia a better place to be.


Reviews

  • Roh G is an enthusiastic Wikipedian who wants to work well with others to improve Wikipedia. As a beginner, he still has much to learn about the way Wikipedia works, but he seems willing to do so. He had problems with someone else using his account, but he asked for help and the problem seems to have gone away. He did a few GA nomination reviews, which helps with the backlog -- he wasn't terribly good at it, since he's just starting out, but he seems to take suggestions very well. When he found himself over his head in a review, he asked for help appropriately. When I asked him to wait before doing more reviews, he was happy to hear the advice. When I brought the Manual of Style to his attention, he linked it from his userpage and used it in a review. He seems to have the right attitude, and is learning quickly. – Quadell (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Quadell! thanks for your review.Positive review really makes me happy and to work out more on those which I haven't work on the other part of wiki.This brings me more energy to me.regardsRohG ??· 13:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Lukep913

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

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    Most of my contributions to Wikipedia is reverting vandalism and warning/reporting vandals. My other contributions consist of adding/removing citations and fixing grammatical mistakes where I see fit to do so. 1
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    Fortunately, I have not been in any editing disputes or edit wars. If I was in one, I would calmly explain my stance on my edits and collaborate with other editors on what everyone thinks is right for the article.


Reviews

  • You caught a vandalism to my user page before I even had a chance to see it and you very politely handled yourself when it came to the vandal complaining on your talk page, so I think you're doing a great job!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

[edit] Surajt88

Surajt88 (talk · contribs · count) I have been in Wikipedia for more than a year. I would like to know how I have progressed and I would very much appreciate any feedback. Thanks in advance. Suraj T 06:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    My primary contributions to wikipedia include creating articles related to photovoltaics and sometimes related to tourist spots in and around Ooty. I also do a bit of vandalism fighting occasionally by patrolling recent changes. I am particularly pleased with my contributions to and organizing them into Template:Photovoltaics, because of the effort I put in. I'm also proud of the work I put in Pale Blue Dot to have it listed as a good article and my DYKs and ITNs listed here
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    All I can remember is here, which reflected here and here, but I'd rather call it misunderstanding than a dispute. And I believe I was pretty cool throughout. I wouldn't be unnecessarily losing my cool if I get into a dispute with another editor provided it doesn't get personal. I understand that both sides of most disputes which are approached civilly support improving wikipedia content but with different views and it would be unnecessary to heat up.


Reviews

  • You are doing quite fine so far, which may explain the lack of feedback. If you intend to run for RfA, the community might expect more activity from you. - Mailer Diablo 22:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. I'm not interested in adminship as I dont need the tools. I'm currently enjoying editing as I am doing now. Suraj T 16:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review&oldid=480309252"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages