Hey, I thought I'd give you a review, since I've seen you on RFA. Your edits seem fine, and they are well sread out, the bulk being in articles, which is good. My advice, if you fancy RFA, is get another few edits under your belt, maybe up to 4,000, to make sure you have enoug. I see you already have a GA you contributed too
here which I really like! (they always look good, heh!). Regarding your run in, don't worry, I think we have all done that, I know I have, and I can't see any big problems. I guess, just take a little more care and time to review each edit as it comes, which I am glad to see you working on. Further regarding your RFA, give it another month or two, as many pople like to see at least 4 months of conributions. With your AFD mentioned, I agree there, and the result was what you said (so you are better than me with my AFD's! :D) Overall, you are a good editor who has really good intentions. Good luck and Happy editing. Overall score: 9 out of 10.--AtheWeatherman18:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Questions
What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
I am a practicing
WikiSloth so my contributions are all over WikiPedia and intermittently spread over the last four years or so. I cannot cite a particular contribution which "pleases" me but I am kind of happy with how
Medford, Oregon is turning out. There are lots of other things that I have to credit to the
WikiProject Oregon folks just as much as I.
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
I had quite an awakening with an undo by
Glycoform (
talk·contribs). At first I assumed he was assuming bad faith but then I realized a mistake I had made. Taking the time to see the other argument is something I am working on. It is hard to say what the future holds but I would prefer to be the type of person who checks the facts thoroughly before responding.
Thank you for the question! (I am assuming it has nothing to do with
this afd). Even though it may sound canned, I believe articles need to be deleted when they violate
policy in a way that is unrepairable (including the history). I have learned that
articles for deletion is
not the end so I am less concerned about deletionism than I used to be. However, since fresh content is provided often by fresh faces, I think in iffy cases deletion should be put off for a few days at least, so the newbies don't get
bitten.
The short answer is that I want to be able to edit protected pages and templates without having to wait. A longer answer would include me be a bit tired of waiting for G12s to get cleaned. Little things pop up all over the place, including a desire to look at deleted contribs and pages to get further info in RfAs, and one time I participated in an
WP:AFC where G6 was necessary to finish it. There is no single thing other than four years of randomly needing an admin for something. Their work is chronically backlogged; I could fruitlessly complain, or I could help out by not impacting that backlog wherever I can avoid it. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving?05:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.