70:
haven't always agreed on the format/method, it was for minor things that was more of a preference system than anything major, and your willingness to discuss the items calmly is always appreciated. I do wish you would help out in more than just OU articles, and perhaps now that most are getting GA or above you'll have time to spread out, but that's not to say your articles aren't very good or the OU isn't important, I just think you could broaden your horizons slightly (at least to the Big 12 -- maybe even OSU). I really appreciated the awesome peer review you did for
Ralphie, which both was detailed and extremely helpful. You could perhaps provide this expertise to other articles needing review. I was surprised to see your involvement with the other OK articles (because I thought you only focused on OU football), which is good to see as well. You also could perhaps lead the WP:CFB into a more collaborative article writing effort such as the defunct Collaboration of the Month or even informally somehow. While I've grown to fully trust you and your edits, and even see your helping out in some of the help areas that are on my watchlist (and anytime I see your name popup in my watchlist, I go checkout what you've done), I'm not sure you would pass a RFA mainly because I don't see any involvement in any "admin duties" and there seems to be no need for the tools. If you decide to go for RFA, you should decide what admin duties you want to do and help out with that area now, building experience in that. I would fully trust you with the tools and support you should you have a reason, but the standard RFA question #1 I think you would have a hard time answering. I also would think I might be selfish and oppose you at RFA so that you won't spend your time doing admin duties and focus on article writing which you are quite good at, and to see you explore into other articles that would benefit from your help. In summary: Fabulous editor -- spread out a little more please -- always calm, rational, correct and helpful, but no reason for admin tools that I can see. --
46:) I thought I'd try getting reviewed before its MFDed. I have been a contributor since April 2005. I have 7000+ edits. I'm still undecided on whether I want to be an admin, so I don't plan on pursuing that road anytime soon (I don't think, but anything can change). However, I thought it would be nice to hear what I need to improve on. ↔
370:
No, I don't feel I've personally been in any conflicts. I've had a difference in opinion on how I feel an article should look but I don't believe this ever caused my undue stress. I try to make sure my opinion is well documented on the talk page and I would urge the other party to do so as well. Most
69:
As I have known the editor under review, an independent review would also be of benefit. Nmajdan, we've worked quite a bit together at WP:CFB and on templates and WP:CFB things together. I've seen your awesome work with the OU football items and templates systems you've created, and even though we
160:
Like I said, he had been around three days. I do not feel one is capable of adequately reviewing somebody that has been around only a short while. Would a boss review an employee that has only been around three days? I haven't looked at the editor since then so I hope he took my
141:" for this user to ask for a review. Why should they have to wait? They've been doing vandal patrol and it's reasonable for them to want feedback on their work in case anyone has input that could be useful. However, you were nice about it and didn't
198:. I have been the primary contributor to the University of Oklahoma article and have seen it improve to GA status. I have nominated it for FA but it won't be approved. I hope to get it to FA status eventually. I created the
202:
article and got it to GA and it also failed an FA nomination. I hope to get this one up to FA eventually as well. I have created many articles on former OU presidents and head football coaches (
367:
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?
106:
and so on. I do occasionally participate in XfD discussions so I'd help out there occasionally but I'd primary be focusing on the backlogs mentioned above.↔
103:
271:
263:
371:
people that I have had issues with in the past were new users so I've tried to make sure they were informed on
Knowledge's policies and guidelines.
353:
346:
335:
328:
99:
357:
339:
259:
131:
318:
95:
298:
287:
223:
43:
308:
145:, so that's good. Sorry I don't have time for a thorough look at your contribs now to give you a decent review.
199:
279:
17:
191:
251:
187:
Of your contributions to
Knowledge, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
80:
239:
71:
168:
151:
113:
53:
37:
283:
195:
231:
235:
173:
155:
142:
118:
84:
58:
291:
247:
215:
207:
275:
267:
255:
227:
162:
146:
107:
47:
33:
94:
I were answering #1 right now, I would definitely be working on backlogs such as
211:
203:
190:
I have a pretty narrow focus on
Knowledge, usually to articles relating to the
219:
262:. Other college football articles I have been a heavy contributor include
243:
242:). I've also created other articles relating to OU such as
138:
342:) and three templates for listing college recruits (
290:. I also have made many templates for use by the
324:, three templates for listing a CFB schedule (
8:
104:Category:Images with no fair use rationale
272:2006 NCAA Division I-A football rankings
264:2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings
96:Category:All images on Wikimedia Commons
100:Category:Images with no copyright tag
7:
260:2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team
130:View this user's edit count using
24:
360:). I think that about sums it up.
288:Oklahoma state elections, 2006
132:Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
1:
347:College Athlete Recruit Start
329:College Athlete Recruit Start
174:02:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
156:00:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
119:16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
85:17:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
59:16:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
292:College football WikiProject
388:
200:Oklahoma Sooners football
137:I don't agree that it's "
280:Harris Interactive Poll
18:Knowledge:Editor review
319:University of Oklahoma
192:University of Oklahoma
299:College coach infobox
286:. I also am proud of
252:The Pride of Oklahoma
270:) and it successor,
309:NCAAFootballSchool
154:
83:
379:
351:
345:
333:
327:
323:
317:
313:
307:
303:
297:
284:2007 Fiesta Bowl
196:college football
171:
165:
150:
116:
110:
79:
76:
56:
50:
387:
386:
382:
381:
380:
378:
377:
376:
349:
343:
331:
325:
321:
315:
311:
305:
301:
295:
169:
163:
114:
108:
72:
54:
48:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
385:
383:
375:
374:
373:
372:
365:
363:
362:
361:
179:
178:
177:
176:
135:
122:
121:
88:
87:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
384:
369:
368:
366:
364:
359:
355:
348:
341:
337:
330:
320:
310:
300:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
268:Featured List
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
248:Campus Corner
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
188:
186:
185:
184:
183:
175:
172:
166:
159:
158:
157:
153:
148:
144:
140:
139:WAY too early
136:
133:
129:
128:
127:
126:
120:
117:
111:
105:
101:
97:
93:
90:
89:
86:
82:
77:
75:
68:
67:
66:
65:
61:
60:
57:
51:
45:
42:
39:
35:
29:
26:
19:
276:Coaches Poll
256:Sherri Coale
181:
180:
124:
123:
91:
73:
63:
62:
40:
32:
27:
294:including
216:Mackenzie
182:Questions
125:Comments
244:RUF/NEKS
161:advice.↔
64:Reviews
44:contribs
164:NMajdan
147:delldot
109:NMajdan
49:NMajdan
34:Nmajdan
28:Nmajdan
356:, and
338:, and
282:, and
258:, and
240:Brooks
238:, and
228:Luster
354:Entry
336:Entry
236:Evans
224:Blake
220:Gibbs
212:Jones
208:Harts
16:<
232:Boyd
204:Owen
170:talk
152:talk
143:bite
115:talk
81:talk
74:MECU
55:talk
38:talk
358:End
340:End
334:,
266:(a
194:or
352:,
350:}}
344:{{
332:}}
326:{{
322:}}
316:{{
314:,
312:}}
306:{{
304:,
302:}}
296:{{
278:,
274:;
254:,
250:,
246:,
234:,
230:,
226:,
222:,
218:,
214:,
210:,
206:,
149:|
102:,
98:,
92:If
167:•
134:.
112:•
78:≈
52:•
41:·
36:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.