46:) After discovering Knowledge on May 2005 and getting my present username in September 2005, I've been accumulating knowledge in the Wiki (rather slowly in my opinion). After such a long time, I feel that I should have other people give suggestions. After all, this is no normal encyclopedia, we are the encyclopedia ourselves.
247:
Well, you seem like a good editor. Plus you're willing to reviwe a lot of other people here, which is a huge plus since it's rare. Your edit count is good, though I'd like to see more mainspace edits (to me half is ideal, 1/3 or lower's a little iffy). You get an A on the socal scale, though only a
292:
I pretty much do everything, but particularly gnomish edits as well as vandal fighting make up much of my edits. However, I regard my best contribution to
Knowledge as someone to welcome newcomers. Newcomers are the future. Their talents and knowledge will eventually be added if they stay, and to
330:. I sort of lost some steam after much of Esperanza was wiped away, and as a result, I've been pretty disgruntled with the "deletionist cabal". Now, I've been learning my lesson, and choose to steer away from very controversial arguments. Prevention is the best medicine, after all.
224:! I can't possibly do anything without bumping noses with you; I think I've seen you in 5 different places already. Leave me a message when you're on RfA (unless I nominate you). My only suggestion is that you edit templates a bit more (or at least show you can). See you soon
248:
B+ on the editing scale, but that's more because most of your contributions are to areas I know nothing of. I have no problem with that, some people might point that out if you decide to run for adminship (you'd get my support vote already though). --
343:
I admit that I do not, since there is a no-download policy in my family unless totally necessary, and I like the freedom that doing things manually brings. Really, the only thing I use are the edit counters, and that's it. I'm one of the manualists.
77:
It seems to be that you are a humorous, warm user. I could not find anything to criticize about. Just one thing: Activity in only three namespace (Main, User, Knowledge). Maybe you can touch some other namespace sometimes? Just my opinion. Cheers
139:
Wikipediholic test score is quite high (although the test is a bit out of the ordinary). You are a member of
Esperanza and several Wikiprojects. You have reverted quite a considerable number of vandalism and have several barnstars. You should be
293:
make them stay, they must feel welcome in their environment. Too many
Wikipedians overlook this fact, and I feel that this task is one of the largest in Knowledge. I also look after others who seem to be having a hard time (
182:
apparent flaw in your history of your talk page, which was ages ago and therefore you could have been clueless about
Knowledge at that time. In other words, that doesn't count a lot in this review.
308:
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?
194:
You should be happy to be able to help
Knowledge so much! Although not entirely perfect (nobody is), you have actively participated in Knowledge. I hereby give you an A.
43:
323:
on his talk page. The second was in the great mfd'ing of the "fun stuff," which I alluded to a moment ago. I believe I attacked or told
276:
312:
320:
315:" side of Knowledge, I feel this is where the majority of my conflict has come. My first incident that I can really relate is
156:
Great (compared to me anyway :) ) 3000+ is quite good. Even if you remove all sandbox edits, the number is still quite high.
316:
178:
Quite good, though very long. Your archive shows that you've received a user warning template before but this is the
352:
108:
54:
37:
17:
205:
289:
Of your contributions to
Knowledge, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
84:
357:
347:
113:
103:
88:
59:
49:
33:
27:
364:
263:
254:
242:
213:
120:
93:
66:
195:
298:
294:
324:
249:
301:). If we hope to have a good encyclopedia, by all means, the foundation must be good.
229:
260:
210:
202:
198:
188:
You have nominated many sysops and even dedicated a user subpage to it.
319:, where I feel like I attacked Interrobamf. As a result, I gave an
297:
was an unusual case, right now, I am in the midst of looking at
259:
You've been a great mentor, you're a real asset to this place.
150:
15 months, you should have quite a lot of experience now!
328:
168:
Good. May I advise a table on your userbox subpage? (
162:
Good, you may want to fix your "random smiley award."
311:
As an inclusionist when it comes to the so-called "
170:
Note: I did read the list and I already have a life
8:
100:Thanks! Reviewers are rare, so I thank you.
7:
275:View this user's edit count using
24:
340:Do you use any Knowledge tools?
131:good at reviewing but here goes!
277:Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
1:
365:07:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
264:00:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
255:00:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
243:15:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
220:Just one comment: I see you
214:07:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
121:03:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
94:03:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
67:06:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
383:
18:Knowledge:Editor review
28:User:Bibliomaniac15
186:RfA participation:
148:Time at Knowledge:
144:proud of yourself.
327:off in some way:
241:
92:
374:
360:
355:
350:
252:
240:
235:
208:
116:
111:
106:
82:
81:
62:
57:
52:
382:
381:
377:
376:
375:
373:
372:
371:
358:
353:
348:
299:User:Whedonette
295:User:Cute 1 4 u
250:
233:
206:
114:
109:
104:
79:
60:
55:
50:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
380:
378:
370:
369:
368:
367:
335:
333:
332:
331:
325:User:Elaragirl
306:
304:
303:
302:
281:
280:
267:
266:
257:
245:
217:
216:
189:
183:
173:
166:User subpages:
163:
157:
151:
145:
133:
132:
124:
123:
97:
96:
34:Bibliomaniac15
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
379:
366:
363:
362:
361:
356:
351:
342:
341:
339:
336:
334:
329:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
309:
307:
305:
300:
296:
291:
290:
288:
287:
286:
285:
278:
274:
273:
272:
271:
265:
262:
258:
256:
253:
246:
244:
239:
238:
232:
227:
223:
219:
218:
215:
212:
209:
204:
200:
197:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
177:
174:
171:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
138:
135:
134:
130:
126:
125:
122:
119:
118:
117:
112:
107:
99:
98:
95:
90:
86:
76:
75:
74:
73:
69:
68:
65:
64:
63:
58:
53:
45:
42:
39:
35:
29:
26:
19:
349:bibliomaniac
346:
345:
337:
283:
282:
269:
268:
236:
230:
225:
221:
191:
185:
179:
175:
169:
165:
159:
153:
147:
141:
136:
128:
105:bibliomaniac
102:
101:
71:
70:
51:bibliomaniac
48:
47:
40:
32:
338:(by Sp3000)
154:Edit count:
87:•
222:everywhere
176:Talk page:
160:User page:
284:Questions
270:Comments
251:Wizardman
226:somewhere
80:AQu01rius
317:this one
211:r:Sp3000
199:Futurama
192:Overall:
137:General:
127:I'm not
72:Reviews
44:contribs
321:apology
313:heretic
261:Just H
234:ndonic
228:... |
16:<
180:only
142:very
129:that
89:Talk
85:User
38:talk
203:Us
201:!
196:Go
359:5
354:1
279:.
237:O
231:A
207:e
172:)
115:5
110:1
91:)
83:(
61:5
56:1
41:·
36:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.