138:
are - can they get on with others? do their actions suggest problems down the track? do they understand policy, can they understand the reasons behind the policies (often key to ensuring the spirit and not strictly the letter is enforced) and can they pick good edits from bad ones? I have not specifically reviewed your contributions but if you or others can provide a reasonable collection of recent diffs to demonstrate these points, I think you'd go a long way to convincing me and others to vote for you. In general I have seen nothing that concerns me in the last couple of months. Be careful with sense of humour as others have said as a joke in
Australian English may be an insult to a non-English speaker unfamiliar with the idiom (look at a current AN/I for example with a Dutch user claiming someone threatened to kill him when they were just using a time-worn cliche.)
119:
important, but you probably have what most people are looking for. You are well-versed in several areas. Plus you have a cool name that shows that you understand science well! I would support you if I saw you come up on RfA, except if people came up with some damning diffs. Keep up the good work. Keeping a check on your sense of humor is unfortunately important. People have a tendancy of taking humorous comments wrong because they are not expecting humor. I've both given and received humor that have been taken the wrong way. I try to be polite and gracious instead of humourous.
106:
still, just to see which way the policy trends are going these days. Obviously the article-writing stufff is going awesomely and it's all improved mightily. Keep a check on the sense of humour and remember that you can take a joke too far if you're not careful, and if the other person has humour failure. ;) ~
316:, both of which I thought I handled OK. Of late, I've been doing a lot of GA reviewing and dealing with sometimes disgruntled editors that way, but I'm not easily stressed around here. Oh, and on Commons I've blocked a vandal or two and gotten some angry emails, but meh :) 01:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
137:
The main things I look for when reviewing or when voting in an RfA are generally speaking non-technical. I'm basically looking for good behaviour, good judgement, restraint when needed and a tendency to not pour fuel on fires, and clear explanations of positions. The key things I look for in an admin
76:
Hey H2O. Since you say you're thinking of running again, I wanted to look through your contribs specifically for article writing, a concern brought up in your last RfA. You've been doing a great deal of writing, but you seem to have slowed down with the vandal reverting and AIV reporting. Try to pick
203:
to re-add the material, but that the discussion was going nowhere. And then I saved this page. Throughout the entire discussion, I believe I remained civil, stuck to policy, and didn't attempt to bite or offend the newcomer - simply explain to them why their contribution, in its current form, wasn't
231:
Feel free to respond (that's why we do it here and not at RfA, so that by the time an RfA's up and running you're appropriately prepared and have already answered some of the points). Always have the option of taking it to the talk page of the review if it's taking up too much space or getting onto
118:
Our exchanges have been positive. You have the edit count should easily meet everyone's minimum count standard. Your good and featured articles demonstrate that you care about the project and that you definitely have writing skills. You've done several DYK articles. While a broad experience base is
105:
Blah blah blah, run for adminmnnmn I would support, actually I'm nominating? Didn't know about that plan but I hear that's how it's going. ;) If you don't want to do anti-vandal stuff, don't bother, plenty of other people do it. Doesn't hurt, of course. Might want to have a look around CSD and AfD
77:
that up. Also, you might want to do some more CSD tagging and AfD work. You seem to have addressed the writing concern amazingly, but have left some admin-related areas. You are a hardworking, determined editor. Barring mistakes of
Vandalbot on wheels proportions, You'll have my support. Happy
56:. Once again, I'm just looking for general feedback - if you want to RfA orientate that'd be fine, but I also would like some feedback on my editing habits, etc. Yeah, I'm sure the experienced reviewers will have some idea of what I'm talking about :)
410:
352:
305:
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?
232:
topics not envisaged by the review. My stance is that I'll be happy to support if i see more evidence, and I haven't seen anything that would make me oppose since the last one.
53:
43:
147:
I wasn't initially going to respond here, but since I'm in somewhat of a dispute now I figure I'd bring up some diffs so I don't forget them. I
321:
Of those FA's that "you've worked on", can you point out the diffs that would be helpful to evaluate the extent of your contribution to them?
267:
406:
287:
50:
47:
245:
208:
60:
37:
295:
337:
17:
372:
242:
205:
78:
57:
33:
325:
279:
Of your contributions to
Knowledge (XXG), are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
250:
236:
233:
220:
142:
139:
132:
113:
100:
65:
167:, and again stated that it should be included despite not being the common procedure. At this stage, I
355:
I made a stack of constructive edits on the back of comments and critique of the article. Some diffs:
391:
308:
Yes, several, although I don't really get too stressed. Most recently, there was an image dispute on
241:
I don't mean to canvass or anything, just a note that the RfA is currently...well...up. And running.
430:
If you like some more diffs or have more questions, feel free to ask. 23:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
313:
191:). I did so, and explained to him that I found nothing justifying his edits - and thus asked if he
386:: I did more work in and around bringing the article to GA than to FA (which was mostly done by
309:
188:
172:
348:
283:
82:
333:
120:
107:
151:
the (repeated) addition of first person autobiographical text to an article, and left an
383:
291:
282:
At the moment, my three featured articles (by mine, I mean those I've worked on);
294:. I'm also quite happy with my 14 GAs and 2 triple crowns - more information at
96:
387:
329:
163:
suggesting the user write it in their own words, to which he stated that it
159:
I undo my edit, stating we sometimes allow autobiographical content. I
409:: I virtually rewrote this in getting it featured. See also the
423:
420:
417:
414:
401:
398:
395:
379:
365:
362:
359:
356:
200:
196:
192:
184:
180:
176:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
46:) Hey guys (again for some). Previous editor reviews:
183:my position, at which stage the user told me to
402:making changes based on established consensus
8:
368:And the most important diff: me adding
7:
345:Of course, thanks for the question.
266:View this user's edit count using
189:"The problem with autobiographies"
24:
407:Dream Days at the Hotel Existence
363:rewriting and revamping a section
296:User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Articles
288:Dream Days at the Hotel Existence
177:not stating the policy correctly
394:. Anyway, I found a few diffs:
298:. 01:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
268:Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
1:
312:and a game engine debacle on
251:07:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
237:06:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
221:09:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
199:. I told them that they were
143:09:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
133:13:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
114:07:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
101:04:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
66:01:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Editor review
396:rewording and adding content
175:, to which he accused me of
165:took him hours to type it up
447:
195:. The user's response was
415:Complete ref conversion
366:adding some commentary
360:dealing with linkspam
424:removing possible OR
357:adding a new section
314:Talk:Call of Duty 2
247:Dihydrogen Monoxide
210:Dihydrogen Monoxide
197:vague and ambiguous
62:Dihydrogen Monoxide
34:Dihydrogen Monoxide
28:Dihydrogen Monoxide
351:: As shown in the
93:
418:fighting fair use
399:copyediting a bit
342:
328:comment added by
310:Talk:Powderfinger
179:. I attempted to
83:
438:
377:
373:featured article
371:
349:Age of Mythology
341:
322:
284:Age of Mythology
187:"that section" (
153:explanatory note
130:
125:
111:
92:
89:
446:
445:
441:
440:
439:
437:
436:
435:
375:
369:
323:
219:
126:
121:
109:
99:
90:
84:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
444:
442:
434:
433:
432:
431:
428:
427:
426:
421:removing cruft
404:
381:
319:
318:
317:
303:
301:
300:
299:
271:
270:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
226:
225:
224:
223:
213:
135:
116:
103:
95:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
443:
429:
425:
422:
419:
416:
412:
408:
405:
403:
400:
397:
393:
389:
385:
382:
380:
374:
367:
364:
361:
358:
354:
350:
347:
346:
344:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
320:
315:
311:
307:
306:
304:
302:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
280:
278:
277:
276:
275:
269:
265:
264:
263:
262:
252:
249:
248:
244:
240:
239:
238:
235:
230:
229:
228:
227:
222:
217:
212:
211:
207:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
145:
144:
141:
136:
134:
131:
129:
124:
117:
115:
112:
104:
102:
98:
94:
87:
80:
75:
74:
73:
72:
68:
67:
64:
63:
59:
55:
52:
49:
45:
42:
39:
35:
29:
26:
19:
384:Powderfinger
324:â Preceding
292:Powderfinger
273:
272:
260:
259:
246:
234:Orderinchaos
215:
209:
171:the user to
140:Orderinchaos
127:
122:
85:
70:
69:
61:
40:
32:
27:
155:. The user
392:Lincalinca
413:. Diffs:
274:Questions
261:Comments
204:helpful.
161:responded
157:requested
97:User page
338:contribs
326:unsigned
149:reverted
71:Reviews
44:contribs
201:welcome
193:show me
181:clarify
173:WP:AUTO
169:pointed
79:hoaxing
290:, and
216:Review
108:Riana
388:Spebi
330:Irpen
128:broil
123:Royal
16:<
390:and
334:talk
185:read
91:Ĺżtan
38:talk
411:FAC
378::)
353:FAC
376:}}
370:{{
340:)
336:â˘
286:,
81:!
332:(
243:â
218:)
214:(
206:â
110:â
88:-
86:J
58:â
54:3
51:2
48:1
41:¡
36:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.