197:, and started thinking that the user had become disruptive in her attempt at clearing Knox's name. This wasn't because I didn't concur with her, but because she was adamant in not trying to hammer out a compromise, an agreement, but started considering the article as a battlefield, instead. (Clearly, that's only my point of view; I know she thinks we were being unreasonable and disruptive.)
122:. She thought that some people, including me, were trying to cast Amanda Knox in as bad a light as possible, calling us the "anti-Knox group" and identifying herself as part of the "pro-Knox group". We discussed for a long time on the talk page; however, this affair brought forth many threads on various noticeboards:
257:
with contributions to 19 requests. I think participating there is an excellent way to learn what the community expects in a sysop. While we did not always reach the same conclusion, I found no instances where I thought your reasoning was questionable. You show the ability to revise your opinion when
271:
Your article space % of 41 is on the low side - some will want it higher as a percentage, others might be fine with the percentage the absolute number of under 4k article edits is on the low side for recent successful candidates (in fairness, I started to do a survey, it was more work than I can do
219:
I've only known you for a few weeks, but I consider you to be one of the friendliest
Knowledge editors I've ever met. You've helped me with several editing goofs and I've noticed you do the same with other people. I like how you keep a friendly attitude towards other editors and you always
275:
Your monthly totals are impressive—the flip side is you only have four months of experience with over 100 edits per month. Some (including me) look for somewhat more time. There was a time when three months was enough—I think those days are gone,th ere are too many policies to
200:
If such a thing were to happen again, I think I'd behave much in the same way: first, I'd try to talk things through on the talk page, then try mediation (or another dispute resolution method) and then, if I thought the user was being disruptive, I'd report them to
299:. It looks like a fine addition to WP. I'd love to see evidence of a second pair of expert eyes on it ( I see others are editing it, but usually gnomishly, and the references are largely not online) but this is the responsibility of WP, not you personally.
308:
My view is you are headed in the right direction. You might succeed with a nomination now, but you would be safer spending a couple more months doing mostly what you are doing now, with maybe a bit more participation at
160:
192:
Actually, this entire affair did not cause me stress, it causea me a bit of frustration, because there came a point when I thought that we had moved beyond a normal content dispute, that could be solved using
246:
You noted you are interested on feedback as a potential sysop. I'll spare you the obvious joke that this is the first strike against you (oops, too late). Keeping in mind that I am not a sysop:
182:
174:
165:
133:
55:
I've been here a little over six months and this is my first editor review. Basically, I'd like to see what people think about my contributions and the way I behave towars others.
100:
Have you been in any disputes 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?
151:
142:
335:
I keep on seeing you everywhere, and that's a good sign that you're active and doing a good job it seems. Everything else I think has been said. Keep up the good work.
125:
Knowledge:Wikiquette alerts/archive83#user:Zlykinskyja. Repeated violations of civility in edit summaries and talk pages .28conserning Murder of
Meredith Kercher.
89:
50:
152:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive129#User:Zlykinskyja reported by User:Salvio giuliano .28again.2C yes.29 .28Result: Warned.29
124:
44:
57:
I want to be extremely honest, I'd also like to receive feedback on whether or not I might turn out to be an acceptable admin candidate.
296:
85:
115:
230:
292:
I had a specific question about one of the articles you've contributed to significantly—I posted separately at your talk page.
264:
I looked at your raw edit count; approaching 10k, it should satisfy all but the most stringent of the RfA !voters, however:
143:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive129#User:Zlykinskyja reported by User:Salvio giuliano .28Result: Warned.29
302:!Voters at RfA like to see evidence of contributions to places like AIV, AN and ANI - you are contributing significantly.
282:
Deleted edit count looks good, but not being a sysop, I cannot review them to ensure that they are valid CSD type edits.
183:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive612#User:Zlykinskyja.27s actions on Murder of
Meredith Kercher
119:
66:
38:
80:
What are your primary contributions to
Knowledge? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
305:!Voters at RfA like to see evidence of contributions to XfD - I don't see all that many edits in those places.
17:
340:
109:
84:
My main contribution has been fighting vandalism; if you wish to see an article I created, then I guess
316:
272:
in a reasonable time, so I'm basing my comment on anecdotal observatons of a few recent candidacies).
60:
33:
344:
322:
234:
69:
175:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#user:Zlykinskyja.27s conduct at AFD page
166:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive604#user:Zlykinskyja.27s conduct at AFD page
88:; it's really quite mediocre, but there it is. I contributed to the translation of this article:
336:
105:
311:
225:
137:
254:
221:
202:
186:
178:
169:
155:
146:
128:
279:
Knowledge space edits under 700 is on the low side for recent successful candidates.
194:
134:
Knowledge:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Murder of
Merdith Kercher
289:
Your talk page shows a lot of clueful, polite interaction with others - kudos
224:
and try to sort things out. Knowledge could use more editors like you. ---
205:, I'd just try to do it sooner and not waste so many months after it.
161:
Knowledge:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-26/Murder of
Meredith Kercher
104:
Yes, I've been in a content dispute, right off the bat; it was with
295:
I reviewed (only cursory) one of your major articles:
261:
Edit summary at 100% for recent major edits—excellent
8:
131:thread I didn't start, but I took part in;
258:learning new facts - , that's commendable.
163:— an unsuccessful attempt at mediation;
90:List of people executed by the Holy See
7:
297:Italian Code of Criminal Procedure
189:thread I started and took part it.
24:
1:
331:Short Review by Doc Quintana
345:07:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
360:
120:Murder of Meredith Kercher
235:20:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
70:13:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
323:01:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
253:You are contributing to
181:thread I took part in;
172:thread I took part in;
18:Knowledge:Editor review
241:Review by Sphilbrick
231:(background check)
158:thread I started;
149:thread I started;
140:thread I started;
222:assume good faith
351:
321:
319:
314:
177:— still another
64:
54:
359:
358:
354:
353:
352:
350:
349:
348:
317:
312:
310:
233:
86:this is the one
58:
36:
34:Salvio giuliano
31:
28:Salvio giuliano
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
357:
355:
328:
327:
326:
325:
306:
303:
300:
293:
290:
286:
285:
284:
283:
280:
277:
273:
266:
265:
262:
259:
248:
247:
238:
237:
229:
212:
210:
209:
208:
207:
199:
198:
191:
190:
173:
168:— yet another
164:
159:
150:
141:
132:
123:
98:
96:
95:
94:
56:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
356:
347:
346:
342:
338:
333:
332:
324:
320:
315:
307:
304:
301:
298:
294:
291:
288:
287:
281:
278:
274:
270:
269:
268:
267:
263:
260:
256:
252:
251:
250:
249:
245:
244:
243:
242:
236:
232:
227:
223:
218:
217:
216:
215:
206:
204:
196:
188:
184:
180:
176:
171:
167:
162:
157:
153:
148:
144:
139:
135:
130:
126:
121:
117:
114:
111:
107:
102:
101:
99:
97:
93:
91:
87:
82:
81:
79:
78:
77:
76:
72:
71:
67:
63:
62:
52:
49:
46:
43:
40:
35:
29:
26:
19:
337:Doc Quintana
334:
330:
329:
240:
239:
213:
211:
112:
103:
83:
74:
73:
59:
47:
41:
32:
27:
276:understand.
185:— the last
106:Zlykinskyja
313:SPhilbrick
226:cymru lass
154:— another
75:Questions
214:Reviews
138:WP:NPOVN
116:contribs
45:contribs
309:XfD.--
255:WP:RFA
203:WP:ANI
187:WP:ANI
179:WP:ANI
170:WP:ANI
156:WP:AN3
147:WP:AN3
129:WP:WQA
61:Salvio
195:WP:DR
118:) on
51:count
16:<
341:talk
145:— a
136:— a
127:— a
110:talk
39:talk
343:)
68:)
339:(
318:T
228:⁄
113:·
108:(
92:.
65:(
53:)
48:·
42:·
37:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.