Wikipedia:Editor review/R

R

R (talk · contribs) Hi. I'm R. I used to be TeckWiz, but I requested usurpation. I'm almost 13 years old, and according to the auto-counting ubx on my userpage, I've been here 1 year, 3 months, and 11 days at time of this writing. I have over 7,000 edits, and two bots: 1, and 2. I've had 3 previous failed RFA's: 1, 2, 3. I just wanted to see what people think about me. Thanks --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 16:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

• First of all, you are a Yankees fan. That needs to change:) On a serious note you seem to be a good editor. If you want to become an admin get really active with vandal fighting, be active in voting in Mfd's Afd's, etc, and also make article edits. Keep up your good work.--
  James, La gloria è a dio 01:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'm not going to remove the asterisk, as there are probably going to be more users who will want to review you, so I'll just give you my view. :) Personally, I think you're a very, very valuable contributer here. You are an extremely mature person, and you are very calm. You operate a bot, which must take a lot of skill (I have no idea how to create bots). You are very civil and decent, and an excellent editor overall. I hope you will continue your great work here. Acalamari 23:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I too am not going to remove the asterisk as several other users will probably want to review you. Anyway... I'm impressed by your edits — you also have excellent edit summary usage, however you if you have interests in running for RfA in the future (I'll happily nominate you, just tell me if you would like a nom in the future) you may wish to get involved in other areas of Wikipedia and not just RC (just to give your edits a broad spectrum), overall I think you're a great and really dedicated and motivated editor. Happy editing --
  Man 17:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• You are a very effective contributer here, although if you are considering running for adminship (which I'll also gladly nominate you for), you may want to work on participating a AfD's a little more. Other than that, you're good all around.
  13 01:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I think you need to lower your RfA standards. "About six months" is just way too long. So many good candidates have passed with half that amount, please remember adminship is no big deal. Majorly (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're referring to me, then I have long retracted that statement. Experience is important, and if a user has shown this in three months, I would approve the user for adminship.
    13 08:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • No, I'm referring to R. Majorly (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A simple miscommunication, then. :)
        13 09:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• I think that if you did run for Rfa, you would most likely pass, for a number of reasons: 1. you have over 7000 edits (not to be an editcounter) 2. you run not one, but two bots, which shows that you are profficient with both software and most probably wikimarkup and wikiskills. 3. you have been on wikipedia for enough time to have grasped policies well and efficiently. My advice - wait for perhaps 1 or 2 more months, then try. You should then be fairly secure with the chances of your promotion. Good luck! Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 05:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Your average edits per page worries me. You stated that you used bots to assist correcting grammars and such, which means that the average edits per page # should raise more. It shows that you're a good editor in a specific area, but not an all-rounders. I have some concerns over your age (but I know that age =/= maturity). What I concern is that you will committee too much of your time on Wikipedia when you need to focus on schoolwork, especially in a few years. I also worried because your recent AfD on Alfred Brown showed that after 1 year of experience in Wikipedia, you haven't get the concept of AfD. Simply speaking that you made a mistake on that AfD isn't going to convince the crowd. You should prove to them that you know how to use AfD by tagging a few real AfD to show that Alfred Brown's AfD is an accident, not because you don't have that kind of knowledge. Come on! Proof to the adults that kids nowadays can do the job as good as adults! OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have about 20 other real AFD noms. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's Go Yankees!) 21:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Anything you can do about that annoyingly (to me) long signature? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Just so you know I gave you a review as The Sunshine Man above. Firstly and in the kindest possible way I too am getting a little tired of your seemingly never ending chain of RfA's and everytime the same problem crops up, more article writing. I dont confess to be number one article writer but I didn't like it at first but its really rewarding, I created almost 40 stubs in a week so if you could get some articles created the your RfA will pass but I strongly suggest you do not attempt RfA until you've done some article writing. Yours; —
  Rlest (formerly Qst) 11:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

• View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

   I'm proud of my work on

   WP:UW. I'm also proud of the pages I've updated and created. (Also see question 2 on my third RFA

   for a more detailed response.

3. 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've been in a few minor conflicts, and usually solve them without others intervening. Once again, a more detailed answer is question 3 here.