Wikipedia:Editor review/Iceflow
Iceflow (talk · contribs) I am currently requesting an Editor Review for the fact that I am being coached for Adminship by User:Master of Puppets. I have been an active Wikipedian for almost 4 1/2 years now, and during that time, I have devoted a lot of that to Vandalism Reversion, and New Page Patrol.
I recently passed my 4000th edit, and feel that it is time for me to find out how the rest of the community within Wikipedia sees my work, and whether they consider there is anything I could make better within the scope of what I work on. I have recently done 2 GA reviews, I occasionally perform Non administrator closures at AFD, and I participate in whatever I feel I can.
Any comments on my work here will be received and dealt with, positive or negative, I don't mind. That's why I am here :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Reviews
Comments
- View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- In general, I am pleased with pretty much everything I do here. My anti-vandal work particularly makes me happy. To know I am helping keep the project clean and free from people who want to screw up the community's hard work is very satisfying. I have also enjoyed the work on articles related to kids tv, and media, such as Voice of Russia and NHK.
- 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?
- A couple of years ago, I had an editing conflict dealing with an article on Homosexuality, and I have also had editing disagreements, one of which lead to me wikibreaking for a week to keep myself in check. In general, although I find most of the time I can keep myself calm, occasionally I have flipped out a bit and found myself asking admins to review my posts and work, purely for a second opinion to make sure I don't put my foot in it :)
Brief review from user:NVO: maintenance tagging
You had quite a surge of patrol activity in October-November. In particular, you tagged articles for speedy deletion, and the speedy was declined/reverted/removed:
- by sysops - Brown grease, Anenometer (now redir), +680 (now redir), User:A Nobody/Nintendo Princesses (then in mainspace, deleted through AFD), Provine high school (now redir)
- by ordinary editors - Ausa Family, Ivan Frolovich Klimov
- by yourself Paul Grimshaw, Fjolla (same minute self-revert;
you've warned the creator of CSD but did not signal him/her that CSD was revertedmy bad, did not realize the signature was yours)
Typically, it was CSD:G1 ("patented nonsense", refuted by other users) or CSD:A7. Canon Palmer Catholic School got G3 and A1. These issues will be definitely brought forward at RFA. Check Balloonsman's Why_I_hate_Speedy_Deleters; it's not an uncommon view among sysops.
- it appears that tagged RW Cephei was deleted and recreated on the next day. Do you agree with its existence now?
You do a right thing always notifying article creators about CSD tags. However, when they remove your template, you revert i.e. [1] and appear to argue with newbies (see edit summary for this diff). Why? They got the warning. They don't distort your message. WP:BLANKING and WP:TALK say clearly: yes, user page owner is free to remove warnings. No need to argue and impose "responsibility". This is another bite against you at RFA. Maybe it's time to somewhat slow down patrolling and maintenance (especially twinkling and templating) in favor of content edits and more personal interaction with other editors. NVO (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)