Wikipedia:Editor review/Admiral Norton

Admiral Norton
I'm planning to become an admin and I was told by Pedro that I'm well on my way, so here I am. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * (Not full review) Time to hone in on your content writing! Perhaps a GA/FA on your country's topics would be great. You have acquired some bit of responsibilities, use them well and the community will appreciate your efforts over time. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 18:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

 Comments 


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

two swift comments. On the boy racer article, you were incorrect to revert my edit, as articles relating to British culture use British English - this shows me that you should be a little more aware of wikipedia policy, if you are considering becoming an admin. Secondly, when I left a message on your talk page about it, you didn't even bother to apologise for reverting my edit incorrectly, or even explain to me why you reverted my edit, despite it being in line with wikipedia policy on British English. As an editor, I don't really care what you do, but if you become an admin, perhaps having the manners to apologise/explain when you mess up, would be a nice thing. I hope these comments are useful and are viewed as where improvements could be made, rather than insulting complaints.

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I believe my best contributions are those to various articles regarding Croatia. I have nominated Milan Bandić for good article status and I'm planning to do the same with Šalata and Zagreb in the following weeks. Šalata article also went to DYK today. In Wikipedia space I spend most of my time commenting on various proposals and on WP:PNT.
 * 1) 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 became involved in the Indiana Gregg article when I got involved in one side. I mostly restrained myself from doing reverts and additions of material that weren't accepted on the talk page, but I'm not proud of taking sides without a good reason in an article where I have no conflict of interest. I do not take Wikipedia discussions and disputes seriously enough to hold a grudge against an editor or to run amok under pressure. After all, it's not about war, nor a game, Wikipedia is about improving the articles and the project itself and trying to help and persuade editors who do not realize these things. That is essentially the role of an admin.
 * I became involved in the Indiana Gregg article when I got involved in one side. I mostly restrained myself from doing reverts and additions of material that weren't accepted on the talk page, but I'm not proud of taking sides without a good reason in an article where I have no conflict of interest. I do not take Wikipedia discussions and disputes seriously enough to hold a grudge against an editor or to run amok under pressure. After all, it's not about war, nor a game, Wikipedia is about improving the articles and the project itself and trying to help and persuade editors who do not realize these things. That is essentially the role of an admin.