Wikipedia:Editor review/Buggie111 (2)

Buggie111
I think I've spent a lot of time working in wikipedia space, mostly AFD, and CSD tagging since my last review. I've also brancehd out, joined WP:OMT, and started to work harder. I'd like another benchmark of my work, and if possible, what I should work on to be a possible candidate for WP:RFA within a couple of years or so. Buggie111 (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * This one's a long one. I'm proud of my 6 GA's, five of which are or will be on battleships Yes, I'm assuming SMS Babenberg, SMS Arpad and SMS Habsburg will pass, the non-battleship article is Hurricane Douglas (2002) . Four of those are encompassed into my 10 current and future (Again, Habsburg and the other two) DYK's along with one ITN, 2010 Baja California earthquake. I've obtained 2,000 contributions to various areas, and have tagged about 55 pages for deletion. My voting at Afd might not be that common, but I'm trying to improve. Those, articles, along with the ones in my "Most edited" section on X's counter are the articles that I take pride in.
 * 1) 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?
 * Besides the dispute listed in the last review, I've only had one at Rouzbeh Rashidi, where an editor kept adding non-reliable sources and so forth. I walked away, knowing not to go in deep and violate the 3RR. In the future, I will try to continue my feelings now, which is that maybe, one of the ditors I work with each day is the president of France. If he is, than I should treat him like that, and everyone else should be deservant of those same actions. Put short, I tread lightly, and apologize for anything I do.
 * Besides the dispute listed in the last review, I've only had one at Rouzbeh Rashidi, where an editor kept adding non-reliable sources and so forth. I walked away, knowing not to go in deep and violate the 3RR. In the future, I will try to continue my feelings now, which is that maybe, one of the ditors I work with each day is the president of France. If he is, than I should treat him like that, and everyone else should be deservant of those same actions. Put short, I tread lightly, and apologize for anything I do.

 Reviews 

Review by PrincessofLlyr

This is not going to be lengthy, so feel free to tell me if you want more comments.
 * 1) Your article contributions and userspace edits balance well.
 * 2) Your article building is good, which is very important. Keep it up!
 * 3) For a new(er) editor, you have branched out into a fair number of areas here, which is good.
 * 4) Your dispute handling seems fine.
 * 5) You may want to keep a closer eye on your spelling. That seems minor, but it's bad for articles. I have not actually seen any mistakes in your article contributions (I wasn't looking very hard), but that's something to keep an eye on.
 * 6) The cabal war seems a bit immature. Especially for an admin. That would definitely be frowned on in an RfA. I am not totally opposed to a cabal, especially if the members have useful goals as well, but the war is excessive, I think.
 * So, for an RfA. I suggest you wait and continue editing, especially article building, but also in other aspects of WP. Frequent the RfA pages. It should help you learn a lot about what is expected of candidates.

I hope this helps. Feel free to leave any questions or comments for me here or on my talk. PrincessofLlyr royal court 22:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Review by liquidluck ✽ talk
 * Your content building work looks great, and congrats on getting on the DYK leader board. You appear to be a good team-worker as well, with a good use of user talk pages and a 100% use of edit summaries. You've participated in lots of areas on Wikipedia, which is nice to see. So you're definitely a good and valued contributor, and I (and many others, I'm sure) appreciate all the work you've done.
 * Still, there are things you could improve on. While you were correct in being concerned about an edit war, unreliable sources in a BLP isn't something that you should walk away from without trying to discuss. It appears that the user in question was responsive to posts on their talk page. If you'd like an RFA, I'd recommend patrolling some more pages and some more participation at XFDs. You should try requesting rollback again, as it will demonstrate you can be trusted with it. I'll continue later. liquidluck ✽ talk  22:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Minor items: Your talk page edit notice contains a sentence fragment ("If I have not made any edits in a while,") and a typo ("rince").