Wikipedia:Editor review/Crazynas

Crazynas
Looking for a general assessment, I feel I have the clue if not experience (currently) to handle a mop, but I'd like some outside input. I recognize that I'm lacking in audited content contributions, however I've been putting a bibliography together on Strauss-Howe generational theory which I would like to get to FA eventually (honestly maintenance is far less 'work' then writing, although one of the reasons I started back here was to hone my writing ability. Thanks in advance to any editors that takes time to review, it is greatly appreciated. Crazynast 00:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My contributions are mostly maintenance, I maintain two alternate accounts CrazynasBot (for automated work) and ObjectivismLover (huggle account). Content-wise I've spent time on various Magic: the Gathering articles, various Objectivist (most of those edits are ancient history however I did help found the wiki project)
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * No particular conflicts that I can recall (unless you count vandals), I tend to not give a * about content. I would, however, like some input on my full disclosure and how it would affect any future RfA.
 * No particular conflicts that I can recall (unless you count vandals), I tend to not give a * about content. I would, however, like some input on my full disclosure and how it would affect any future RfA.

 Reviews 
 * Don't worry about your past history. Its 5 years already, if it doesn't recur and your contributions have been consistently and significantly positive I don't how it would become a major issue to sink an RfA. - Mailer Diablo 22:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)