Wikipedia:Editor review/Elektrik Shoos 2

Elektrik Shoos
This is my second editor review. The first one was well over a year ago, so I felt I wanted to update. I am still in college, so my editing has slowed a bit. I'm also not nearly as afflicted with editcountitis as I once was, so keeping up a regular pace doesn't bother me as much as it used to.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * The bulk of my contributions hasn't really changed since my last editor review. It largely consists of Wikignoming and vandalism reversion. I see rounds at XfD, new changes patrol, recent changes patrol, and reviewed during the pending changes trial. I dabble with helping out the Welcome Committee. I can't think of any substantial article work I've performed at the moment, as I generally only work on subjects that interest me, and most of the subjects I'd like to work on either already have been improved substantially or aren't notable enough for the 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.
 * I don't think I've had any major editing spats at all since my last editor review. It's largely because I've matured as an editor. I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong and change my !votes or opinion likewise, something I wasn't able to do earlier. That said, I've been involved in a few discussions on controversial talk pages such as Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism, though I've done my best to keep a cool head, respect an inevitable difference of opinion and help steer discussion towards an eventual consensus.
 * I don't think I've had any major editing spats at all since my last editor review. It's largely because I've matured as an editor. I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong and change my !votes or opinion likewise, something I wasn't able to do earlier. That said, I've been involved in a few discussions on controversial talk pages such as Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism, though I've done my best to keep a cool head, respect an inevitable difference of opinion and help steer discussion towards an eventual consensus.

 Reviews 


 * Although my comment here won't really amount to a full review, I just wanted to say thanks for the work you just did at Talk:Cyber-bullying, including welcoming the new editors on their talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * At Talk:Facebook, an evaluation of the edit request on substantive grounds would have been far better than a denial marking the request resolved on purely procedural grounds. That talk page gets more views in a day than most get in months. I hope you will answer the question about how long such a request must go unopposed before you consider it legitimate enough to evaluate its substance. 71.215.64.125 (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)