Wikipedia:Editor review/Elomis

User:Elomis
First and foremost reason for editor review request is to just get a gauge on how I am doing, my typical enjoyment on editing Wikipedia is derived from things that don't get a lot of public attention, so I kinda "fly under the radar" to the community a little. Secondly I am considering requesting adminship but there are some reasons (valid ones) why it would probably be opposed successfully just now.  •E l om i s•     07:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * You're doing a good job. You seem to have a good knowledge of how Wikipedia works and you are very useful. However, there are a couple of things you need to work on. First of all, your | edit summary usage is too low. Remember to summarise every edit. Also, if you are thinking of becoming admin anytime soon, you may want to do an extra 10-15 edits a day and also wait until you have a couple of thousand edits. Anyway, you're on the right track! Atlantis Hawk  09:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 Comments 


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

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I am particularly pleased with my edit of Western Rosella, it was the top of the needed pages at something like 16000 red links and posed a challenge because I don't usually edit biological pages. I'm also happy with IP Address Starvation.
 * 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 have never been in edit conflicts, I am usually capable of foreseeing conflict and discussing it out first. I've discussed via talk pages any edits and sorted things out without a harsh word being spoken. Others have caused me stress, but those I've not been able to clearly explain myself to (only a few) I've employed the idea of don't defend yourself, I like to defend others and love the sense of community on Wikipedia.  There's nothing to build trust like community pulling together to keep civility.
 * I have never been in edit conflicts, I am usually capable of foreseeing conflict and discussing it out first. I've discussed via talk pages any edits and sorted things out without a harsh word being spoken. Others have caused me stress, but those I've not been able to clearly explain myself to (only a few) I've employed the idea of don't defend yourself, I like to defend others and love the sense of community on Wikipedia.  There's nothing to build trust like community pulling together to keep civility.