Wikipedia:Editor review/Esoltas

Esoltas
Just interested about comments, suggestions...I'm a self-denied wikiGnome. Although my edit count is rather low, I tend to do quite much in my edits. I've been here for about a year now. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * First off, I love your talk text in your sig! :P As the wikignome page states, there's nothing wrong with being one. 1,114 edits might be lower than self-described wikiholics, but as you've said, its the quality not quantity. You've added a few DYK articles, which I consider very impressive (having gone through the process and finding it incredibly annoying and competitive,) and have a FA under your belt. As for the NJ Constitution Article, I certainly believe you could get it up to FA, as all people noted were sources and copyediting... I can see you're also helpful in reverting vandals (and very importantly) warning them- in my experience probably 50% of the vandals will stop once someone notes "we see you, please stop". I noticed that you removed a piece of language from Incredible hulk (drink)- I would have removed it too, as it's unsourced, however I would ask you the next time such a dispute happens to try and assume good faith and remain civil- I know it can be hard, but being a little more agreeable always greases the wheels of consensus. Dåvid Fuchs ( talk / contribs ) 21:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks about the sig comment! Could you please tell me though, what I could do, to make my general efforts in Wikipedia more worthy for an RfA? Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 16:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Recent edits looking good, apart from a speedy deletion of a user's page, and some vandal alerts which didn't include all the relevant information (such as article concerned) here. Easy mistakes to make perhaps, but they could be potential issues should you be considering applying for adminship. --Rebroad 00:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been careful now after the little mix up. Must have read over the "talk" moniker. That's for the cautionary statement. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 16:22, 4 February 2007 (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've completely rewritten the New Jersey State Constitution article. I singlehandedly brought it from stub to A."
 * 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 would like to say that I've never been in a conflict, but then I'd be lying. Once I disagreed witha user's defense of an unsourced vandalism edit (which that user apoligized for later, after I brought the issue to him.) What he said (namely, that I was a censoring socialist) I ignored to be civil. When avoiding arguements, I tend to leave a message saying that I'd rather not get invovled (this happened in the 2nd AfD for an article that I wrote that someone brought back after it was deleted. In retrospect, I agree with the first deletionist, but this isn't quite the place to dicuss that...) I plan to continue to follow a policy of isolationism in arguement. I guess that's why I gone unnoticed for so long!
 * I would like to say that I've never been in a conflict, but then I'd be lying. Once I disagreed witha user's defense of an unsourced vandalism edit (which that user apoligized for later, after I brought the issue to him.) What he said (namely, that I was a censoring socialist) I ignored to be civil. When avoiding arguements, I tend to leave a message saying that I'd rather not get invovled (this happened in the 2nd AfD for an article that I wrote that someone brought back after it was deleted. In retrospect, I agree with the first deletionist, but this isn't quite the place to dicuss that...) I plan to continue to follow a policy of isolationism in arguement. I guess that's why I gone unnoticed for so long!