Wikipedia:Editor review/Hornetman16

Hornetman16
I would like to be reviewed casue I need to improve on several spots obviously since my recent denial for adminship. I wanna know where I need to improve as an editor and possible future admin cannidate.  Hornetman16   05:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Hi Hornetman16, welcome to editor review. The answer to everything you need to know is this. This is a cornerstone to Wikipedia, and this site would collapse without it. Wikipedia is not the place to promote an agenda. You may do that elsewhere, and they will accept that, but this site is neutral. Period. No questions about it. Maturity does not come with age, but rather with understanding of others and the policy of others. You should not be seen as an annoyance, but unfortunately, it seems that you are sometimes portrayed as one, and that should not be. You should go with the flow, not against the grain. Friend, it is better to be kind, than to be right. Moreover, knowledge does not come with age. You and I are in the same ballpark in terms of age, so I know that the fact that we are not the oldest of people can discourage, but it should not become a factor in your contribution at Wikipedia. A 70 year old man could have the same amount of knowledge of Wikipedia policy as a five year old kid. Your contributions to this site should not be biased, which, I assume, will be extremely hard for you, but if you wish to become and continue to be a respected editor here, you need to become an editor that edits neutrally. Without hassle. Trying to censor a free encyclopedia will not work. If Wikipedia is breaking a law, then the government will step in. I understand that almost everything you do here is done with the best of intentions, but some of those things that you try to do for us will end up hurting the culture of this project. You mention that you are interested in the Bible, here is the index to Wikipedia's bible. Finally, as a smaller note, please make sure you always use edit summaries. To make sure you always use them, please go to my preferences, go to the editing tab, and check off the last option. Wishes, --wpktsfs 16:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To give you a different view on it, when you come to Wikipedia, remember that while you might view an issue with your morals, you should not bring that here. WP:NPOV is one of the major reasons we even have a chance of making a usable encyclopedia. It's great that you have morals, a lot of young people nowadays do not. However, trying to force them on other people, or indeed Wikipedia, will almost never help them- just piss them off and turn them against you. And trust me, I speak from very personal experience here, I lost a good friend over things such as this. When you view something you disagree with on Wikipedia, don't think of it as going against your beliefs. Think about it from someone else's perspective. A Buddhist, or an Atheist,  think about how someone who shares none of your beliefs would feel. Such as with nudity. You seem to have a problem with it for some reason, and while that's well within your rights, you should not try to force your opinion on others. It is irresponsible, and possibly even impossible to build a useful encyclopedia without discussion of the human form and anatomy. While you are perfectly welcome to ignore these pages, you should not crusade against them. Nobody will be harmed if you just let it go. Nobody is going to belittle you for who or what you worship or think in your personal life, but at the same time, they will be upset if you cannot respect how they feel on something. If you don't feel you can be an unbiased editor to Wikipedia, perhaps you should look into Conservapedia, which has a similar focus and system with Wikipedia, but moral views that you might feel less constricted under. If you are willing to ignore the fact that you are a Christian when you make edits, have a look through Starter toolset-It has almost any Wikipedia policy or ideal you would ever be expected to know about anything, and will give you a really good idea of how your editing should be. Remember that in the eyes of a lot of people that see you, you're disrupting Wikipedia, not helping it. Remember, when someone points out a policy you're violating, you should read it twice, and learn what you're doing wrong- not get angry at them and use your moral views as a base for what you're doing. If you can change that, people probably will not mind having you around as a contributor. One last bit of advice, don't make WP:LEGAL threats. If something is breaking the law, the WP:OFFICE will take care of it. Just ignore it and get on with your editing --ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 17:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 


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


 * View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * Template:Infobox championship, cause it had been proposed twice and didn't get created till I took action and now it's in the process of being included into every pro wrestling title page.
 * 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?
 * Yes, one guy made the infoboxes on USF school colors only the gold he thought he was puting on there wasn't happening. So, when I changed it to gold he got into a MR. Perfect thing saying "that's official school web colors" and reverted it. We ended up going the full length of the 3RR and whoever-he-was won. I kept agruing the school colors are Green and gold not Green and a lighter green. They threatened to block me. I handled it by just steering away from USF stuff!
 * 1) What Wikipedia policies do you believe you violated when you answered Q2 above?  Daniel  06:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * None. I didn't personally attack him if that's what you mean and If I did I appologize!-   Hornetman16   06:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) What is it about Wikipedia that you enjoy doing? And why do you enjoy doing that over other things?
 * 2) Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, where editors work together to achieve consensus. Can you discuss your approach to content disputes with regard to resolution? How do you feel when someone modifies/removes your edits or otherwise makes changes you do not approve of? What, in your opinion, is the best way to handle this? - A l is o n  ☺ 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, where editors work together to achieve consensus. Can you discuss your approach to content disputes with regard to resolution? How do you feel when someone modifies/removes your edits or otherwise makes changes you do not approve of? What, in your opinion, is the best way to handle this? - A l is o n  ☺ 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, where editors work together to achieve consensus. Can you discuss your approach to content disputes with regard to resolution? How do you feel when someone modifies/removes your edits or otherwise makes changes you do not approve of? What, in your opinion, is the best way to handle this? - A l is o n  ☺ 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Additionals from Dfrg.msc

Borrowed from, I'm sure he wont mind. These should test you editing skills, and show if you have any weaknesses which you can work on. So, just write your answer next to the Question. Good luck.

Speedy Delete or not: 


 * 1) CSD1
 * 2) CSD2
 * 3) CSD3
 * 4) CSD4
 * 5) CSD5

Vandalism or or not: 


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)