Wikipedia:Editor review/Iner22

Iner22
I'm usually fighting vandalism, and sometimes can be seen writing a third opinion. I want to be reviewed becuase there is a lot more I don't know about Wikipedia and would like to know if I'm doing a good job so far Iner22 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Hi. You appear to be making good solid contributions with Huggle, Which is good to see that someone is wanting to fight vandalism!. Your edit count is 456 as off when I checked, Which is reasonable. Have you tried rescuing articles in WP:RESCUE?. Are you participating in WP:AFD? This is what I think you would be really good in. Best of luck with editing etc. - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email | Editor Review 08:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comment Nz. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on my work?

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using X!'s counter

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * I'm pleased with some of my performance fighting vandalism because I know that it's having an effect (my userpage was vandalised after one IP warned)
 * 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?
 * When writing a third opinion on a conflict on Tupac Shakur, one of the users apparently didn't bother to read my comment, as he said something contradicting what I said before. Next time if I face a user like this, I will probably do the same thing I did before, which is to prompt him to read my comment again.
 * When writing a third opinion on a conflict on Tupac Shakur, one of the users apparently didn't bother to read my comment, as he said something contradicting what I said before. Next time if I face a user like this, I will probably do the same thing I did before, which is to prompt him to read my comment again.

I know this is closed, but he still has a link to it on his user page, which I consider an open invitation to comment.
 * This editor has behaved recklessly and rudely. I attempted to remove a long list of random trivia from an article, which had been tagged as such for nearly two years. Apparently without even bothering to look at the content of my edit or my edit summary, this editor reverted it so fast it has the same time stamp as my edit, accusing me of "unexplained" deletion of content.  It was explained, and this kind if uncivil knee-jerk editing is a detriment to Wikipedia.  I'm baffled that this kind of editor is on the Welcoming Committee. - 99.24.251.105 (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the trivia. It looks like in the end the trivia got removed. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)