Wikipedia:Editor review/RockManQ 2

RockManQ
Being that my first review didn't garner any comments, I created a new one. I have been here for slightly over 3 months now, and would like to get some feedback. Cheers, RockManQ (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 Reviews  I was surprised when I read the answers to your questions, and discovered that you have a significant interest in both military history and tropical storms. My own introduction to you through WikiProject Halloween gave me the impression that Halloween is your first true love. You certainly have a wide assortment of topics you're passionate about!
 * Review by 


 * Community Participation
 * In reviewing your recent contributions to the project, I am reminded that you assessed all of the unassessed articles for WikiProject Halloween tonight, a tremendous accomplishment for this new project. You are involved in several WikiProjects and you seem to give a fair amount of your time to each.


 * I did not see any examples of interactions on article or user talk pages where you were anything less than courteous and thoughtful.


 * Administrative Functions
 * You are not an administrator but you participate in debates with the knowledge of one. You apparently carefully evaluated candidates for ArbCom before voting, and you actively support RfA candidates.  Regarding the latter, I think you could benefit those candidates that you support for adminship better if you fleshed out your reasons for support beyond them being another "great candidate," as I see here and here.  An editor who is on the fence may well be influenced by your well-reasoned arguments, and that could make the difference in some cases.


 * You do enough vandalism-fighting to show an interest in keep Wikipedia useful for the masses, though far less than other editors who make that a primary activity.


 * I didn't look deeply into your rollback and account creation history, but the fact that you have such rights indicates that you are trusted in the community, and it's trust that didn't take very long for you to earn. In many cases I've seen RfA candidates get supportive comments along the lines of, "thought he was an admin already."  Were you to run I imagine you'd get more than a few comments like that.


 * Article Work
 * Your ability to focus on the overall improvement of a single article, such as Tropical Storm Dean (1995), demonstrates your skills in research, copyediting, and writing. You show an excellent grasp of written English and I didn't find any glaring errors in grammar or punctuation in your edits.


 * You have a gnomish style of editing, often make a series of small changes even as you improve a single article. You spread some of the wikignome love around, adding categories and making assorted minor improvements to any number of articles.


 * My Two Cents
 * You are an editor that participates in Wikipedia on many levels, ranging from in-depth article work to adding thoughts to discussions the inner workings of the community itself. You avoid drama and tend to make improvements with each of your edits.  You choose your words thoughtfully and the project absolutely benefits from your participation.

Respectfully, --otherlleftNo, really, other way. .. 05:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Ecoleetage. Personally, I wasn't entirely convinced of the romantic chemistry between Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman -- I felt their performances were rather synthetic and...what, isn't this where I do a review of the movie Australia? Whoops, wrong review. But that is okay, because I think RockManQ is a lot more interesting than either Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman. His content creation skills are excellent, and he is handling subject matter that is quite sophisticated. His enthusiasm for working with others is wonderful, and his commentary is always cogent and supportive. My definition of "net positive" is someone who goes out of his way to improve the content and character of this project, and who achieves the goals successfully. So that makes RockManQ the personification of a "net positive." Ecoleetage (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've archived this review. Please see the reason listed above. If you wish to be reviewed, please file a new request and remember to transclude it onto the main Editor review page. Netalarm talk  07:14, 24 October 2009 (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?
 * Personally, I like all of my contributions to the project, be it vandal reverting or writing articles. Three months ago when I started a review, I was mainly an AfD junkie. That has changed for sure. I am now a solid contributor to many Wikiprojects, including: WP:MILHIST, WP:WPTC, and WP:CHEM. Of my article contributions, I would be most proud of Tropical Storm Dean (1995) and Methyldichloroarsine. I created Methyldichloroarsine because of my interest in chemical weapons. Within a couple days, I got a DYK; I was so proud of myself. TS Dean (1995) was a start class when I first saw it. Now I've brought it all the way to B-class, and it's currently a good article nominee. Oh and did I mention that I'm trying to start a task force. That's right, a chemical warfare taskforce for MILHIST to improve our coverage of chemical warfare related articles. I have created ten articles, and have major improvements to five articles. I also use a trusty script I found, advisor.js, to help me in my copyediting. I love copyediting; it's very helpful to other wikipedians and you learn a lot. I'm also a good article reviewer, I do it when I'm mellowed out and it makes me feel better suggesting improvements to other articles. That's about it for what I have to say about my contributions.
 * 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?
 * Nope not really.
 * Nope not really.