Wikipedia:Editor review/Thatperson

User:Thatperson
Hi, my name is Thatperson and i've been a member of the english wikipedia since 13 march 2006. I am a Newpage patroller and occasionally i do some RC Patrolling I do want to be an administrator in the future but not right now.

 Reviews 
 * I think Thatperson is a dedicated, hard working wikipedian that does his utmost to revert vandalism in all it's forms. As Thatpersons friend I reguarly follow his contributions and hardly ever find any mistakes. The one suggestion I would make to Thatperson is to take more time over his edits to ensure the spelling and punctuation is completly correct. Noface1 16:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're doing a great job overall. But you have very few talk edits, which could mean that you're not discussing important changes that you make (or that you're not making many potentially controversial changes).  The talk edits that I did look at, though, were great: both friendly and helpful (e.g. ).  You have a high user talk count, so that may be the way you're communicating with users.  I'd suggest taking discussions to article talk pages so the whole group of interested parties can participate in the discussion easier (though I admit I only glanced at a few of your user talk edits, so I could completely not know what I'm talking about here). The user talk edits I looked at were friendly and respectful, so that's great.  Looks like you've done some vandal fighting and have usually left appropriate templates on user talk pages, so that's awesome.  You are even adopting new users, which is likewise awesome.  You have pretty good use of edit summaries, but could also improve (some !voters in RFA's look for 100% usage).  It also looks like you've done a good amount of article creation, too.  However, you have very little wikipedia space and wiki talk namespace edits, which means you may not be participating in policy discussions, and which some editors in your RFA may interpret as meaning you have a lack of understanding about policy.  You may want to participate in things like WP:AfD, WP:RfC, and WP:HD (though of course you wouldn't want to just run up your edit count for the sake of it, not that I think you would do that). Basically, you're on the right track.  You've been wise in saying that you'll put off your RFA, and I think if you keep up the good work you're doing plus participate in project stuff, you'll be a great RFA candidate once you've gotten a couple thousand good edits under your belt.  delldot | talk 18:08, 31 December 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?
 * My favorite articles are the Banbury related ones i made the banbury template and about half the articles on it i also have made many contribution to the main Banbury page itself.
 * 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 had a conflict over the population of Banbury, the census states it as being 42,802 although a few people (including myself) say that the population is over 50,000 now because of recent growth & immigration and there was a few reverts over it, i tried to settle it be citing a newspaper article claiming that 10% of the towns population was somewhere inbetween 5,000 and 6,000 although another editor claimed that a more reliable and precise source was needed, i've now let it remain at 42,802 until a new exact figure comes up.
 * ''I have had a conflict over the population of Banbury, the census states it as being 42,802 although a few people (including myself) say that the population is over 50,000 now because of recent growth & immigration and there was a few reverts over it, i tried to settle it be citing a newspaper article claiming that 10% of the towns population was somewhere inbetween 5,000 and 6,000 although another editor claimed that a more reliable and precise source was needed, i've now let it remain at 42,802 until a new exact figure comes up.