Wikipedia:Editor review/WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden

WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden

WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden (talk · contribs) Right, hi, and thanks for taking the time to come and look at the page, if nothing else ;) I have been here for nearly a decade and a half, but only seriously edited since the start of December. I would like some insight into how I'm doing, as I plan to apply for RfA in the future - "Absolutly Crap" (The Times). Thanks again. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{we need to talk.}• 17:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Hmmm. Not going to get one am I - yes nobody likes you. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's so easy. RfA is simpler because all you need to decide is "will this person delete the main page, or block Jimbo, accidentally or on purpose; will they be a net negative or net positive"?. You're already an admin elsewhere, so you know the kind of tedious rubbish admins do. You've got a variety of contribs, including in Wikispace (comments at PUI even!), and aren't obviously off your trolley. What can I say that would be useful here? You've seen RfA, so you know the kind of nonsense that people look for: <arbitrary number> of <namespace> edits, <some number> of featured articles, lots of article space edits, not too many article space edits, not in too many conflicts, not in too few conflicts, someone will complain about your .sig, yadda, yadda. Like JERRY says, editor review isn't much use. It's particularly useless when it comes to experienced, clueful editors as you've found here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

Questions

Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I am most pleased at my edits to Sexual Intercourse, because this went from a mid-importance start to a high-importance B-class, pushing for GA. I am also pleased at my portal, which is currently not ready for public release just yet, but is coming along sweetly.
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'm not going to lie and say I've been virtually stabbed in the back over this website, because I haven't. I have never been involved in conflicts. If I was to be involved, I would take some steps to resolve it:

If the edit was incorrect, revert it.
If it reappears, comment about it on the talk page, giving links and refs, and revert again.
If it appears again, with no answer on the talk page, report the user to ARV.
Comment Don't be discouraged by the lack of participation in this review. In my opinion this is the most broken area in wikipedia, and really should just be closed down. No reviews seem to ever get the kind of helpful participation that sincere editors would like to get. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think so too. Thanks for looking though :) _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 16:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]