Timmeh ( talk · contribs · count) I've been editing here on Wikipedia actively for close to two years. I've amassed almost 9,000 edits, and I haven't been on editor review yet. So, I want to know what other editors think of my edits and how I've been doing. Also, I've been thinking of running for adminship within a few months. Any advice on how to make myself worthy of the tools in the community's eyes would be appreciated as well. Tim meh ! 02:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Reviews
Review by Rafablu88
My experience of Timmeh has been mostly to do with his GA Reviews. I can say that he's super-quick, efficient and totally impartial. In fairness, I don't think any of that even matters. The most important thing is that he obviously cares about Wikipedia and takes the time to follow all the suitable procedures as well as responding promptly. I'm sure he'll thrive with any extra responsibility. My advice would be to keep what you're doing. Rafablu88 ( talk) 02:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Review by Michaelh2001 aka Alaska Mike Timmeh is extremely diligent and relentless when it comes to editing. He is very concerned about the impartiality of articles. He once reverted an edit I had made, and I realized he was right. (Its not about any of us, its about Wikipedia) I'm reviewed other articles he contributes to - other then 21st Century Breakdown which we have both contributed to and its clear that Timmeh is a real asset to Wikipedia. Michaelh2001 ( talk) 05:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Review by Ϣere SpielChequers Starting with your user page, dark blue on black gives poor colour contrast and some people will find it difficult to read. Also humour is welcome in userspace, but some editors might find your password userbox a joke in poor taste. You've got a clean block log, civil talkpage (though I'm not keen on the blinking bit at the top), make good use of edit summary and have nicely diverse activities, including AFD (where I liked the fact that you returned to this one and revised your position as the discussion progressed). Also you have audited content contributions, participate in WT discussions, and vandalism reversion, though occasionally you don't warn vandals, for example here. Looking at your deleted contributions I saw few CSD tags including this Complicity (album) which in March you tagged as no context rather than non-notable. Oh and I've had a look at your soxred report and you have an impressively high 65% article edit log plus a healthy amount of of communication edits. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Review by Anonymous Dissident – well, Timmeh, you seem to be doing all the right things. I all too often see candidates considering adminship without substantial experience with the encyclopedia, which is a shame; you're not one of them. Your edit stats for the mainspace, your copyediting work, and your work with GAs are testament to this. The GA review work is a bonus as well, as it demonstrates sound knowledge of the editorial process. Interactions seem to be good, and, as Spiel notes, you communicate enough. Your policy knowledge seems to be sound as well, wih the exception of the few wrong CSDs a few months back. One gripe – your user talk page. I find it very difficult to read, still. Must you really have the black underlay? Why not just a normal, blank, white page? — Anonymous Dissident Talk 07:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment A death penalty aficionado determined to eliminate country music? and leave western alone? No cookies for you, not even grits. How's Gobbles, eh? NVO ( talk) 09:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Questions
Timmeh ( talk · contribs · count) I've been editing here on Wikipedia actively for close to two years. I've amassed almost 9,000 edits, and I haven't been on editor review yet. So, I want to know what other editors think of my edits and how I've been doing. Also, I've been thinking of running for adminship within a few months. Any advice on how to make myself worthy of the tools in the community's eyes would be appreciated as well. Tim meh ! 02:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Reviews
Review by Rafablu88
My experience of Timmeh has been mostly to do with his GA Reviews. I can say that he's super-quick, efficient and totally impartial. In fairness, I don't think any of that even matters. The most important thing is that he obviously cares about Wikipedia and takes the time to follow all the suitable procedures as well as responding promptly. I'm sure he'll thrive with any extra responsibility. My advice would be to keep what you're doing. Rafablu88 ( talk) 02:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Review by Michaelh2001 aka Alaska Mike Timmeh is extremely diligent and relentless when it comes to editing. He is very concerned about the impartiality of articles. He once reverted an edit I had made, and I realized he was right. (Its not about any of us, its about Wikipedia) I'm reviewed other articles he contributes to - other then 21st Century Breakdown which we have both contributed to and its clear that Timmeh is a real asset to Wikipedia. Michaelh2001 ( talk) 05:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Review by Ϣere SpielChequers Starting with your user page, dark blue on black gives poor colour contrast and some people will find it difficult to read. Also humour is welcome in userspace, but some editors might find your password userbox a joke in poor taste. You've got a clean block log, civil talkpage (though I'm not keen on the blinking bit at the top), make good use of edit summary and have nicely diverse activities, including AFD (where I liked the fact that you returned to this one and revised your position as the discussion progressed). Also you have audited content contributions, participate in WT discussions, and vandalism reversion, though occasionally you don't warn vandals, for example here. Looking at your deleted contributions I saw few CSD tags including this Complicity (album) which in March you tagged as no context rather than non-notable. Oh and I've had a look at your soxred report and you have an impressively high 65% article edit log plus a healthy amount of of communication edits. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Review by Anonymous Dissident – well, Timmeh, you seem to be doing all the right things. I all too often see candidates considering adminship without substantial experience with the encyclopedia, which is a shame; you're not one of them. Your edit stats for the mainspace, your copyediting work, and your work with GAs are testament to this. The GA review work is a bonus as well, as it demonstrates sound knowledge of the editorial process. Interactions seem to be good, and, as Spiel notes, you communicate enough. Your policy knowledge seems to be sound as well, wih the exception of the few wrong CSDs a few months back. One gripe – your user talk page. I find it very difficult to read, still. Must you really have the black underlay? Why not just a normal, blank, white page? — Anonymous Dissident Talk 07:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment A death penalty aficionado determined to eliminate country music? and leave western alone? No cookies for you, not even grits. How's Gobbles, eh? NVO ( talk) 09:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Questions