Wikipedia:Editor review/Timmeh

Timmeh[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)[reply]

Comment More reviews would be appreciated! Thanks. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 18:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Or partial one at least. About the colors, don't you mean red on black? I have changed the color scheme more than once after I got complaints about readability, but nobody who has posted on my talk page has complained for a while. As for the userbox, I added that way back when I first created my userpage, and it has been lying in the depths of the page for quite some time now, serving no purpose. It's gone. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 20:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can read the red on black bits, but where you have links they come up as blue on black and I find that hard to read. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a good color in mind for the links? I could easily format them in italics, bold, big, small, green, yellow, whatever will make them easier to read. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 22:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on this, but I think the problem here is dark/light contrast. Once you've clicked on a link it displays in a paler shade and with the colour scheme on your userpage its the unclicked links of darkblue on black that I struggle with. this, Wikipedia:Colour and Web colours might be worth reading if you are going to have a nonstandard colour scheme in your userspace. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about a light gray color for the font? It kind of hurts my eyes as it is (no offense is meant). Malinaccier (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just previewed the light gray color, and it doesn't look bad. I'll implement it later. Thanks. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 01:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've changed the talk page background and font colors, so it should be better on the eyes now. About the CSDs, could you point me to specific ones that I tagged wrongly? All I can find in my contribs (by checking user talk page notifications) are two CSDs that were deleted per my reasoning, one in March, the other in April. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 16:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ah yes. But country music artists, although they may make music I don't enjoy, have mostly not broken any laws. The death penalty is best used for deserving crimes... maybe not "far" more often than it is, though. :) Tim meh !_{(review me)} 15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
The majority of my edits can be classified as copyediting. I usually fix the formatting, grammar, and spelling of articles I come across. I have also been reverting vandalism occasionally since I began editing. Lately, however, I have been more involved in article building. I am probably most proud of my contributions to Rise Against, which I brought up to GA status, and my edits to United States presidential election, 2008, which I improved a bit by reorganizing and rewriting several sections. The article was nominated for GA by someone else but did not pass. I am currently focusing on Appeal to Reason, which I plan to eventually nominate for GA.
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 been in several disputes during my tenure here, but I don't remember any of them escalating into uncivil bickering or anything like that. Of course other users have caused me stress, but I feel I have always remained civil. There have been certain editors that have really stressed and angered me, sometimes resulting in many lines of very heated discussions, but all were eventually resolved peacefully and according to consensus.
Do you have the stamina to put up with annoying and/or aggressive editors, such as blatant vandals? For example, AFI-PUNK returned a little over a month ago with a new sock to cause others grief. I think you'd make a great admin, but if it may be too stressful for you, you don't have to. If you do become an admin, don't be surprised if vandals target you a lot. Hopefully, you'd be able to block them.--Disturbed Nerd999 (Delete!) 04:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I do have the stamina to deal with blatant vandals, or at least the common sense to know to take a break if said vandal is getting on my nerves. I have encountered AFI-PUNK before. The first time was when he was using the 79.211.* IP range. The second was the 93.194.* range, and the third was when he was using the username Genre Crusher. All three times I had to revert his edits over many different articles, and what was really annoying was how he would change his IP almost every day and vandalize some more. Luckily, Seraphim was very familiar with AFI-PUNK and helped me out with blocking his individual IPs and accounts. He has also pledged to give up his two-year-long vandalizing spree. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 20:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.