Wikipedia:Editor review/GrooveDog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Closed, thanks everyone!


GrooveDog (talk · contribs) I've been here for a few months now and would like some more input as to how I could make my and other's Wikipedia experience better. I do vandalism reversion, comment on some Metapedianist discussions, and am a checkuser clerk. In the next few months, 4 months at the very least, I would like to try requesting adminship. I'll wait until someone nominates me though, and will probably decline anything within the next 4 months. Be harsh with this editor review, because that's the only way that I can improve. Criticism is encouraged. GrooveDog (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • So, you've been here since April, I was sure you'd been editing longer then I (actively) had (and I started in April 2007 too). Shows what an influence you have :) As for adminship...I think you'd get through in a lot less then 4 months, personally, but that's your decision. I'll be offering to nominate you regardless.
  • Now for the review! A quick look through Manitoba, your main article (the one you seem to work most on) shows that the referencing (which is tagged as needing upgrading) is not well done. If you haven't already, look into using either {{cite web}} or the Harvard Referencing system - not doing either will ensure an unfavorable GA review (speaking as an experienced reviewer). Unfortunately, wannabe_kate is down at the moment, so I can't give feedback based on its counts etc., but I see less then 500 mainspace edits, a lot of it reversion. Is that really what you enjoy doing most on wiki? Enjoy yourself, and good results will come from your work :)
  • If you have any examples of conflicts etc., I'd be happy to review them, but for now that's all I've got :) Good luck, happy editing, and if you want/need any further comments, please leave a note on my talk page (as I'm not watchlisting this). Giggy Talk | Review 01:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

      run at Tue Aug 7 22:01:09 2007 GMT

Category talk:	1
Category:	6
Image:	2
Mainspace	383
MediaWiki talk:	2
Talk:	264
Template talk:	11
Template:	136
User talk:	507
User:	522
Wikipedia talk:	31
Wikipedia:	696
avg edits per page	2.09
earliest	14:38, 25 April 2007
number of unique pages	1226
total	2561
  • Kate based comments: Edit count is probably too low for an RfA'll get experience opposition. *cough* Especially when 1/5 of edits are to the userspace. Do you really need the status thing (247 edits)? Surely people can just check your contribs to see if you're online (editing actively) or not.
  • Apart from Manitoba, you don't really have major editing habits on any other articles - the 2nd highest is 7 (to Alternative adjectives for U.S. citizens). Again - what do you enjoy doing most? Editing and improving articles, or reverting vandalism? I'd actually like to see an answer to this ;)
  • Good work at RFCU - but are there any other admin related areas you enjoy working in? I see a bit of AIV (actually, a good deal considering the low amount of reverts per your mainspace count), but what else? You project space count in itself is good though - experience there is always a bonus.
  • Keep in mind that all those comments are based on your kate count (my previous ones were based on your contribs alone) - and that they are similar to what you'd get in an RfA (probably). That's about all I have for now, hope this helps, and feel free to ask anything! Giggy Talk | Review 22:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You have a great number of Wikipedia edits, which is good--but you obsess over your userpage. I would suggest spending more time in the Mainspace. •Malinaccier• T/C 19:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    500 isn't that much...anyway, it's a cool userpage :) Giggy Talk 01:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thought I'd review you after seeing you WP:BN. Sadly, with the toolserver down, I can't get a good look at your edits in summary, so this may be rather short. First, per those at your RfA, you are a really great editor. You understand the process behind discussions and are bol enough close them. You're active at XfDs, which is great especially the minor ones, like CfD, RfD, and FfD. NPP is great too, and being a Clerk is, out of things, one thing I haven't done, so that's very cool. A nice thing to help with. You may want to look into clearing at WP:CHU? As far as suggestions go, I'd recommend a bit more article/content creation. Maybe some work at articles for creation? Being a fan of it myself, I'd also advice maybe getting into image an file policy a bit; RfA voters love that sort of thing (though they love articles more, as you may of guessed). Keep on keepin' on, and I wish you the best. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This user left an agressive and unfounded warning on my user talk page claiming I broke the 3RR rule on an article and threatening to ban me. He was hasty and ill-informed. He had not bothered looking at the article in question since in fact MY edits were reverted three times, not vice versa. ie I was the victim of a 3RR reverter, not the perpetrator. If he had properly investigated before casting accusations, he would also see my note on the talk page that it was not a sufficiently important issue for me to push any longer and that I would not make any further edits to the article (and have not done so) and that therefore his warning was irrelevant and unnecessary. If he had bothered to check the facts he might also have seen that I had explained my edits in each edit summary, plus left a rationale on the article talk page. The reverting editor in contrast had no edit summary on 2 of 3 of his edits and did not respond to my talk page comments until after breaking the 3RR rule. I ceased editing the article and stated on the talk page my intention to longer edit the article prior to this editor's vexatious, tardy and unwarranted threat, which I have now deleted from my talk page. Fact-checking should always precede threats of banning established users, or any users for that matter. This user is not ready for adminship or other wikipedia responsibility and would do well to learn to investigate issues properly rather than slapping warning templates inaccurately and indiscriminately on users' talk pages.. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. I saw that you had done at least 2 reverts, and was reminding you about 3RR, to actually help prevent you from being blocked. AGF. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 23:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh noes...revenge reviews. What will they think of next? Giggy Talk 01:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]



  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I'm quite pleased with the creation of Wikiproject Manitoba, a small organized project relating to the province of Manitoba. Going with the flow, I am in the process of referencing the Manitoba article, which will hopefully raise it to GA and possibly even FA standards. I plan to request peer review after GA status has been given, and hopefully that will give me and other editors ideas on how to raise it all the way to an FA.
  2. 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've been in a few conflicts before, concerning incorrect vandalism reversions, factual accuracy, and the clerking at RFCU. I have handled them quite well, I think, always staying as cool as a cucumber. I can usually see the reason for their end of the dispute, and can work with that to come to a compromise.