Bowsy (talk · contribs) I would like to be reviewed because I would like to know how other people feel about my current contributions and to get help with improving my edit quality. Bowsy 19:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

• Hello. I'm reading your editing on Weakest Link, and I have a few suggestions to make this article better.
  • Try not to be so wordy and detailed. For example, you were too detailed with the international versions (eg: The game has 8 players competing for 90,000 kuna, meaning 10,000 kuna target, and in round 7 the target was tripled to 30,000 kuna.). Detail is nice, yes, but you have to know the difference between information that is useful and information that isn't. Yes, I'd like to know about the international success of the show, but do I have to know how their money chain looks like, and furthermore whether or not they triple it in the final round? Now, I'm not saying you're all at fault, but please remember that we want general information, not over-wordiness.
  • I thought this article was mainly on the British version. So why is there info about other countries? I suggest that you not add any articles about other countries on the article.
• Anyways, I hope you take this as constructive criticism. Have a good day. ^__^
• Hi again, Bowsy. A few comments:
  • Good job so far. I know I've caused you stress, and you've caused me stress. Thank you for staying civil, for the most part. You might want to read this again for an explanation of the whole sockpuppetry thing (which I would close as you not being a sockpuppet, but only admins can do that).
  • You did do a pretty good job writing this article. Try to put more Wiki markup and an image (if one is available) in it, as most articles have that.
  • Always remember to write from the neutral point of view. (ie. Replace "Your frogs have to eat lettuce" to beat the game" with "The player's frogs must eat lettuce to beat the game". That was random, I know.)
  • I've noticed that you rarely use edit summaries. While those are generally more important for an admin candidate (to prevent the user from forgetting to put a reason for a block or page protect), I, and many other users, prefer when Wikipedians leave edit summaries, even just a word. It helps people know what the edit did, and prevents them from having to see the diff.

Overall, you're doing quite well. Just work on your edit summary usage, POV, and the other thiungs mentioned. –Llama man^{sign here} 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: what is describe above is not neutral point of view, it's encyclopedic tone. NPOV is much more important, so make sure you read the page and understand it. --Sopoforic 04:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Sorry for the confusion. –Llama man 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, cutting out on that whole "sockpuppetry" thing would look pretty good on you. 132.161.187.62 07:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   I am particularly pleased with the Frog City and the Racing Frogs article because I made it all by myself and I think I did a good job.

3. 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 gotten into one conflict over minigame lists. At the start I re-added it but when the other user objected I tried to get a consensus, which failed. I feel Llama man has caused me stress for, when another user joined the conflict on my side, he launched a sockpuppetry case with unreliable evidence. I am also dismayed with the amount of people who think all videogame images are fair use and can be removed from pages without leaving a note.

I will continue to try and resolve conflicts in a civil manner.