antiuser (talk · contribs · count) I've been on Wikipedia since 2005, mostly making edits or creating articles for subjects I'm knowledgeable about and monitoring recent changes and new page creation. I'm really just curious about my standing as an editor. XXX antiuser ^eh? 01:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   Lately it's mostly been recent changes/new page monitoring. I think I did a pretty good job on Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 right as the story was beginning to develop. Since I'm fluent in Portuguese, I was able to keep the article updated with accurate info coming from reliable sources in the Brazilian news media.

3. Have you been in any disputes 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?

   Not really. When I make substantial changes to an article I make sure I'm sourcing my edits properly, and when I perform multiple reversions to an article, it's usually because of vandalism. As far as stress goes, Wikipedia is not my job - if it begins to stress me out, I walk away and go do something else.

Reviews

• Grade 6/10 (Good But Needs Improvement) - Though generally well-intentioned, userid:antiuser often gets carried away with advancing a POV to the exception of being able to consider or digest more mainstream, and academically accepted, ideas. As well, he can be quick to take umbrage and will jump to filing ANI complaints at the slightest hint of offense. He might benefit from a thorough review of Wikipedia policies and procedures and learning to walk away when things get heated instead of trying to get in "one last punch", but, ultimately, has the potential to evolve into a very good WP contributor within the next few years. Nothughthomas (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that User:Nothughthomas is currently involved in this incident discussion that I have started about their reactions to my correcting them regarding speedy deletion criteria. The user has a pattern of overreacting and attacking users when disagreed with and has been blocked three times for that very reason. I stand by my actions and contend that at no time I "advanc(ed) a POV" or disregarded "mainstream, academically accepted ideas" as the user so suggests. Please refer to the incident discussion for more information on the situation. XXX antiuser ^eh? 21:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of what I was talking about in my above review of the contributor. See: WP:NOTTHEM. If contributor works on this (WP:NOTTHEM) a little, however, he can be a great and valuable asset to Wikipedia. Nothughthomas (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTHEM is for unblock requests. This is an editor review. XXX antiuser ^eh? 22:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think it's constructive to get in "one last punch" in an editor review. You solicited feedback and I provided it. You are welcome to acknowledge or disregard it as you see fit.If you are not concerned with the spirit of WP:NOTTHEM (1. do not attack other editors, 2. do not make excuses, 3. AGF, 4. assume AGF), but only the legalese and letter of WP:NOTTHEM, that is certainly your right. In my editor review of you I said you were "GOOD." If you only want people to grade you as "EXCELLENT" or "PERFECT", you may want to state that at the outset. Thanks. Nothughthomas (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accept any and all reviews - that's what this process is for. I was only pointing out that your comments might be biased due to the incident and the subsequent report. XXX antiuser ^eh? 22:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, I can maintain absolute impartiality, even when a user is "block shopping" me to admins. The fact that I graded you as "Good" is, I think, evidence of that. However, your explanation is noted and acknowledged without prejudice. Nothughthomas (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I object to Bongomatic readding this review, when it's clear harassment against AntiUser by NotHughThomas. Sure, he's given him a "good" review, but then he's also called him a POV pusher, yet provided no evidence to support this viewpoint. There is currently a thread on WP:AN/I about her behaviour - see WP:AIN#Incident with User:Nothughthomas. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Nothughthomas has been indefinitely blocked due to disruption. XXX antiuser ^eh? 03:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nothughthomas is a troll with a wicked sense of humor. Bertport (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I really like the answer to number 2. As far as edits go, having 44% to mainspace and 45% to user talk is really good balance, for vandal fighting. Your edit summary use is great as well. You've done a lot of CSDs and AIV reporting and from what I have looked through, you've done well; accurate use of both will be an asset should you ever go for admin. My advice to you would be to keep 3RR in mind, and maybe explore some other things like WP:AfC. Disclaimer:My advice is usually wrong. Happy editing! SS✞^(Kay) 20:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]