"

 Editor review 

Hey Nish, I'm currently up for Editor Review. I would be most appreciative if you could comment on my Wikipedia habits there and offer some advice. Thanks in advance.  

Thanks for the Editor Review. I honestly, truely know that I do not want to become a Wikipedia Admin. However, I hold the same thoughts towards Wikipedia as I do towards the US military: Given the choice, I would never join up, but my personal philosophy of national service (I agree with the idea of mandatory national service of some sort, whether it be community service or military) compels me so that I plan to join the US military in some form in the future. 

The problem I currently face with Wikipedia is that I'm constantly fighting an uphill battle in both the preservation of information and the adding of new information to Wikipedia. Often, something that I hope to be small edit becomes a huge issue due to vandalism, edit wars, extremely overly burecratic Wikipedians (example: those who like to delete almost every image from topics under the fair use policy), etc. I don't want to end up like many of the former Admins who came to Wikipedia to add information and stayed because they became Admins and spent all their time putting out fires. However, as Wikipedia will experience exponential growth within the next decade (it will plateau when the Internet finally reaches into the third world in a big way), and with that growth will come a huge number of vandals. Honestly, I believe Wikipedia now can use 10x the number of Admins. I can't even imagine how bad it might get on here (with vandals) in a decade or so when the number of Admins has grown at a steady pace but the number of vandals is huge due to the rapid growth of Wikipedia and the Internet in general.

I would prefer to not be an Admin, but I'm willing to put up with whatever it takes to preserve the good info of Wikipedia while ensuring that new info can be added properly.

Any thoughts on this?  

EDIT: Also, I'd like to expand my Vandal Fighting activities, but I'm not sure if I should get external programs like VandalProof. I do patrol newpages every now and then, and in the process catch many vandals. However, I usually cannot punish these vandals because of the WP:AGF policy and the fact that warnings really do nothing to repeat vandals.  

I'll try my best.  

 Alexander Litvinenko 

You left this comment on my talk page:
Umm...you stated that you shortened the intro here as per WP:LEAD. We were discussing the intro on the talk page, and I would have appreciated it if you would go back and discuss the intro's status on the talk page. I am restoring back the intro section, and you can make minor changes if you wish, but please don't make drastic changes without discussing. Thanks. By the way, keep up the great work with the article. =) Hopefully we can pull this to GA or FA in the near future. Best, Nishkid64 
I've discussed the article on the talk page: The introduction is way too rambling and detailed which is why I shortened it. Please read WP:LEAD which recommends it is concise. Also some of the sentences don't flow well. The first sentence was a Russian Security Service agent [with a link to FSB] and later a Russian dissident is a much better summary than was an ex-FSB lieutenant-colonel with KGB experience in fighting organized crime. Tom .  In order for the article to have more impact it needs to be more concise.  You restored back the intro' i.e. a major change and said I could make 'minor' changes if I wish but 'had to discuss drastic ones', I hope you realise this is hypocritical, given that you did a major revert without discussing.  As you know, several people on the talk page have suggested to you that the intro was too long.  I promise you, the shortened introduction looks and reads better than the longer one.  The longer one does not summarise what he was in the first sentence including his dissidence, it goes straight into a narrative without any gap: ""After working in..."", it doesn't make sense in English,""his superiors had ordered for the assassination"" should be ""his superiors had ordered the assassination"".  You can't be a dissident of an organisation, see dissident.  It's got several long contiguous paragraphs instead of 4 short clearly defined ones. Anyway, hope you're okay, give us a shout and we can talk about it.  
It was that you said 'don't make drastic changes withou