 Editor review Hey Nish Im 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 Im 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 dont 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 cant 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 generalI would prefer to not be an Admin but Im willing to put up with whatever it takes to preserve the good info of Wikipedia while ensuring that new info can be added properlyAny thoughts on this  EDIT Also Id like to expand my Vandal Fighting activities but Im 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 WPAGF policy and the fact that warnings really do nothing to repeat vandals  Ill try my best   Alexander Litvinenko You left this comment on my talk pageUmmyou stated that you shortened the intro here as per WPLEAD We were discussing the intro on the talk page and I would have appreciated it if you would go back and discuss the intros status on the talk page I am restoring back the intro section and you can make minor changes if you wish but please dont 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 Ive discussed the article on the talk page The introduction is way too rambling and detailed which is why I shortened it Please read WPLEAD which recommends it is concise Also some of the sentences dont 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 exFSB lieutenantcolonel 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 ie 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 doesnt make sense in Englishhis superiors had ordered for the assassination should be his superiors had ordered the assassination  You cant be a dissident of an organisation see dissident  Its got several long contiguous paragraphs instead of 4 short clearly defined ones Anyway hope youre okay give us a shout and we can talk about it  It was that you said dont make drastic changes withou

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
 Editor review Hey Nish Im 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 Im 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 dont 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 cant 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 generalI would prefer to not be an Admin but Im willing to put up with whatever it takes to preserve the good info of Wikipedia while ensuring that new info can be added properlyAny thoughts on this  EDIT Also Id like to expand my Vandal Fighting activities but Im 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 WPAGF policy and the fact that warnings really do nothing to repeat vandals  Ill try my best   Alexander Litvinenko You left this comment on my talk pageUmmyou stated that you shortened the intro here as per WPLEAD We were discussing the intro on the talk page and I would have appreciated it if you would go back and discuss the intros status on the talk page I am restoring back the intro section and you can make minor changes if you wish but please dont 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 Ive discussed the article on the talk page The introduction is way too rambling and detailed which is why I shortened it Please read WPLEAD which recommends it is concise Also some of the sentences dont 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 exFSB lieutenantcolonel 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 ie 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 doesnt make sense in Englishhis superiors had ordered for the assassination should be his superiors had ordered the assassination  You cant be a dissident of an organisation see dissident  Its got several long contiguous paragraphs instead of 4 short clearly defined ones Anyway hope youre okay give us a shout and we can talk about it  It was that you said dont make drastic changes withou

