### person | worker:

Editor
* Sulfate is an abundant and ubiquitous component of Earth's lithosphere and hydrosphere.
* allow players.
* are people who are flooded with paper
  - powerful tools that allow web builders to design, build, and administrate web sites
  - programs that are used to create and modify text files
  - skilled workers
* check copies.
* compile lists.
* discuss stories.
* do math.
* document discoveries.
* face pressure.
* find information.
* have choices.
* hold management positions
* includes arms
  - body substances
  - cell membranes
  - cells
  - corpi
  - cytoplasm
  - heads
  - human bodies
  - legs
  - material bodies
  - necks
  - nuclei
  - personality
  - plasma membranes
  - sections
  - vacuoles
* make decisions
  - effort
* oversee assistant editors
* program which enables the user to inspect and alter their program or data.
* share advice.
* take steps.
* work for magazines.
* work on books
  - medical textbooks
* work with authors
  - experts.
  * are asked to remain civil and assume good faith.
  * Of what I have seen there seems to be willingness to improve, so rather than banning, we should try to help him get an accepted editor of this wikipedia. I know this is neither youtube nor facebook. This is about making an encyclopedia that is easy to understand. Editors being sociable and generally nice to talk to side-effect. So in my opinion, we should first try with 'socialisation measures', so some kind of 'mentoring' would probably be a good thing. These are just my thoughts, anyone is free to disagree.
  * are encouraged to review it for accuracy. I suggest that this is upgraded from a guideline to a policy due to the legal nature.
  * Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. They do this in various ways. Many Wikipedians show their allegiances and affiliations on their user pages. You may choose to reveal something about yourself in a talk page discussion.
  * As such, I think it's probably time that the community discuss whether or not we wish to continue to permit editing by anonymous editors or whether we want to disable it. Some smaller WMF projects do prohibit anonymous editing and the MediaWiki interface allows this to be implemented with ease. I'd like to invite all editors to hold a rational, and polite, discussion about this topic. All editors are invited, named and anon alike.
  * This user is very helpful, and his contributions are guarantee that nothing will go wrong. There's no limit to the number of bureaucrats here. There's not much point bringing up the generic 'they should have been more active' when you can have good redundancy, rather than waiting to replace one. Any editor is able to be a bureaucrat but it is up to the community's decision.
  * All editors are reminded to be civil. Please do not bite the returned editor.
  * Some editors simply paste in a URL and call it a source citation. It is left to other editors to properly format the citation to include very basic information such as title. It also makes cleanup of bare-URL citations easier for other editors. Simply load the URL in question and copy-paste a proper citation over it in a matter of a seconds.
  * On enwiki and other, much larger, projects where changes affect many many times the number of pages than on ours, these templates are free for autoconfirmed editors to improve. I'm not expecting you to do any of that, I'm simply pointing out that our editors should be able to improve these templates when and where they see fit. Some editors improve articles, some improve templates.
  * In addition to total edits, edit frequency is important. Being part of any community means being there. 100 edits every Saturday seem less meaningful to me than 5-10 edits each of 4 to 7 days a week. Editors have to check in often. Also, total edit counts miss out on the quality. Good, simple writing is important. Correcting errors is important. Getting started sooner rather than later is most important.
  * can therefore use any of the patterns from the football kit template.
  * A book is basically a list of articles. Editors are free to create books based on whatever criteria they like. Just note that articles included in a book could change, so you might need to look at them periodically to see if you think they're still appropriate for your book