Well I don't know you well enough to give you a full analysis, but I'll give you a sort of "scratch the surface" evaluation. You are decently helpful, contributing positively to articles and discussions, as well as trying to help some of our newer users. As far as I can tell (although everyone has something, myself included) you have yet to have any major flaws make themselves apparent, at least on this wiki. SerpentKing 19:40, 5 February 2016 (EST)
We've discussed this already, but the warnings for talk pages needing archived are unnecessary, other than that, I'd say you're good. SerpentKing 19:40, 5 February 2016 (EST)
You tag just about all your edits as minor, even if they're major.
You asked a user to update something when their last edit happened 20 days ago. I'm assuming that he/she showed up in the "Who's Online" thing, but it's not a necessary reminder.
I personally like going to the talk page about proof of notability, since it's quite unlikely that they'll read the summary and they'll get the notice thingy. Penro 20:55, 25 April 2016 (EDT)
Going to a talk page of a non-repeat offender automatically assumes that they won't listen to what you said in the edit summary. Assuming good faith wouldn't be hard when all you have to do is undo their edit again. Worries about flooding recent changes or edit histories are pretty unwarranted, especially since edit patrolling the recent changes doesn't seem to be a common thing to do on the Wiki anymore. MegaTron1 21:18, 25 April 2016 (EDT)