Wikipedia:Editor review/Echuck215

Echuck215
Hello, I have returned to Wikipedia after an extended break, and I'd like to know how I'm doing! Of particular interest to me: have I been able to be polite and civil? I've noticed my tone comes across as harsher than I intend. Charlie 11:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 

Based on the comments on your talk page, I think you're doing okay. However, I find it curious that you have buried previous discussions in the page history of your user talk. Although this is allowed, it is generally not done. Instead, users copy their old discussions to a talk archive. There are several bots, such as User:Shadowbot3, that can do this for you.

Also, your edit count shows 17 edits to a deletion discussion - more than any other page you have edited. I happen to love WP:AFD discussions. I've commented on more than five hundred. But it's important to maintain a sense of priorities. You will accomplish more by creating new content than by arguing ad nauseum about old content. Just try to find the right balance that will keep you happy, because if you're not happy, you might enjoy watching the ballgame instead.

I wish you good luck. Yechiel Man 09:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Review by Evilclown93 If you are planning to do a lot of vandalism reverts, I suggest you warn the users. Judging by your editcount, you haven't been doing much of it, so I suggest you start, because you have the starting makeup of a future admin.  Evilclown93 (talk)  23:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.


 * View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I particularly enjoy making minor copy-edits, and small, relatively uncontroversial edits, so no particular article or edit stands out to me. I have been happy to do a lot of work reverting vandalism, and otherwise keeping the main space as presentable, factual, and tidy as possible.  
 * 1) Have you been in any conflicts 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?
 * Yes, when I first came to Wikipedia, I found I was getting a bit too emotionally involved in things like Afd's, and arguing over notability, or NPOV. My approach was to take a break (which turned into a long one, due to various factors in my off-line life). However, I am happy with where I am now, and I hope if I have similar conflicts again, I'll be able to take on seeing my "opponent's" side of things, and proposing compromises wherever I can. Failing this, I will turn my attention to other, uncontroversial task that always seem to need doing until I can be very objective.
 * Yes, when I first came to Wikipedia, I found I was getting a bit too emotionally involved in things like Afd's, and arguing over notability, or NPOV. My approach was to take a break (which turned into a long one, due to various factors in my off-line life). However, I am happy with where I am now, and I hope if I have similar conflicts again, I'll be able to take on seeing my "opponent's" side of things, and proposing compromises wherever I can. Failing this, I will turn my attention to other, uncontroversial task that always seem to need doing until I can be very objective.

Additional Questions from Dfrg.msc:

Borrowed from, I'm sure he wont mind. These should test you editing skills, and show if you have any weaknesses which you can work on. So, just write your answer next to the Question. Good luck.

Speedy Delete or not: 


 * 1) CSD1  I assume this would have been nominated under criteria A7, in which case I would not speedily delete this one.  Though unclear, "off [sic] X factor fame" appears to be an assertion of notability.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  23:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) CSD2 Though I don't think it quite makes the leap to G11, under A7 this article could be speedily deleted, based on a precise reading of the policy.  For all we know, based on that article, they could have 5 customers.  However, the fact that I've heard of the company would lead me to do more research, and either add an assertion of notability, or delete, depending on what I had found.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  23:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) CSD3 The content here is generally encyclopedic enough (as opposed to spam), and "90 markets", and the list of clients, can be interpreted to be assertions of notability, so this should not be speedily deleted.  AFD, perhaps.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  23:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) CSD4  Yup, looks like G1 to me.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  23:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) CSD5  I think this can be deleted, and no American bias here :-).  There is quite a bit of information, but none of it constitutes an assertion of notability.  In fact, the "limited to 1000" release of the cd could be considered an assertion of non-notability.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  23:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism or or not: 


 * 1)    No source,  and widely regarded by whom?  Looks like vandalism to me, especially given the popular nature of the article.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  23:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2)  Clearly unrelated to the article, it's hard to see how this equation-gibberish could have been added in good faith.  Most likely vandalism.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  23:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3)    Yeah, this is most likely vandalism.  "Ya Mum" indeed.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  23:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)   The diff in question appears to be an editor reverting the addition of a 4chan meme to the article.  Even if the meme should stay, for some reason, I don't think this is vandalism.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  23:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)   This does not initially look like vandalism, but merely a bizarre edit.  However, a quick look at the editor's contributions shows me that this person has little interest in adding encyclopedic content.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  23:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6)  No, this isn't vandalism.  Though the comment may not be clearly stated, and may not belong even if it was, we gain nothing from abandoning our assumption of good faith here.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  23:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)