Wikipedia:Editor review/Feba

Feba
I first signed up at Wikipedia well over a year ago, but I hardly ever used my account, mostly because I never remembered to sign in, and because I browsed Wikipedia a lot more than I edited. I really started using Wikipedia near the beginning of this year, and became almost hooked on it (according to Wannabe Kate, I made at least 1,059 edits in those first two months). I had myself blocked from March to April by User:Kuru to enforce a Wikibreak so that I could study and complete my GED (which I did, easily). After a short hiatus to do other things, I got pulled back in, and while I haven't been editing as much as I used to, I still check Wikipedia regularly. I mostly answer questions on the Reference Desks and Help Desk, and deal with vandalism. My edit count is probably much lower than the actual number of edits I make, due to Vandalizing or otherwise inappropriate (such as nn bands or vanity pages) articles (and thus, contribs) that I mark with db or otherwise deal with being deleted. Other than that, I don't do much main space editing, as if I have something to add (such as a news article), I usually mention it on the talk page first to see if other people think it's worth adding, and how people that spend more time editing the article feel it should be added. As you can see on my user page, I created an article, and started to proof read some others, but due to a combination of ADHD and Procrastination, I haven't worked on them in a while. I mainly want to get an idea of where other editors think I can improve. ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 16:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 
 * Hi, I noticed that you got blocked to inforce a wikibreak. But that is against blocking policy: see here. Also your upside down signature is kind of confusing. Thank you. Cheers!  MAJ5  (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, also try to always use the edit summary. Good user otherwise. Sorry if I sounded a tad rude. I didn't mean to! Cheers again!  MAJ5  (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It isn't against policy, and it was just against my user account, not IP address. Considering that there's no rules against non-latin characters in usernames/signatures anymore, I see no problem with having unicode characters as a signature, since it still links to my user page. And yeah, I am a bit short on the edit summary, I do need to work on that. --ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 14:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, and as a reminder to always use a summary go to my preferences click on the Editing tab and click Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary and it will inform you to enter one. Thanks and Cheers!  MAJ5  (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 30 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 do like Quasar (motorcycle) although it needs some fixing up since I finished my work on it, since it was a rather amazing machine, and it seemed silly to have an article on feet forwards motorcycles without it. Like I said, I mostly spend my time dealing with vandalism, since it's mostly quick and easy to do, and I like reverting vandalism on user pages or BLPs. It feels better to take "WHORE!!!11111!!11!1" off someone's page than to take "hahahahahahahaha...fart" off a page on Gas, I suppose.
 * 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?
 * Well, I'm sure if you ask other editors I've had to deal with, they'll say yes, but I subscribe to a fairly strong belief in Don't-Give-A-Fuckism, so if someone really starts to bug me, I just ignore them, and focus my energies elsewhere. The only time I've really gotten upset with another user is when a friend of mine unfortunately decided to go on a Vandalism spree, and that's just because I expect at least a little better from him. I think he still vandalizes under his various accounts and proxies, but I'll leave that to someone else to handle.
 * Well, I'm sure if you ask other editors I've had to deal with, they'll say yes, but I subscribe to a fairly strong belief in Don't-Give-A-Fuckism, so if someone really starts to bug me, I just ignore them, and focus my energies elsewhere. The only time I've really gotten upset with another user is when a friend of mine unfortunately decided to go on a Vandalism spree, and that's just because I expect at least a little better from him. I think he still vandalizes under his various accounts and proxies, but I'll leave that to someone else to handle.

Additionals 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 - Yes. Cites no sources, and 'upcoming' bands are almost never notable. Also these things are usually COIs
 * 2) CSD2 - Yes. Company is almost certainly not notable, and reads very close to an ad.
 * 3) CSD3 - Depends. Would google it to see if there's anything to suggest notability, then tag it with wikify and a stub, and move onto something else. I would try to FIXIT, but I can barely stay focused on improving articles I care about.
 * 4) CSD4 - Speedy with fire.
 * 5) CSD5 - Most likely. It's a good looking article, but there's no real substance behind it. On the other hand, people that make good looking articles tend to know wikipedia policy, so it might be a band they just failed to point out the notability with. bands that have just released their first CD and only played local clubs before that are almost certainly speedy fodder, though.

Vandalism or or not: 


 * 1)  - Possibly. I'd revert anyway, since it's a baseless claim, but I'm not familiar enough with Pokemon to know if the person was acting in bad faith.
 * 2)  -Yes. Edit was definitely either a test, or misplaced
 * 3)   - Yes, blatant vandalism.
 * 4)  - No. If anything, it's removing vandalism. i herd u like mudkips is the more popular form anyway, however ;o but it's not something we should have in an encyclopedia.
 * 5)  - Doesn't seem to be vandalism. I'd assume good faith here, but still revert.
 * 6)  - I'm not familiar enough with pokemon to know if this is accurate, OR, or BS. I'd leave it for someone that does

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My answers good enough? -- L augh! 09:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Response: Excellent, now go back and see what CSD (]]Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion]]) tags you would list under. Dfrg.msc 09:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Correct

2. Correct.

3. Correct.

4. Correct and good demonstration of understanding policy/Pokemon forums.

5. I'd label it as a Test, borderline vandalism and an unhelpful edit. Test 1 and Welcome.

6. You could check user, user history, previous warnings. When in doubt, leave it in, but I'd ask for sources or references.


 * There you go. Dfrg.msc 09:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)