Wikipedia:Editor review/NuclearWarfare

NuclearWarfare
Dear Wikipedian, I joined Wikipedia in October 2007 to help make Wikipedia not suck, just like most other users. I'd like an editor review for people to just double check me, correct me where I'm doing things wrong and help me do them better NuclearWarfare (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

 Reviews 

I think you're doing okay and apologizing for your mistakes is good. Anti-vandalism acitivities are also a good bonus to the 'pedia. However, I find that you have little collaboration with other users as noted by low number of Wiki talk edits. Since you are primarily an anti-vandal, I will suggest that you consider joining Counter-Vandalism Unit. You might learn something to improve your skills there.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

 Comments 


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

 Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

I'm very proud of my anti-vandalism work on wikipedia. I believe that Wikipedia can only be a helpful tool if rude, pointless, and stupid vandalism isn't prevalent. I'm also proud of the edits I made to Articles 1 and 2 of the US Constitution, although I'm planning on still going back and doing a revamp of some sections. I've also decided to go and see if I could help out POTUS, VPOTUS, Impeachment in the United States and Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I've also nominated Acton, Massachusetts for GA status. If it doesn't make it, that will be one of my main projects. 2. 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?

I've had some minor stress when I've accidentally reverted & warned people via Huggle, but I've managed to solve all problems via apologizing and reverting my actions. If in the future, the same thing happens, I will either do the same thing or bump it up to one of committees.

3. Thanks for tagging the Fail Whale with npov, etc — I think the article is a lot stronger now we've addressed those issues. Why'd you remove the References section, though? Now we have lots of footnote labels that point nowhere… Garthrk (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm actually not sure what you mean. Can you point me to the "diff"? NuclearWarfare (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here you go -- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Still not sure what you mean. NuclearWarfare (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * CSD usage Errors

It seems to me that you misapplied CSD. You wrote
 * A tag has been placed on TronixCountry requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

However CSD states that it is for:
 * An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.

In other words, it is not for articles that do (did) 'indicate why its subject is important or significant', such as TronixCountry. comment added by User:IReceivedDeathThreats
 * As the admin who deleted that article I agreed that the tag was correct. The issue is currently being debated at Deletion review. Rmhermen (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)