Wikipedia:Editor review/Ozgod 2

Ozgod
Posting an editor review to get a clear objective anaylsis of my work on Wikipedia - what I need to fix, continuing doing or should consider trying my hand at. Thank you for any input! Ozgod 15:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 
 * You seem like a great editor. You almost always use edit summaries, you have a good edit count, and you enjoy Wikipedia. I would like to know how you will deal with problems in the future, as you did not answer that part of the question. Once you do that, leave me a message on my talk page, so I can add comments dealing with that. Maybe, if you are not already, you could discuss some RfAs if you have some time. Keep up the great work! Cheers, wpktsfs 03:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional review: Good answer. My mum always said that it is more important to be kind than to be right, and I think that that is something we should all live by here. Wikipedia does not have a deadline, and sometimes it is good to just back off of a problem. You should be proud of your work. --wpktsfs 03:53, 22 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 am particularly pleased with the work I have contributed to the Judy Garland article and am constantly trying to get it to GA status, one day FA. Along with that I am very pleased with having helped out with the Wikipedia Biography project, as it has exposed to wide array of persons I otherwise may not have had encountered in my life.
 * 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?
 * Along with assessing articles for the WPBIO project, I try to tag articles as being {unreferenced} or {expand} and on a few occassions this has drawn the ire of an editor or two who feel that tagging a stub article with {expand} is redundant - but I believe it helps insure that the next editor who comes to the article will be aware it needs expanding and possibly have the tools and/or knowledge to expand that topic.
 * (in response to wpktsfs) I imagine that dealing with problems in the future will mainly consist of how I deal with them now; in any incident where it escalates, such as it did here discussion with the other editor is essentially and need be I will back down from my position rather than continue to have it escalate. It is essential to know when to give and take in arguments. In minor disputes, such as the aforementioned, it is no big deal for me to back down from my stance for something as simple as tagging an article. On bigger issues, such as an AfD or RFA I am more inclined to hold my ground if I feel I have proven or substantiated a point.
 * 1) Would you like a review of your RfA? --  Jreferee  (Talk) 14:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That sort of input is always helpful. I would greatly appreciate it. --Ozgod 23:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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
 * I would nominate this for speedy for A7 - the article does not assert his notability, nor the notability of the group. The article lacks any references or sources and the word upcoming hints of crystal ballery.


 * 1) CSD2
 * For this article I am inclined to send it to AfD, but it could also be speedied as an A7 unremarkable company. Again, lacking any sources or references to back it up, and seeing that it is a privately owned local internet provider it appears more as an advertisement than a wikipedia article on a notable service provider.


 * 1) CSD3
 * Another article lacking any sources or references, another AfD candidate to let consenus make the final decision. While it does seem a bit of an advertisement it also fails to establish the companies notability (although the original editor may not have fully completed the article by the time it had/has come to my attention).


 * 1) CSD4
 * Immediate speedy. Patent nonsense and vandalism.


 * 1) CSD5
 * Article would be a questionable keep. While, like all the others, it lacks any sources to verify or back it up, its only references are its myspace page and their official page. Rather than nominate it for speedy I would tag {citation needed} and {unreferenced} to the article to give it some time to develop, or do the research myself to see what I can dig up (especially about the statement of having created the sound of 'Q' - should it provide true than they are certainly notable (pending sources!)).

Vandalism or or not: 


 * 1)
 * I would assume good faith from an overzealous Pokemon editor adding information that (a) lacks any sources and (b) employs words to give a point of view on the subject with no sources or references to back it up.


 * 1)
 * Vandalism here with random nonsense being inserted into the article.


 * 1)
 * Vandalism as well.


 * 1)
 * Not vandalism - removal of a section with no sources of references. Section removed is incongruent with WP:NOT, in particular about slang terms. While the information provided may be interesting, without sources to back it up or explain its importance or notability the editor was well right to remove the section.


 * 1)
 * Again, I would assume misguided good faith in this. While changing First to 1 the most unholy form of vandalism I have seen, I would assume that the editor in question who made the change was unaware of the Wikipedia policy on headers within articles.


 * 1)
 * I would not put this into the category of vandalism - the statement merely lacks any sources of references to back it, it is a neutral point of view and could indeed be factual. I would tag it and notify the contributing editor of the citation placed on their contribution and whether or not they have the resources to back up their statement. If failing to do so, I would revert it.

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)