Wikipedia:Editor review/TomStar81

TomStar81
I have been on Wikipedia for roughly three years now, in that time I have managed to get a few articles to featured status, promote a couple of awesome and familar images to Featured Pictures status, made some friends, argued/debated/fought with some users, gotten to know other users either through direct contact or by reading their bios when they show up on my watchlist, and have generally had good experiences here. For my own curiosity I have decided to list myself here, to see what others think of me and open myself up to a little critism, if any, from the community as a whole. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 

 Comments 
 * Well your contributions are good over all but it appears you have editcountitis and as the joke goes, that can be fatal. As a cure I would perscribe judicial daily use of the preview button. Cheers. -Icewedge 16:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One thing I would like to comment on in is your (IMAO) inappropriate use of the minor edit button. It seems basically every single edit you have made has been classed as minor. Please, go into your preferences and un-check the box! Edits such as adding pictures, new sections, anything changing the meaning of an article or any page for that matter should not be classed as minor. --Ben 08:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not view the adding of images as major edits since an image is meant to be viewed and not read. IMO, changing the meaning of an article means doing some sort of overhaul to it drastically alter the information presented in it, and I rarely make such drastic edits unless I am rewriting articles in thier entirety. Nonetheless, I will take your suggestion under advisement. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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?
 * Iowa class battleship, USS New Jersey (BB-62), USS Missouri (BB-63), and USS Wisconsin (BB-64). I am particularly pleased about these articles because I had the chance to do nearly all the work, something I rarely get to do these days.
 * 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?
 * Oh yeah&mdash;I got into a big conflict over the deletion of a lot of articles I had created relating to the Command & Conquer series. At the time I was rather pissed with Proto (now Neil); however as time has passed I have come to see that he was only doing the right thing. As for users causing stress, I haven't had to deal with any yet (at least I don't think so, anyway).
 * Oh yeah&mdash;I got into a big conflict over the deletion of a lot of articles I had created relating to the Command & Conquer series. At the time I was rather pissed with Proto (now Neil); however as time has passed I have come to see that he was only doing the right thing. As for users causing stress, I haven't had to deal with any yet (at least I don't think so, anyway).

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 &mdash; Speedy Delete (vanity page)
 * 2) CSD2 &mdash; Delete, it sounds to much like an advertisement
 * 3) CSD3 &mdash; Delete, it sounds to much like an advertisement
 * 4) CSD4 &mdash; Speedy Delete (nonsense)
 * 5) CSD5 &mdash; Keep; it appears this is a group; however the page needs help, words like "gigged" and a myspace refernce aren't exactactly what I consider encyclopedic. I think this page may do well with a little help from any related project or task force here, but without some sort of cleanup I would think seriously about listing this for deletion.

Vandalism or or not: 


 * 1)  &mdash; Vandalism
 * 2)  &mdash; Vandalism
 * 3)  &mdash; blatent Vandalism
 * 4)  &mdash; Vandalism
 * 5)  &mdash; Vandalism
 * 6)  &mdash; Vandalism

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have answered the deletion test; I haven't read the criteria before checking these test pages out, so you're getting my feel for the substance right off the bat (I think it is fairer that way myself). I answered beside each example to simplify things. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Response:

1. Correct.

2. True. But it's a blank page, you could re-direct and/or merge. Subject is notable, page looks like an accident, should have searched first.

3. Correct!

4. Correct.

5. At a glance, too many spelling mistakes and poor article quality. Externals' are Myspace ect. I'd check Google for notability. lay down some tags, and try for improvement.

Ok, now go back through and see what WP:CSD tags you would mark under. Dfrg.msc 02:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

_

1. Difficult. Check user, user history, previous warnings. When in doubt, leave it in, but I'd ask for sources or references.

2. Correct. But it is difficult.

3. Correct.

4. That was a reversion by Highway Cello, a user I know!

5. Yeah, borderline vandalism and an unhelpful edit. Test 1 and Welcome.

6. Difficult, as per 1.

Sorry for the long wait. The important thing is "all Edits are Effort'. And when you destroy that effort, have a good reason. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 02:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that Tom has the makings of a great admin. He doesn't only talk the talk, but walks the walk. In other words, it is easy to go out there and criticize someone else's article like so many people in Wikipedia do, but it is something else when you do something about it and you lend a hand, making somebody else's article a much better one, like he has and few people in Wikipedia do. Tom, keep up your excellent work. Tony the Marine 04:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)