Wikipedia:Editor review/Twooars

Twooars
I mostly do vandalism reverts and some gnoming. I also try to improve the occasional article like adding a few references. I just wanted a review so I know if I have done ok till now or if there were situations I could have handled better. - TwoOars ( T 18:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 
 * You have quite a precise use of edit summmaries. Out of the past four months, three have a 100% edit summary use. That's rather impressive. Keep up the good work. -Zachary crimsonwolf 13:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are a good solid user with a good amount of contributions who has been contributing steadily over the past few months. I think that if you keep heading where you are going, adminship, should you be interested, might be possible for you in three to four months. Cheers, Anonymous Dissident  Talk 02:06, 4 July 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?
 * The articles I created till now are mostly stubs and article creation is definitely not my strong point. So most of my work has been in reverting vandalism and correcting grammar etc., which, I think, are as important as article creation because maintenance of such a huge corpus as Wikipedia needs a lot of people.
 * 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?
 * I have not been in any conflicts so far. When I started out as an editor, I disagreed with some editors about the material in Velama on its talk page. I was not sure what to do and walked away, but later supported what I thought were reasonable suggestions. Other than this and a few rants from vandals I was not in any kind of conflict. - TwoOars ( T 19:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Have you contributed significantly to any Featured or Good Article? Vikrant Phadkay 14:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't usually contribute to any decent looking article :). I try to improve the obviously bad ones so that deserving ones can be saved from deletion (by adding references, wikifying, adding categories,improving sentence construction, etc).
 * 1) Do you report vandals to WP:AIV often? Arnon Chaffin Review me?   Talk 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, not very often I must say. I don't exactly remember how many I reported but Wannabe Kate shows that I made 45 edits at AIV; that means I must have reported 35 to 40, the rest being corrections and suchlike. - Two  Oars  20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, not very often I must say. I don't exactly remember how many I reported but Wannabe Kate shows that I made 45 edits at AIV; that means I must have reported 35 to 40, the rest being corrections and suchlike. - Two  Oars  20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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:  Ok, I am going to answer these based on how I'd actually handle them, with suitable commentary where required :).


 * 1) CSD1 : I'll wait for a few hours after it is created (watchlist it) before tagging it as {db-nn}
 * 2) CSD2 : {db-nn}
 * 3) CSD3 : won't tag for CSD. maybe watchlist / add references and notability tags
 * 4) CSD4 : {db-nonsense}
 * 5) CSD5 : references and notability tags (I have to say I have no idea about the notability of bands and I either do a google search before tagging or more often, leave them as is. I don't have to do all the cleaning up. :)

Vandalism or or not: 


 * 1)  : not vandalism
 * 2)  : vandalism
 * 3)  : vandalism
 * 4)  : probably vandalism. I'd probably revert anyway and ask the author to give references and discuss on talk page.
 * 5)  : not vandalism
 * 6)  : not vandalism

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Response:

1. True.

2. True.

3. Correct!

4. Correct.

5. Excellent!


 * Great understanding of policy (in all of them). Dfrg.msc 02:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

_

1. Good!

2. Correct. But it is difficult.

3. Correct.

4. Correct!

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

6. Correct.

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 02:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)