Wikipedia:Editor review/Qst

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Qst

NOTE: This user has since been banned. --wpktsfs 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Qst (talk · contribs) I'm requesting this review to get some feedback of what other Wikipedians think of my edits. As you may already know I edited as Tellyaddict for eight months and moved to this brand new account ( Note: I was recently renamed from The Sunshine Man to Qmt). At this account, I have been editing for almost two months (plus as Tellyaddict). There was recently some discussions in which I closed three AfD's as a non admin incorrectly, one was re-opened but closed later as the same result (keep) and the other two are still pending closing. I will openly admit that I handled it in the wrong way so please take into consideration my willingness to admit that I was wrong, I have since apologised to the users who brought it to my attention and he has accepted it and said that I just need to be a little more careful in future but I'm sure as my experience increases further this too will increase. Apart from this I have been in no disputes and have approaching 7000 edits (although when I was renamed it said I had 8000 but these will have been to pages that have since been deleted) I also have 100% edit summary usage. The Sunshine Man is now Qst 18:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Hello there! Thank you for drawing my attention, I have been away for a while. You seem to do a lot of behind the scenes work, which is a good thing in most cases, and your new name has a good edit count. Personally, I think that you should stick with one name from now on. It will be less confusing for other editors. I am glad that you are using edit summaries, thats a very good thing. Only thing I recommend is to make sure you build the mainspace, too! Cheers, --wpktsfs 20:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've been doing an RfA-style trawl through your recent edits; everything's looking good so far (see Wikipedia talk:Editor review/Qst for what you've been up to recently). One thing that amused me somewhat is that you sent 118 image-might-be-deleted warnings to the same editor, which makes it seem unlikely to me that they'll all be acted on (possibly it might have been better just to make a list of affected images and post them all at once?). I'm also glad to see that there are still people doing AfC (it's an important job, but doesn't seem to attract many editors)! One thing that I'd point out is that using icons in AfD comments is probably a bad idea; some people are worried that it promotes a voting-style mentality at AfD (rather than the consensus-based situation it is), and there are also concerns that they draw extra attention to a comment and give the appearance of making the system less fair (although looking through your AfD contribs again, it seems that very recently you've stopped using them). (I have a user script at User:ais523/votesymbols.js that puts symbols on all the comments on AfDs, RfAs, etc. to your own view, if you like the appearance, but bear in mind that comments that raise new valid points and are based in policy carry more weight (but I'm sure that you knew that already)). I don't see username changes as much of a problem, really. You seem to be mostly a vandalfighter from the revert count that my counter came up with (see the talk page); have you had many problems with replies from vandals in the past, and how do you react to them? --ais523 16:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am most proud of my work with images and recent changes (RC) patrol, on a daily basis I monitor Special:Log/Upload and try to keep the images in order, this includes tagging images that are missing fair use rationales/Copyright tags/source information or other — I'm often asked for help with this so I try to help the users who require it by telling them about fair use rationales, what templates they can use, guidelines about it and trying to generally help them out. I have recently began going through Category:All non-free media as almost every single image in the category is missing a fair use rationale, however for most I have to use {{Dfu}} as they were uploaded prior to 4 May 2006 so the regular {{nrd}} cannot be used. As well as this I monitor the recent changes and help out reverting vandalism and reporting to AIV (I always check later to see if the IP I reported has been blocked, I have made one incorrect report previously as that was because I got confused about the current date), I have made the odd mistake here and there on RC patrol but its because I'm human - no one is perfect at the end of the day. I also regularly report to usernames for administrator attention for usernames that are in clear violation of the username policy. Reaching the end now, I have began reviewing articles at articles for creation and judging whether they're worth enough to be included in the encyclopedia and occassionaly help out at the help desk.
  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'm not a naurally stressed person, the only "conflict" I have ever been in is the AfD one mentioned in the above introductory statement, that is now resolved with no negative feelings caused.

Additionals from Dfrg.msc

Borrowed from Glen (talk · contribs), 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 — Speedy delete
  2. CSD2 — Speedy delete under G11, not A2 as its not in a foreign language.
  3. CSD3 — Article may not be useful but it does not fall under A3, possibly G11 though.
  4. CSD4 — Speedy delete, as its merged into A3 and its fits that criteria.
  5. CSD5 — Removed tag article has not be transwikied.

Vandalism or or not:

  1. [1] — Not vandalism but should be remove and remind the editor about this
  2. [2] — Vandalism, mathematical formulas have no relevance to the Pokemon article.
  3. [3] — Vandalism
  4. [4] — Not vandalism but should be removed, non verifiable and unreliable
  5. [5] — Incorrect english, vandalism-ish.
  6. [6] — Not vandalism.

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How you Did:

On Speedy Delete or not:

1. Correct! Y

2.Correct! Y But you could re-direct and/or merge. As the subject is notable, page looks like an accident, maker should have searched first.

3.Correct!Y

4.Correct!Y

5.Correct!Y


On 'Vandalism or or not:'

1.Correct!Y Yep, it's difficult.

2.Correct!Y Or do they?

3.Correct!Y

4.Correct!Y True, take it up with the editor if unsure.

5.Correct!Y Yeah, I'd say test and welcome the editor. It was probably their first experiment.

6.Correct!Y

Thanks for taking part and I hope your enriched for it. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 11:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)