Wikipedia:Editor review/cf38
cf38 (talk · contribs) I made my first proper edits in the start of 2007, and have been progressing ever since. Unforunatley, I've had to take a lot of time off from Wikipedia , but I've managed to squeeze some time in here and there. I have a total edit count of 5396, with 2400 being done in the last few days! cf38talk 17:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Reviews
Your contributions have been very positive. It seems that you are mostly focused on maintenance tasks, so most of my comments will be about that. To start, though, you need to work on your spelling. Find yourself an automatic spell checker and run your edits through it to check for mistakes for a while.
Most of your recent edits have been vandalism reverts and AfD discussions. Your reverts look good, though there are some areas in need of improvement. In one case, you received a message from 84.108.128.25 (talk) complaining that you had reverted their legitimate edit. You responded with an appropriate apology. The anonymous editor then restored their edit. After that, another user came along and reverted their edit again, giving them a more stern warning for doing something you had already told them they could do. There are three things you could have done to improve your response. One, if you make a mistake reverting vandalism, always revert yourself in addition to apologizing. Two, you could have explained to them the necessity of providing references for controversial material. Three, it might have been a good idea to check up on this user after a while to see if they needed help. In my experience, very few vandalism reverts result in a constructive message from the reverted editor. Those cases require some extra attention.
In another case, you reverted a minor but constructive edit using rollback. Rollback should only be used to revert obvious vandalism. The anonymous editor had fixed a punctuation error, which you reintroduced. The page still has your error, so this would be a good opportunity for you to revert yourself. Also, read through WP:MOS#Possessives and WP:MOS#Contractions.
Finally, you have nominated several articles for deletion with an insufficient rationale. If you think a page should be nominated at AfD, and it is not a candidate for speedy deletion, usually the only valid reason will be that it is not notable. A deletion discussion is a very strong response to article creation, and deleting a page this way implies that either the title of the created page is the problem, or that the article is unsalvageable. The absence of citations and external links in an article does not mean that Wikipedia cannot have an article on that subject. It just means that the article is incomplete. Therefore, in addition to evaluating the article for verifiability, you should also do an additional search, even just googling it, to see if there are any available sources that could be used to support it. If you find any, it would be very helpful to add those citations to the article. If you still think that deletion is the best action, you can always prod it. Wronkiew (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- 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 been involved in one previous conflict, which occured when I was completley new to Wikipedia. It was a conflict with User:Dudesleeper and if anyone wants to go over the history you'll find some unpleasent and childish things. I dealt with it very badly, and acted like an eight year old. I'm now happy to say that I've matured a lot, and I now calmly deal with issues, instead of rushing head on. Here are examples: [1] [2] [3] I'd like to become a member of the WP:MC but I'm going to sit on that one.