Wikipedia:Editor review/Bloodpack
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] User:Bloodpack
Bloodpack (talk • contribs) Hi! ive been here in wikipedia since the beginning of this year, and id like to know what are the things that i still need to do to help the betterment of wikipedia and also help my fellow wikipedians †Bloodpack† 17:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Reviews
- Hello there, Bloodpack, how are you doing? Here is my review.
-
- The first thing I noticed upon visiting your talk page was a warning for a unsourced image. Reviewing the different ones you have uploaded, I notice Image:Leinilyu.JPG is tagged with apparently an obsolete license (note that it suggest to use {{No rights reserved}} instead). Also, there is no text claiming the image to be free (if it is stated somewhere in the site, please add a link to there). In fact, when uploading images, try to link to both the page holding the image and the image itself, so that users can easily verify the image and the copyright text for it. The same can be said about Image:Marsravelo.jpg, there is no way for any editor to verify the image is free. As for Image:Kudeta.jpg, see if you can use a fair use rationale for it (and any other fair use image you may upload in the future).
- Examining your statistics, with around 1,200 edits in the article namespace and 200 edits in talk pages, I see you spend some time discussing with other users about the article itself. Although I see several edits where you added different banners, in others you actively discussed. Pretty good. Also, with an average of 4.53 edits per article, I take it you are very specialized in comic-related articles. Maybe you could use that to your advantage, focusing in a single article, polishing it according to the fictional guidelines to achieve good article status.
- Mathboth reports a very low summary usage, 40% for major edits and 25% for minor edits. Summaries are extremely useful for everyone. First, it allows other editors that have the article in their watch list to know what you did in the last change (in example, reordered sentences to match chronology, wikified section, removing some speculation, someone please add a reference for the other sentence). And second, it allows people (including you) to quickly locate revisions by just looking at the history (in example, if you want to know where your speculation was removed because it was unreferenced and you just found a reference, it is much easier to check the history and find the one that says removed speculation about wings, please add a source than having to blindly check every revision for it). I heavily suggest you to use summaries, as long as necessary to explain your changes to the articles. Even a +comic in the talk page is useful, so that people know you have just added a banner to the talk page and not asking a question (which, if they think you did, would make them go check the talk page, losing seconds that could be invested writing articles).
- Your work with the different comic-related articles is appreciated, especially your ability to write articles about unknown artists (considering most of the articles from America and Europe, don't take that as an insult!). My suggestions are basically that you spend a couple of seconds more writing an edit summary whenever you save a change (if you have problems remembering to do that, just click at Special:Preferences, go to the Editing tab, and tick the Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary option), and that you focus on an article, polish it according to our manual of style (try to encourage participation at the Collaboration of the Month), and to try to achieve good status. Maybe with time you could help also to polish one even more to featured status. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 18:55, 12 November 2006 (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?
- im most pleased with the articles i contributed specially those that i started, it provides additional information in wikipedia, the clean-ups and the minor edits. i strongly believe that even with the little edits i do, it means a big help in wikipedia
- Comment can you provide any links to your contributions in order for editors to have something to assess you by, please? (aeropagitica) 15:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- im most pleased with the Russian (comics) article and seeing it how it improved when i first started it. also with the Carlo Vergara article
- 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?
- yes, i learned that different people have different attitudes, its just a matter of how you deal with them, but i try to be reasonable as possible and avoid personal attacks, as i also respect the other party's personal opinion
- Comment Can you provide diffs to any conflicts in which you have participated, please? (aeropagitica) 15:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
