Wikipedia:Editor review/HisSpaceResearch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] HisSpaceResearch

HisSpaceResearch (talk · contribs) I have recently put a message on my userpage stating that I have left Wikipedia. Why, you ask? Well, it's sapping too much of my time. Editing Wikipedia, as many of you will agree, is very addictive. I am not the perfect editor, and do sometimes take quite a liberal approach to understanding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (occasionally I do things such as creating talk pages for articles that don't exist - I am quite a talk page junkie), and have expressed dissatifaction with these on the essays in my user page. However, I have made a large number of edits (over 4800), have created many articles, uploaded images and spoken articles, have significantly contributed to one good article, and several failed good articles, have used Wikipedia in some form for over three years, understand how Wikipedia works, regularly participate in deletion debates, add article improvement ideas to talk pages, clean up pages, add tags to the top of pages, remove unreferenced statements and the occasional BLP violation, clean up a bit of vandalism now and again, discuss and create categories and templates, debate Wikipedia policy, question what defines certain things and what makes them encyclopedic or not, etc. I immerse myself in most aspects of the Wikipedia community. To some extent I conder myself a "metapedian", but I do work a lot in the main namespace as well. My edits can be quite eclectic but I tend to focus on the same sorts of subjects, especially music-related articles, on the whole. My use of edit summaries could be better, and sometimes I genuinely do screw my edits up but on the whole I feel I'm quite valuable to the community. I hope the fact that I've made quite a lot of edits on sexuality-related articles does not make people here judge me badly - everything is sourced and NPOV to the largest possible extent. The fact that so many of my good article nominations have failed (I'm particularly disappointed with Family (band), which is almost GA) has put me off editing. I'm currently working on referencing the King Crimson article, but I will not continue unless someone convinces me that editing Wikipedia is actually worthwhile - I would like to see some of the articles I've worked on, such as the latter of these two, reach featured article status, but I see it as an unreachable goal. I don't want to consider this editor review mere attention-seeking, and I feel that I tend to talk more about my own contributions and ideas than I give feedback to other users sometimes, which is a negative trait. Also, I do have a tendency to completely screw up my edits occasionally or do something that violates a policy or guideline, but that's why we have WP:IAR, isn't it? For the overwhelming majority of the time, I am a helpful editor.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC) h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • I think that you are an especially productive user, albeit one not particularly staisfied with the project. You could do with the use of more edit summaries, but you look pretty good overall. I'm surprised that you're not an admin. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 23:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    The one GA was a nice surprise, but other than that... not really, due to lack of outside recognition, although if you see my user page, talk and contribs I've contributed quite a lot. I'm not an active member of any WikiProjects and don't really use userboxes.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  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?
    As I mentioned, I felt that in the failed GA nomination for the band Family (see Talk:Family_(band)#GA) that my work is unfixable due to the use of potential unreliable sources and my outright refusal to use the bloated {{cite web}} template. I also feel that another article, Out of Reach, that I did get to GA is up to the same quality standards. Either they are both good articles or neither is.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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 - Yes, speedy delete. Crystalballery, and notability is not inherited. Completely non-notable as a stand-alone entry especially considering not having done anything particularly notable yet as an individual. Worth a mention in the X Factor article quite possibly.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. CSD2 - Not quite A7, so no, don't speedy delete. ISPs are notable, whether a phone service provider is I wouldn't know, so AfD would probably be appropriate.
  3. CSD3 - This is where I don't know because the "importance or significance" part of A7 is not clearly defined. There are certainly some claims to importance and significance, but possibly not encyclopedic ones. I simply do not know how to gauge the notability of such an article. To be on the safe side, I'd take it to AfD (these are my inclusionist tendencies coming out again).-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. CSD4 - Yes, speedy delete, obvious nonsense.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. CSD5 - Yes, speedy delete, although more encyclopedic than the above example, it still really does fall short of WP:MUSIC and Wikipedia is not a directory; likely that no non-trivial reliable published sources about them exist.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism or or not:

  1. [1] - No, probably a good faith edit.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. [2] - Probably vandalism, but nothing is certain because we cannot read others' minds.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. [3] - almost certainly vandalism.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. [4] - Not vandalism, probable misguided good-faith edit.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. [5] - Oh, this is a tough one. I'd revert it anyway, but since you may not be certain what the motivation was for this change it's impossible to say whether it truly was vandalism or a good-faith edit.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. [6] - Not vandalism, probable misguided good-faith edit.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to say this - there aren't always objectively correct answers to both types of questions. Whether something meets WP:CSD#A7 can be arbitrary - how is an "assertion of importance or significance" precisely defined? As for the vandalism thing, it's also impossible to objectively determine whether the edits are vandalism in some cases because we do not know what's going on in a new editor's head and whether the edits truly are good-faith or bad-faith. However, what may appear to be good-faith may actually be vandalism if what is inserted is known by the editor to be outright misinformation, and is attempting to hoax, however unsuccessful (s)he is in doing this. In some cases it may also be worth taking a look at the user's contributions to determine the kind, number and quality of edits that are being made. -h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)