Wikipedia:Editor review/Yllosubmarine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Yllosubmarine

Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) I have been actively editing on Wikipedia since January, and am quite interested in how I could step my game up a little. Although I am not interested in adminship at the time being, I have been working on improving my communication skills as well as becoming involved in behind the scenes activities such as AfD discussions and reviewing FACs. As for editing, I am mostly involved in biographies as well as film and literature articles. I would appreciate any suggestions regarding my editing habits (research, utilization of policy) and ways that I can improve in order to help the encyclopedia. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 12:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

Overall very good :) Here are a few tiny things that I you should change:

  1. Mark reversion of vandalism as minor.
  2. When moving content it is better to use the move button rather that to copy and paste because keeps the edit summary intact.
Hope that helps at least a little bit. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 22:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally good. Your Toni Morrison edits look solid. From the diffs it looked like you had added some uncited material, but I realized you'd just moved it. Not a gig against you, but you might consider seeing if you can find citations for the older material. One almost trivial item I picked up on in this edit. Per WP:STUB, stub templates are "placed at the end of the article, after the External links section, any navigation templates, and the category tags, so that the stub category will appear last. It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it." I fixed that edit, but it was at then end of a series of edits you just made where you moved the stub template off the bottom, so you may want to go back an fix them.

Keep up the good work. Feel free to critique me (except on my speeling, er, spelling ;-). --J Clear 15:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Having a second person working on The Lovely Bones has been very helpful. Daniel Case 17:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you need to be Bold (not italics) - I think you're a bit too observant of authority and therefore take small steps where you should take bigger ones
    -I suggest you take everyone's words as though you were the mother superior and they were the supplicating child - you'll handle others with less nervousness and more decorum (and feel more mexican as well?)
    Your edits are good - using the biography template for knut was very clever.
    --Keerllston 13:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    At the moment I have not had the pleasure to bring an article to GA status, but that's next on my list. Articles I have greatly improved by a sufficient amount of research include Bob Marshall (wilderness activist), Nikki Giovanni, and Toni Morrison. With more time and less laziness, I aim to improve these articles ten-fold in the future. I think every little bit helps, and because these three individuals are inspiring to me, personally, I find great joy in knowing that I've done them proud -- so far. There's a long way to go.
  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?
    Like most everyone, I've had my troubles with WikiStress and edit conflicts. This is one of the main reasons why I put myself up for review. I have a tendency to become defensive, but I've come to understand that talking things through works much better than reverting with a snippy comment, something of which I have been guilty of in the past. Other editors can be stressful, mostly because we (all of us!) forget somethings to AGF. I had a problem not too long ago with another editor who, despite every way I tried to explain to them that they had me pegged wrong, honestly believed I was attempting to brainwash them, all because I linked them to a couple policies in order to help them with future AfD discussions. After a while, you just have to say "okay, fine" and walk away. Also, I've been using my smilies lately on talk pages, because I find they lighten the mood. :)
  3. I realise that you may not now remember but was there any particular reason why, in your copy edit (22:40, 23 May 2007) of the Edith Cavell article, you changed offence and defence to their American spellings? Given the article has long used British orthography, and given that Cavell herself was a quintessentially British subject (in both senses of the word!), it struck me as an unusual decision. ROGER TALK 22:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    This was hopefully an isolated mistake on my part; I use Firefox, which has a built in spell-checker that is set to American standard spelling. Because I'm usually careful about (what I consider to be) common British spellings, such as favourite and "realise, I tend to do just as you say and match the spelling/grammar/etc to the subject's country of origin. In this circumstance, however, I see "offence" and "defence," two words I wasn't aware of having British counterparts, with angry, red underlines and I must have automatically thought oh, typos, must fix! In the past I've reverted people who change "misspellings" on articles, so I'm aware that it's a common problem. I'll definitely be more careful of this in the future, though, so thank you for bringing it to my attention! María (críticame) 12:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


Additional Questions 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.

Very interesting! This should be painful fun. :)

Speedy Delete or not:

Because I didn't know much about speedy delete procedures, I did read up on it before trying my hand at this, FYI. I'm also an exclusionist at heart, but I'm basing my answers on policy, not opinion.
  1. CSD1: Speedy Delete as violation of A7 (notability)
  2. CSD2: Speedy Delete as vio of G11 (advertising) and lack of encyclopedic content
  3. CSD3: Do not Speedy Delete; has context and notability
  4. CSD4: Speedy Delete as possible G3? (I'm having trouble with which violation, but it's definitely non-encyclopedic and nonsense.)
  5. CSD5: Speedy Delete as vio of A7 (notability)

Vandalism or or not:

  1. [1]: Vandalism; uncited, may be a shout-out to random person, Google search turns up nothing
  2. [2]: Vandalism; silliness
  3. [3]: vandalism; silliness again
  4. [4]: Not vandalism; justified removal of non-encyclopedic material
  5. [5]: Not vandalism
  6. [6]: Not vandalism, but may be OR

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)



Response:

1. Correct! 100%

2. True, but you could blank page, then re-direct and/or merge. Subject is notable, page looks like an accident, maker should have searched first.

3. Correct!

4. Good understanding of policy.

5. Excellent!

_

1. Good! You could check user, user history, previous warnings. When in doubt, leave it in, but I'd ask for sources or references.

2. Correct.

3. Correct!

4. Correct.

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

6. Great!

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 03:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)