Wikipedia:Editor review/GlassCobra
GlassCobra (talk · contribs) I've been with the project since late April of this year, but I dove right in, getting myself involved in as many places as I could find, trying to learn everything I could. My most passionate involvement here is and probably always will be combating vandalism, but I would really like to find out what other editors think of me on the whole. GlassCobra 06:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Reviews
Dihydrogen Monoxide
[edit]- You know I think you're awesome, so I won't even bother saying that :) Just getting Manila Hotel kept deserves praise - let alone GAing it, I don't think I've ever done that whilst new page tagging. *high fives* You have a fair few userspace edits - not that it matters, but some people dislike this sort of thing, just keep that in mind. AfD, AIV, HD work is wonderful. Negatives (must I? Yes I must) - getting close to 3RR is bad...really bad, even if you didn't get a block. As for vandalfighting - is that really what you enjoy doing most here? Remember Wikipedia:Adminitis! Finally, I must comment on your usertalk editing - it's excessive in some people's books. Some people don't approve particularly of socializing (for lack of a better word). May I suggest IRC, Google Talk, and Windows Live Messenger, all of which are used frequently bu wikipedians...erm...me :) Unfortunately I don't have a lot of constructive stuff to say - but yeah, watch out on the overuse of user talk edits, and think about if you really enjoy metapedianing (for teh record, I just removed the entire project space, except for GAC and FPOC, from my watchlist, because it's all pissing me off big time). Happy editing! — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 09:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hey man, thanks for the review! About the 3RR thing, yeah it was bad, but it was in the interest of the article ; I feel like while I may have broken the letter of the rule, I was upholding the values of the project. On vandalfighting, notice that I didn't say I enjoyed it, because I don't enjoy reverting troublemakers who put things like "adam wuz heer" or "tony totally banged this chick," but I am passionate about it; I think that protecting the wiki is one of the most important things one can do here. I appreciate your comments about my usertalk editing, but you should know that the vast majority of those are warnings on the talk pages of users whose pages I've CSD'd or edits I've reverted. It's only recently that I started doing some socializing. I'm on IRC as well, so drop me a line on there anytime, and thanks again for the review! GlassCobra (Review) 22:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're more then welcome :) I agree that it's good to be passionate about vandalwhacking, but in the words of Shalom (talk · contribs), "there are plenty of less intelligent people to do it" (my paraphrase, I don't think he was that rude). And with IRC, I'm not going on much anymore...a few issues arose out of it =/ Plus we don't share timezones, but if I ever see you online (and vice versa), I'll leave you a note (and vice versa ;-)) and go on! — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hey man, thanks for the review! About the 3RR thing, yeah it was bad, but it was in the interest of the article ; I feel like while I may have broken the letter of the rule, I was upholding the values of the project. On vandalfighting, notice that I didn't say I enjoyed it, because I don't enjoy reverting troublemakers who put things like "adam wuz heer" or "tony totally banged this chick," but I am passionate about it; I think that protecting the wiki is one of the most important things one can do here. I appreciate your comments about my usertalk editing, but you should know that the vast majority of those are warnings on the talk pages of users whose pages I've CSD'd or edits I've reverted. It's only recently that I started doing some socializing. I'm on IRC as well, so drop me a line on there anytime, and thanks again for the review! GlassCobra (Review) 22:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Quick comment. Please do not [[[Image:Symbol_delete_vote.svg|15px]]] use the graphics for keep and delete in AfD discussions It's not the custom there, though they are used appropriately elsewhere in WP. The bold faced Keep and Delete keep things organized well enough. And when you do comment, remember that it's not a vote--per so-and-so does not mean much, whereas a clearly articulated reason based on policy can be of real help. DGG (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Got it, I'll work on that. Thanks! GlassCobra (Review) 14:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- You blocked an entry that I posted about an organisation which I now admit in review does not comply with rules. You said "Please stop. If you continue to ignore our policies by introducing inappropriate pages, such as Middlesbrough Supporters South, to Wikipedia, you will be blocked. Do not recreate deleted articles" Bit harsh Cobra. I neither intended to ignore rules nor have I remotely tried to re-create any deleted articles. Politeness is a good maxim on here. Thank you. Geoffmss 19:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback, Geoff. As near as I can remember (as our encounter was a while ago), the creation of the deleted page was attributed to you, and then you re-created the page after it had been deleted. So I'm sorry, but it looks like you did violate policy. I'm sorry if the warning was harsh, it's a template; I didn't write it myself. I'll keep your comments in mind. GlassCobra 07:42, 15 October 2007 (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?
- While there have been a few articles that I've brought out from stub status or otherwise cleaned up, I don't really think any of those are worth bragging about. I do have one GA that I wrote and promoted almost entirely by myself, Manila Hotel. You can see that I was the one that tagged it with a CSD almost immediately after it was created as a one sentence stub that said "Built in 1919." Indeed, if I hadn't done some quick research, this article probably would have been lost. I spent about a day researching and writing the article, and got a great rush when it was awarded GA status. I'm very proud of my contributions to the Redwall WikiProject, including making all of the articles in Category:Redwall characters consistent. Some other articles that I'm rather proud of are Bugz, List of species in Redwall, and Bloodwrath. I'm also proud of my defense against vandalism, particularly on Spells in Harry Potter, The End's Not Near, It's Here, and List of gay and bisexual persons in film, radio, and TV fiction, among others.
- 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?
- To date, I haven't been in any truly major conflicts, though I've been involved in some very heavy edit warring on vandalism on various articles, especially Spells in Harry Potter, and brushed against the 3RR rule, also on the aforementioned article. I am sometimes frustrated by our policies, but I know that they are vitally important to keep us from descending into chaos. I am not afraid to ask for help when I need it, or to solicit third, fourth, or fiftieth opinions on matters.