Wikipedia:Editor review/FingersOnRoids (2)
FingersOnRoids[edit]
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
FingersOnRoids (talk · contribs · count) I've been on Wikipedia for a couple of months now, and I'd like to know how I'm doing so far, basically what my strengths are, and what things I need to improve on. I'm currently adopted by Wadester 16. ƒingersonRoids 21:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Reviews
- Note: you can see my quick review here. wadester16 | Talk→ 21:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed you only have 4 edits to the "File" namespace. You may want to consider gaining more experience there. Copying eligible files to Commons is one option. If you are interested in that, and would like some help, let me know.--Rockfang (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response, what exactly does that entail? Working with files has never really interested me; I find it a little too technical and boring. ƒingersonRoids 02:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I normally just hit "random article" until I come across an article with an image. In preferences I have the "navigation popups" gadget enabled. That allows me to tell by mousing over whether or not an image is on commons already, and what license the image is using. If the image isn't on Commons, and isn't non-free, then I use this script (which puts a tab on the top of the image's page) to move the image over. On the resulting page I untick "Use WikiSense to suggest categories" and tick "Remove existing categories". Click "get text", save the file locally, then click the "upload at commons" button. Just gotta make sure to add a category when putting the file on Commons. You can then use {{ncd}} on the Wikipedia copy to mark it as a duplicate.--Rockfang (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm just going to say that if File/Image work doesn't interest you, don't do it. There's nothing you have to do on Wikipedia. Also, good work on the various help pages. Keep up the good editing. Malinaccier (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- I normally just hit "random article" until I come across an article with an image. In preferences I have the "navigation popups" gadget enabled. That allows me to tell by mousing over whether or not an image is on commons already, and what license the image is using. If the image isn't on Commons, and isn't non-free, then I use this script (which puts a tab on the top of the image's page) to move the image over. On the resulting page I untick "Use WikiSense to suggest categories" and tick "Remove existing categories". Click "get text", save the file locally, then click the "upload at commons" button. Just gotta make sure to add a category when putting the file on Commons. You can then use {{ncd}} on the Wikipedia copy to mark it as a duplicate.--Rockfang (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Questions
- What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
- My edits are pretty diverse; I just edit in whatever area I feel interested in at the time. Currently, I'm focusing on WP:UAA, WP:AFC/R and new page patrolling, such as WP:CSD tagging, and cleaning up new articles in general to meet Wikipedia standards. In addition to these, I've spent time at WP:RM, WP:AFD, WP:AFC, WP:DYK, WP:3o, naming some off the top of my head. I'd have to say that I'm most pleased with my New Page patrol work, essentially singlehandedly improving It's Just a Plant from a two sentence stub with a prod tag over its head, to an article mentioned on the main page, in the DYK section. I also feel I do good speedy deletion work, and strictly adhere to the criteria for speedy deletion, unlike some other new page patrollers I've seen, who sometimes tag hastily, and bend the criteria for speedy deletion. This bothers me, because speedy delete tags that are placed incorrectly are especially bitey to newcomers. These kinds of things drive away users that could contribute constructively to Wikipedia.
- 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 did get in somewhat of a dispute with Permethius about him putting a tag on his page that said that it was a policy page, the dispute can be found on our talk page archives. I tried to deal with it patiently, and explain why I thought it was inappropriate for it to be there.
- I noticed you seem to be a fan of complicated processes. When do you think it's appropriate to apply WP:IAR? Gigs (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ahh, I'm assuming that you are referring to our discussion on WP:UAA? I'm not a fan of complicated processes, I am just saying that WP:UAA is supposed to be used for reporting usernames, hence the name of the page. If you found a user that was creating spammy articles which had coi problems, with a username that is not in violation with the username policy, the best places to go would be WP:WPSPAM or WP:COIN, because that's what they're there for. I think that we'd both agree on that. That being said, most admins on WP:UAA just go through and block accounts like Marcpage for being spam accounts if they're in obvious violation, since it saves the trouble of reporting them again to other places.FingersOnRoids 02:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's a pretty good answer. Yes, I admit this is mostly prompted by our UAA interaction, but also because you had the "process is important" userbox. I figured since you put yourself up for review, this might be a useful conversation. Had you not been here I'd have probably just dropped it, as I am sure someone will take care of MARC either way (I did post it on WPSPAM as well after your objection). I can see how the username might technically not belong in UAA, but my main point was that the account was clearly a group/organizational account that was promoting said group/organization, which arguably is the spirit of the "promotional username" policy (and how it is often applied), rather than the literal string that forms the username. Anyway, it's a good interaction to keep in mind as you go forward toward your RfA, as surely some people might oppose you if they believe you too literal in policy application. Gigs (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, my process is important userbox is mainly referring to my CSD work, and how I've seen many new articles that have been tagged with poorly thought out speedy deletion tags; for example the A1 criteria being used by careless newpage patrollers because they don't like it that there is an article on exploding whales on Wikipedia, etc. I find it extremely important not to WP:BITE the newbies, and improperly used speedy delete tags can do exactly that. Improper speedy deletes can turn off a newcomer editing in good faith, if their article is deleted off wikipedia a minute after they created it, with a tag that doesn't even exactly make sense. Its important to show them that we have a deletion policy we adhere to, and that articles won't be deleted just because "WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I can't find a speedy tag that exactly fits." That being said, I don't have a major problem with people reporting usernames that are being used for promotion at UAA; the problem gets solved either way, but for organization's sake, next time just take it to WP:WPSPAM. Thanks for the input, FingersOnRoids 02:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- There's actually a discussion going on now about this at Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#Proposed_addition. I'm with you on the overuse of speedy in some cases. Gigs (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, my process is important userbox is mainly referring to my CSD work, and how I've seen many new articles that have been tagged with poorly thought out speedy deletion tags; for example the A1 criteria being used by careless newpage patrollers because they don't like it that there is an article on exploding whales on Wikipedia, etc. I find it extremely important not to WP:BITE the newbies, and improperly used speedy delete tags can do exactly that. Improper speedy deletes can turn off a newcomer editing in good faith, if their article is deleted off wikipedia a minute after they created it, with a tag that doesn't even exactly make sense. Its important to show them that we have a deletion policy we adhere to, and that articles won't be deleted just because "WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I can't find a speedy tag that exactly fits." That being said, I don't have a major problem with people reporting usernames that are being used for promotion at UAA; the problem gets solved either way, but for organization's sake, next time just take it to WP:WPSPAM. Thanks for the input, FingersOnRoids 02:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's a pretty good answer. Yes, I admit this is mostly prompted by our UAA interaction, but also because you had the "process is important" userbox. I figured since you put yourself up for review, this might be a useful conversation. Had you not been here I'd have probably just dropped it, as I am sure someone will take care of MARC either way (I did post it on WPSPAM as well after your objection). I can see how the username might technically not belong in UAA, but my main point was that the account was clearly a group/organizational account that was promoting said group/organization, which arguably is the spirit of the "promotional username" policy (and how it is often applied), rather than the literal string that forms the username. Anyway, it's a good interaction to keep in mind as you go forward toward your RfA, as surely some people might oppose you if they believe you too literal in policy application. Gigs (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ahh, I'm assuming that you are referring to our discussion on WP:UAA? I'm not a fan of complicated processes, I am just saying that WP:UAA is supposed to be used for reporting usernames, hence the name of the page. If you found a user that was creating spammy articles which had coi problems, with a username that is not in violation with the username policy, the best places to go would be WP:WPSPAM or WP:COIN, because that's what they're there for. I think that we'd both agree on that. That being said, most admins on WP:UAA just go through and block accounts like Marcpage for being spam accounts if they're in obvious violation, since it saves the trouble of reporting them again to other places.FingersOnRoids 02:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.