Wikipedia

User:Miranda/Wikipedia:Editor review/Real96

< User:Miranda
(Redirected from User:Real96/Wikipedia:Editor review/Real96)

Real96

Real96 (talk · contribs) I am a user who has been around since January 2007. I have been heavily involved with articles relating to Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell. I have also participated in the Biography Assessment Drive as well as WP:ALBUM assessments. I help out at the help desk, help file cases on WP:CHECK, as well as mentor three new Wikipedians. I have been here for almost three months. Any comments would be appreciated. Real96 22:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Thank you for reverting the deletion of the Anuna page by Headbanger756. very much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.236.116 (talk • contribs)
  • It is my pleasure to review you. Foremost, I am very surprised that you didn't reveal the fact that you constantly revert vandalism, or that you have racked over 6000 edits in three months (I, for one, have only 3000 edits in 6 months)! You seem to be a very efficient user, and have experience in almost all aspects of WIkipedia. I don't know of any tweaks you have thus far. If you are considering adminship, you may need a little more experience (I would say, two or three months) and you will be guaranteed to pass with flying colors. If not, you are doing an amazing job here. Happy editing! Sr13 (T|C) 06:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You are a great user and have an impressive amount of edits in Mainspace, I too would leave the adminship for a few months and get more experience, it would be good to see some more article work and work in WP:XFD but except for that you are doing excellent! Thanks - Tellyaddict 11:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Definitely heading in the right direction. Bubba hotep 23:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Real96 fails my editing test. This user identified a valid deletion as vandalism and restored an inappropriate section on the Ku Klux Klan to the article on Fairfield County, Connecticut. I have since deleted this so-called bit of history because it has no place in the article. I suspect that Real96 is friends with the person who inserted this nonsense. --69.182.62.218 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. The information concerning the KKK being involved in Fairfield County is credible because the information has applicable references. Now I can see if the problem pertains to original research; yet, this isn't so with this case. The above user has been using sockpuppets to delete information on the page (i.e. here, here, and here). If you have a problem with the content on the page, then leave a note on the talk page rather than trolling on other user's editor reviews. Thanks! Real96 22:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Removing irrelevant material is not censoring. The section in question was indeed brought up on the talk page and the person who inserted it--the person you're defending--refused to discuss it, beyond saying "I happened to have information on the Klan around here that I got while reading a book and I put it in." Now that's a great reason to contribute to an article--because you have a book lying around! The KKK's membership in Fairfield County is no more relevant to this article than membership in any organization. This article is about Fairfield County, not the KKK in Fairfield County, not the NRA in Fairfield County, etc. Because people belonged to an organization and had meetings 80 years ago doesn't amount to historical significance. As I said on the article's history page, it's trivia--boring trivia at that--moreover, it betrays laziness and a likely bias, conscious or unconscious, on the part of the person who inserted it. That you're fighting to keep it there--in the name of censorship no less--is proof of your poor editorial judgment and your own possible bias, which are things people reading this Editor Review page should know about. Good editors don't blindly follow rules, apply labels, align themselves with questionable people and causes, and end their correspondence with sarcastic "thanks!". I'm perfectly within my rights, by the way, to make edits using any ISP I want, and although I didn't make one edit you "accuse" me of, I applaud the person who did. --69.177.53.82 04:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
First, please be civil with your comments. Second, if you are going to do an overall history on a county or state for that matter, you need to involve all aspects of the history (as long as it is not original research). This is per Wikipedia policy, not my personal policy. I have explained (and clarified once more) my reasons above. Real96 06:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Leave now and never come back! RUN AWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!! – Gurch 22:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • My first experience with you was during the episode which you describe as your main incident until now. Wikipedia is a place that gives you enormous freedom on the one hand, and limits that freedom by procedures, guidelines etc on the other hand. When one has just registered, that can be very confusing. That also applied to you. I feel that since then you have learned much, and you are definitely on the right track, and your attitude of helping others and asking for feedback will definitely get you even further. Errabee 21:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • For some reason, you seem to be repeatedly restoring removed non-relevant material in the Cowan, TN article. Why?-Everyguy 22:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know the information was unsourced. I thought random IPs were blanking material. Thanks for the heads up! Real96 20:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Can I just say this? You appear to need to tighten your definition of vandalism, as it appears too many people are concerned (with good reason) about your edits. --Roehl Sybing 17:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Note that the above constructive criticism was incorrectly identified as trolling by the editor in question. --Roehl Sybing 18:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
This user did in fact troll on the page, when the conversation didn't involve him. Please see WP:TROLL. Also, please see the definition of vandalism. Real96 04:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The conversation involved your editing, and if there are any legitimate concerns about your editing, anyone should be allowed to give their input. If you think it is not legitimate, then refute it instead of hiding it. The comment wasn't attacking you. Roehl had previously made only one other comment on your talk page, so this isn't pestering but more of an elaboration on his earlier point.
Removing {{prod}} is not vandalism as it can be done for any objection; read the template. It's an automatic sign telling you to take it to WP:AfD. –Pomte 23:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Ah, kind of like a placeholder for a reminder to put the WP:AFD template on the page, thanks for that information. Real96 03:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • You are a very good user on wikipedia, but have chronic incivility problems on IRC. I suggest "boycotting" incivility for at least a month prior to adminship nominations. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see this on WP:IRC. One's behavior on #wikipedia, et. al is not related to the Wikipedia channels in general because of the PRIVACY of the channels. Real96 02:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Listen, other users have complained about your IRC behavior, so why don't you just stop? ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 11:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
NEW REVELATION: I curse...shit! Okay, everyone fucking knows that I fucking curse! Please see, this policy and please quit trying to do this. The logs cannot be published, so I don't see why IRC is a big deal. I am not mean to all new users. Please get that stereotype out of your head. And, yes, I am practicing this. Real96 03:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Sarcastic Comment: See below response for real detail.

(reduce indent) I also, very rarely (%.1> x) curse on Wikipedia. So, I really don't see how this can be an issue. 1. You can't publish the logs under any circumstances. 2. I think that you are trying to make a point via civil which doesn't exist. Real96 03:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(1) The IRC logs need not be published for users to know that you curse a lot on IRC. (2) I am not doing this as I have only currently made 3 edits to this page. (3) By saying that another user has complained, I am not doing this, but rather saving you from this. (4) If you don't accept the criticism and stop cursing then you will be in violation of this, so please just accept the criticism - regardless of whether or not you'll stop cursing. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 00:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wonderful, wonderful presence on IRC, great editor for content, but I do notice a tendency to be a bit process-wonky in general. The rules are there for when someone has a massive lack of common sense. Most of the time, what should be done is blatently obvious, and memorizing to the letter every policy (which I have unfortunately done) can usually be counted on to be somewhat counterproductive. WP:UCS and WP:IAR can be used in conjunction to solve every problem you will ever encounter. Dont worry about things too much and you'll go far. -Mask? 01:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
After consultation with some other users on IRC, I have become aware of many issues involving incivility towards new users that I was previously unaware of. This should be addressed as well. -Mask? 08:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Jeff & Mask, please see my response ^. Thank you! Real96 03:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    Generally, I help new users who don't know how to structure a page. I am currently going to expand Tammi Terrell in a couple of weeks. My goal is to make this a GA article. I also helped to nominate Dreamgirls (film) into a Good article.
  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 have been in minor conflicts, but the main conflict that I have been involved with concerned assessing Judy Garland with Outrigger's script. The discussion is listed on the the talk page and on one of my archives. Personally, I took a break in the discussion of the assessment portion. Whenever there is conflict, I avoid the discussion temporarily and/or ask for a second opinion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Miranda/Wikipedia:Editor_review/Real96&oldid=1156653622"