Wikipedia:Editor review/FrozenPurpleCube

FrozenPurpleCube

FrozenPurpleCube (talk · contribs) Well, after reading this [1] statement where another editor accused me of harming Wikipedia, I began to think, maybe I should check and see how people think I'm doing. I'm not exactly worried about that editor's statements, he's had a negative history with me in the past, and I think his opinions reflect his own problems, but I do feel that some input from neutral sources would be helpful. FrozenPurpleCube 06:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just because it's come up, I have absolutely zero intention or desire to become an Admin. No thank you, if nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve. FrozenPurpleCube 02:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, thank you Mr. Cheney (it's a joke, not an attack.) --w p k t sfs 03:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I stole it from Sherman, not Cheney. Who may be worse, depending on who you ask. FrozenPurpleCube 02:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Hello, FrozenPurpleCube, and welcome to editor review. You have an awesome amount of edits, and they are spread out very nicely. From what I can tell, you should be admin material some day. If you are interested, please tell me. Finally, please go to my preferences, click on the editing tab and check off: prompt me if I leave an edit summary blank. Edit summaries, regardless of if they are minor or major edits, should always be used. Cheers! --w p k t sfs 03:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't do a formal review. I remember the disagreement we had when I closed a couple of chess AFDs early, and all is forgiven. I see that you've continued to participate in AFDs, and that's good news. The major impediment to your becoming an admin (not that you asked, and it's "no big deal") is that some people will worry about your civility. That's an area where you want to strive to be welcoming and conciliatory beyond what the rules require. I wish you good luck. Yechiel Man 02:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool
I'm the "other editor" mentioned above and it was not my intention to accuse Mr.Manicore of anything, but just to suggest that among his fully justified AfD nominations were some relatively sound articles. I've apologized, both on his page and on the AfD page, for my apparently too strong wording, and suggest that accepting apologies helps future cooperation.DGG 18:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you're mistaken as it wasn't you I was concerned about, but another editor whose specific comment I linked to in the diff. I wasn't even thinking about your words at all. FrozenPurpleCube 19:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC) You are altogether right, though it was the same AfD; probably my residual guilt (smile)DGG 21:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
Well, the thing that pleases me the most was fixing a vandalism edit on the Christopher Columbus page. It'd sat like that for months before somebody noticed. It's just kind of amusing to me.
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?
Well, I feel a couple of times I've experienced some personal attacks from other editors, and I've tried to deal with it by politely asking them to focus more on the content. It doesn't always work, but I try not to get uncivil myself, but rather to ignore them and focus on what I consider to be important.

Additionals 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:

Vandalism or or not:

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure it matters, and I think my perspective may be different than others, but let's see. CSD1: Possibly, though I could support a redirect to the X-factor page. I would probably just PROD though with a tag explaining the problem. CSD2: I see that Voip.com still exists with a notability tag. I agree. A better assertion of notability is important here. I am not however, convinced Speedy deletion is appropriate here. AFD would be my choice if the notability issue was not addressed. CSD3: A lack of third-party sources covering this site is a problem. It does merit discussion though with the claim of 90 worldwide markets. I would AFD it for the same reasons as the previous. CSD4: Nonsense, speedy candidate. CSD5: Possibly a CSD, would stick with PROD and a tag explaining the problem though. For the vandalisms, I would support reversion of all the edits, but only the Courier-Mail one strikes me as Vandalism. The rest could be assumed as good faith, if mistaken edits. FrozenPurpleCube 19:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]