Tony Fox (talk · contribs) I've been here since February 2006 and fairly active - getting close to 5000 edits - so I'm curious as to what the community might think about my activities thus far. I've been considering a bid for adminship, as I feel I could help out with some of the backlogs and assist in other ways, but would like to get some other feedback before going forward with that. I'd be happy to answer any further questions. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Well I looked at your contributions and you are a very good editor, your main space contribs are of a high quality, your very active in fighting vandalism, You have an almost perfect edit summary record, and you are pretty involved in WP:AFD, WP:HD, WP:RD, & WP:AN. I only have a few things you might want to work on;

1. Use redirects only when necessary, I noticed that you redirected "The Wind in The Willows" to "The Wind in the Willows". While I do realize the article was there before hand it should have been an AFD.
2. Get Twinkle I noticed you were a diligent vandal reverter and this script makes it easier.
3. Less Acronyms in your edit summaries, not incredibly important i know but it helps the those new to wikipedia understand better.
4. Mark vandalism reverts as minor, the reversion of blatant vandalism is considered minor since no one is likely to object.

Cheers. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 20:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this to be a very sensible, cool, level-headed, and conflict-deescalating approach to a somewhat heated situation (in which I was involved). Nice. MastCell ^Talk 20:37, 18 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

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

   My substantial contributions can be seen here. I've done some work that I think has been good in cleaning up some articles, most notably a major rewrite and re-sourcing of Battle of the Plains of Abraham, which I've brought to good article status and hopefully will take to featured in the near future. In addition, I've done a number of other cleanups, saved a couple articles from deletion, and helped head off a couple of editing disputes through neutral rewrites (I'm a bit of a natural mediator and try to find middle ground when I can).

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 think the worst conflict I've been involved with was surrounding an erstwhile musician and inveterate self-promoter who got cranky when some of his articles were up for deletion. He was eventually nailed for sockpuppeting and indef-blocked, but various meatpuppets continued to pop up. I think I handled this fairly well, pointing out policy and guidelines to back up reasoning against the articles, nabbing a couple of socks, and eventually reaching the "ignore" stage with everyone else involved. I've also taken some polite pokes from vandals who I nabbed during RC patrol, and a couple of months after I started, my userpage was linked on a YTMND-related forum and targeted for some amusement. Solution: request protection, ignore. Easy! I'm pretty easygoing most of the time, so I can shrug things like that off, and when I can't, then my reaction is usually to back off and give it space until I'm in a space where I can properly handle the situation.

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

Definite speedy. This page indicates that there's nobody by that name in the band, and searching the name, I get lots of non-notable people. Thus, I'd speedy as an A7, non-notable bio.

1. CSD2

Looks spammy to me, but a quick check indicates it's a fairly large company (290,000 Google hits) and may meet WP:CORP. I might tag it with {{advertising}} and look for something to expand it with. (Which, from our actual article, looks like the right idea!)

1. CSD3

This one's tough, as it's in my field of interest and seems intriguing. However, I get very little outside coverage of the company, and it doesn't look like it would meet WP:CORP. I'd probably AFD this, which might encourage further information to come forward. (From the log, I might have been a bit lenient - I see it was speedied previously.)

1. CSD4

Definite keep; a valuable and important piece of literature. ... speedy as patent nonsense.

1. CSD5

Ah, a band article. I check a lot of these, for some reason. This one looks pretty, but Google searches indicate the band is failing WP:MUSIC pretty strongly right now. The article fails to indicate notability, and thus I'd speedy it. (Again, a check of the deletion log indicates one of my favourite admins agreed.)

Vandalism or or not:

1. [1]

Test edit, at least; would remove (after checking that the person was, in fact, not related to the claim, which she isn't) and leave a "test edit" note for the editor.

1. [2]

The result of that equation would be a revert and vandal note to the IP.

1. [3]

Vandalism, as is the next edit by the same guy; would revert and warn.

1. [4]

Whether we're talking about the addition of the section or its removal, this isn't vandalism; it may be a trivial piece of information that could be added at some point, but it would require proper sourcing other than "in many internet forums." The removal was quite correct at this point; discussion would have to take place on the talk page to determine whether this should be included and to source it.

1. [5]

Not vandalism; someone could have felt that the number looked better in the heading than the wording, but it's not stylistically correct that way, so I'd change back and leave a note for the editor.

1. [6]

I might have left that line in the article, just fixing the spelling; the rest of the paragraph seems to be fairly general about the particular Pokemon, so a note about its effectiveness against opponents doesn't seem hugely out of place. I'd be happier if there were sources for the whole article, mind you.

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the questions! Hope my answers aren't terrible. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 16:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]