Actually: this page should be titled: "Have done / Am Doing / Hope to do"
- History of veterinary medicine in Pennsylvania
- Mark Twain Boyhood Home & Museum
- Augustus Tolton (some pics now uploaded)
- John Wood Mansion (some pics uploaded)
- 1960 Daytona 500
- History of NASCAR (books now in house)
- Oost-Indisch doof zijn. To be East-Indian deaf. (see also:Rudy Kousbroek)(links bookmarked in wiki folder)
- Harry Dixon Loes (almost done)
- Dexter Avenue Baptist Church (book on the way)
- (see wp:harrassment and search diffs for current arbcase)
- See Also: Have worked on
- Years in NASCAR
- 1954 In NASCAR
- 1956 In NASCAR
- 1957 In NASCAR (working)
- 1958 In NASCAR
- 1959 In NASCAR
- 1960 In NASCAR
- 1962 In NASCAR
- 1964 In NASCAR (Chedzilla)
- 1967 In NASCAR
- 1968 In NASCAR
- 1969 In NASCAR (working)
- BLP Uncat
- BLP Watchlist
- Categorize: WP:UBLP
- Check new BLPs: WP:NEWBLP
- Participate in AFDs: BLP AFDs
- Help resolve content issues: WP:BLP/N
- Monitor recent changes to BLPs: BLP watchlist
- Remove BLP vios: WP:BLPFIX, Unsourced statements, All unreferenced BLPs, BLPs lacking sources
To Start Working On
Expand and/or fix
Raps and Rhymes
Projects I Enjoy
|Star Trek||Stock Car Racing||Movies|
|items that need work||items that need work||items that need work|
Other Items I Watch and/or Edit
- Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing I read and contribute when I feel I can add some help or insight.
- New Pages I read through the backlog of new pages that have not been patrolled, and check to see if there are spelling issues, naming issues, spam issues, and such, then mark as patrolled. Great way to get trivia type of new info.
- Beatles Music. Nothing I've done so far, but may add a little down the road.
- Larry Sanger No particular interest other than passing interest in subject. Still seems POV against Wikipedia to me, (in section about comparisons to Citizendum), and while I tried to contribute, I guess the article it of too high a rating for my current skill level. Could be a good learning article for me though.
My Task List
Articles I'm working on behind my user page.
- Communication An essay I started by jotting down some thoughts about communicating through text articles vs. face-to-face "talk". Originally it was meant only to remind myself that written text doesn't always convey the actual intended tone of a conversation. A seasoned editor saw it, and remarked that it should be cleaned up and submitted for an essay. I work on it from time to time.
What I've done in the past
- copyedit un-patrolled new pages.
- copyedit watchlist
- spell check with Lupin
- anti-vandal with Lupin Anti-Vandal tool
- monitor help desk
- monitor Reference Desk / Computer
- edit my sandbox articles
- read page after page after page of policy
- read disputes and resolutions
- monitor and participate in:
- tagged revision
- fictional notability
Projects I Watch
I read and watch articles from the following, but I really haven't done much editing at any particular group yet:
|(I work in this field, so I'm easily drawn into arguments.
I try to avoid any conflicts by reading, not editing.
I offer my help where I can at the Reference Desk)
|(This group has things pretty well in hand, I only edit if I see a typo or something).|
|Just found this, may be something I could contribute to. Heavy Linux membership|
|See Above. Might be able to help here.|
|Root of the above computer related interests.|
|Ahhh .. This is what I was looking for. My kind of folks.|
|Hobby that I enjoy|
|The parent group for malware|
- Emancipation (removed)
- I put a lot of work into this Season 1 Episode 3 article about sexism and treating women like second class people. The regular editors who patrol this project felt the article did not meet notability guidelines, so I removed it myself in order to maintain a future good working relationship with these editors. I did not agree with the decision (as personal preference), but abided by collective wishes of the other editors. I felt I could have debated this to some extent, but Editors did provide friendly constructive explanations with links. I may revisit this after I have more experience.
- * MS Antivirus (reverted)
- I spent too much time on talk pages trying to get useful information and links added, but patrolling editors rejected suggestions. My personal opinion is that it is a responsible course of action to provide information to readers that would show them how to remove and combat malware such as this. Perhaps the patrolling editors are more interested in quoting policy (no How To), than actually providing info. Personally, I have no desire to get into a debate quoting IAR, and Be Bold kind of things, I have a life to get on with. When I did try to add links to the page, they were deleted within 20 min. without discussion. So much for policy. Maybe they actually are computer knowledgeable, and simply want to keep the information secluded in order to increase their value in the field. I don't know ... and I'm not gonna fight that battle. I've been through these types of arguments in real life with "geeks" who want computer information to remain secluded from public eyes, and it's like banging your head against a wall. I'm too old for that kind of crap myself. The last straw was when I supplied file descriptions for an anti-malware program, only to have it removed 12 minutes later. No discussion, no questions ... just revert ((WP:ADVERT, editorializing, WP:OR, whatever)) was the claim. Well, I don't want to be all that ... so ... onward to more friendly waters.
- malwarebytes (reverted)
- see above (MS Antivirus) for more details. I worked and re-worked this article, and met with cold shoulders for the most part. Another editor has been more fortunate in improving this. The revert was actually on Malwarebytes, after discussion on talk pages of both articles, I concentrated work on this first. see this diff for more details, and history surrounding articles. After mentioning on MS Anti-Virus article that I would work on Malwarebytes first, 12 minutes after an edit it was reverted. Paranoid? ... perhaps. I stepped back and researched editors involved, and concluded this was not a battle I wished to engage in at this time. Editor in question has 2 year history of reverts, and being called on it, yet maintains a deletionist attitude with constant WP:Note and WP:FORUM tags. I'm not quite willing to move this to my mistakes section, simply because I still believe that adding information about the topic at hand (how it gets installed) was a "forum", but rather my observations that I never tried to get into mainspace, but was in search of verifiable information.
- Larry Sanger (all efforts reverted)
- I visited the page through an RFC, and tried to help with some editing. Every suggestion and edit was rebuked by a patrolling editor who placed LOL in revert summaries, and contradicted him/her self repeatedly. Looking at the history of the editor suggested that he/she was more interested in creating a wiki-drama than actually improving the article. I figure my efforts would be better focused in other areas.
- Some minor errors in syntax and choice of tags / templates
- stub vs. expand (while tagging unpatrolled new pages)
- had sample tags (like hangon) in a sample doc, caused page to be put on a watchlist.
- Move: didn't read carefully enough, moved M. Keaton to Author M. Keaton (wording in first sentence) (ticked an editor or two, but got it fixed)
- Spelling: wasn't taking into account British spelling vs. US spelling. Downloaded UK dictionary add-on for Firefox
- I'm listing Shags as a mistake, although it's something I put some work in to in order to make it right. Originally a redirect, it had grown into a promotional article (spam) about a non-notable band. I tagged as such, and it was deleted. Once the original editor contacted me about it's original intent, and with the help of administrator Royalbroil, it was restored as a redirect, and I converted it into it's current "dab" state. Had I done enough research into the full history (instead of the last 3 or 4 edits), I could have avoided the deletion process all the way around - and gone straight to dab.
- An attempt to fix spelling the spelling of imagin (to imagine) provoked a rather insulting response from an administrator - discussion is on talk (May 2009)
- I attempted to communicate with an administrator in hopes of expressing my reasoning for the term "default", and explaining that I do indeed review any RfA candidates which I !vote for. Either because she was not in good humor, or because of my lack of abilities to express myself in the "Kings Proper English" - it didn't go well. While I definitely feel that her last reply was uncalled for (and perhaps even a bit out-of-character), it was her talk page so rather than debate or question the issue - I attempted to take the high-road, avoid drama, and I simply left after offering an apology. Checking back, it didn't appear that my apology was accepted, nor did it appear that there were any regrets in the administrator with regards to her tone. Perhaps she took my post as being critical or judgmental of her or her actions. Certainly not my intent, as I was only attempting to elaborate on why I personally make the decisions I do, but it is a plausable explination.
- note: actually an IRC comment. My attempt at humor (Obama), was met with a rather crude and vile reply by a long term admin. I had no further reply.
- While working on BLP unCat project - cat: BLP as "Living People" instead of "Living people" (note case). Stupid mistake, I just can't seem to get anything right at the moment. sigh.
- In "R from something" - the "R" is for redirects only, not the target articles. Misunderstanding from discussion.