Wikipedia:Editor review/Cremepuff222

Cremepuff222
Hello, and welcome to my editor review! Feel free to be as straight-forward as you want so that I can become a better editor. --Cremepuff222 ( talk,  review me! ) 01:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 
 * Click edit on this page. Scroll down. Compare your signature to mine. Now, please make yours smaller. A lot smaller. Thanks. Picaroon 02:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please shorten your signature; it's far too long. Nice looking signatures aren't a problem; what is the problem is excessive code and bright colors which can put certain people off reading your comments. As for your edits, well, you've made over 2000 to user and user talk but a mere 136 to mainspace... what's going on? I mean a nice looking userpage is great, and communication is better, but do remember why we're here: we're writing an encyclopedia. That must come first, nothing else.

In conclusion, I suggest you step away from editing userspace, social chatting and fiddling with signature code and such, and start writing/improving some articles. I hope that helps.  Majorly  (o rly?) 02:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Overall, you have a decent editcount, but you still have quite a long way to go before you're ready for adminship. I wouldn't agree entirely with Majorly's comment about your sig - I don't think it's a major issue, but bear in mind that it does tend to annoy some users. Wal ton  Vivat Regina!  17:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with some of Majorly's comments, particularly the one about your balance of edits. You have a disproportionate number of userspace edits and very few mainspace edits - try to work more on article-writing. If you want to be an admin, you'll need serious experience with articles; it doesn't matter if you don't go for major edits, but you do need to demonstrate that you know how to use editing tools.
 * High number of user talk edits shows that you're good at communicating with other users - this is very important.
 * You also have very few WP namespace edits - this will seriously hinder you if you ever want to pass RfA. I suggest hanging around WP:AFD and commenting on a few deletion debates; this will give you valuable experience of deletion policy and process, which is very important in a would-be admin.
 * Try getting involved in recentchange patrolling and newpage patrolling. This will raise your mainspace edits and also demonstrate your commitment to fighting vandalism. If you don't have it already, try adding the popups tool to your monobook.js - it can be very helpful in vandal-fighting.

Most of my advice is this:

I hope this was helpful. '~' St ep  tr ip  23:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Update your userpage far less often (like I should talk)
 * Add  to your monobook.js file, this will add an RC program to your user account, which will boost your mainspace edit percentage.
 * Your mainspace percentage is very low (≈5.2%), try the above tip.
 * Get involved, join a WikiProject (e.g. WP:MOTD, WP:CVU).

You might remember me from the MfD on autograph books. One small point: wasn't the consensus in favour of removing the "sign book" links from editors' signatures? As of your last post, you still haven't done so. I would recommend that you do so soon as leaving it would most likely draw more contention than it's worth. Ayla 23:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm actually pleasantly surprised that there are still editors out there receptive enough to accept a recommendation and act upon it without a long-drawn-out debate over its merits. Anyway, keep it up! :-) Ayla 01:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I too, have to agree with Majorly; you have an extremely high number of user page edits, and an even higher number of user talk edits. Currently, your user talk edits are roughly equal to my own. While communication between users is good, communication should be used mainly for the improvement of Wikipedia, not chatting. Wikipedia is not MySpace, and should not be treated as such. Sure, I admit I did quite a few edits to my user page in my first couple of weeks, but I've done less than 90 edits to my own user page in all. A lot of my newer user page edits have come from my subpages (which are a couple of proposals of mine, and also some userboxes I created; I do not have an autograph book); I've done some corrections and vandalism reverting on a proposal created by Jimbo Wales; and I've reverted vandalism on others' user pages. You see, user pages should only be edited when they need to be. I am pleased to see, however, that your mainspace edits have gone from 136 to 259 since Majorly's review of you. I am glad you have listened to the past reviews; and I hope I can help you with this one. From the messages I've seen you leave, you're not a rude editor or anything like that, and I believe you do want to edit constructively; you just need to do more mainspace edits, and get involved in Wikipedia-space work too. Acalamari 18:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, very impressive edit count! Great work on Motto of the day - see your heavilly involved, however, this is a userpage project, so you may wish to calm down on this a bit. Your RC patrol is excellent, always giving appropriate warnings - this certainly often stops vandals in their tracks. I would suggest contributing more to WP:AFD, it's very important that editors who wish to go for adminship have a firm grasp of consensus. Also, it may be a good idea to actually edit some articles, take a look at a subject that interests you and see how you can improve it! Other than that - keep up the good work! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Ryanpostlethwaite on RC Patrolling. You are doing an excellant job. Keep it up!  &gt; K a mo p e &lt;  20:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Understand that blocking users isn't some sort of trophy, like here. Also, make sure that if a user has been given a last warning, then it has been recent. This IP was reported with a warning from over a month ago. --Wafulz 19:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * At AfDs, please do not merely state whether you think the topic is notable or non-notable, but explain why as well. A lack of sources or Google hits doesn't necessarily mean a topic is non-notable, though they may suggest that it is. Unless you are familiar with it, sometimes you can't tell whether something is notable just by reading the article, so it requires research and further consideration. If you're interested, there's a proposal at Article inclusion and its talk page to get rid of the term "notability" altogether, because it attracts too much subjectivity at AfDs. Remember that WP:USEFUL is not a satisfactory argument either. Happy editing. –Pomte 01:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your a very good user and very helpful as my Adopter. It's also very good that you can handle more than one adoptee at a time. Keep up the good work. Hmrox 01:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

is an edit you made that seems like a random meaningless message. Please don't communicate without stating what the message is for. --Canadianshoper 01:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)  Comments 


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

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * This is very cliche, but I believe that all constructive edits, regardless of their sizes, are important for building a better encyclopedia. I like to contribute with minor edits, such as copyeditting and formatting, so that any visitors don't judge our encyclopedia by the cover. So, my answer to this question is that I consider all of my edits good ones.
 * 1) 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?
 * One particular conflict that I was involved in was what I call the "Jimbo Wales Impersonation Fiasco". This fiasco all started with a user signing my autograph book with Jimbo Wales's signature, so I reported him on the Administrator's notice board. The user felt that this was an overreaction, and he was willing to justify all of his doings. I, being a new editor, fought back with equal force, and many of my words violated policies such as WP:AFG and WP:CIVILITY. Looking back, I should have kept cool and tried to view the situation from the other user's standpoint. I learned a lot from this conflict, and I put it to good use in an MfD that I was involved in. In the future I'll be sure to put what I've learned from experience and other users and hopefully avoid any particualrly bad conflicts with other users.

Really, my only thing to suggest is get your experience up. You're a good editor with tons of potential, but you just need more experience. With this, you can do anything! Muahaha :D No, but seriously. Just keep up with RC and New page patrolling. Check out some AfD discussions, too. -- Theunicyclegirl 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)