Wikipedia:Editor review/Cyclonenim

Cyclonenim
I'm currently participating in an RfA (likely to fail) and want to improve my overall editing ability here on WP and also improve my chances for the next RfA CycloneNimrodtalk? 19:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 Reviews 
 * '''Review by JamieS93

Hi Cyclone. I'm JamieS93, and I know I haven't talked with you before, but I've seen a lot of your contribs, and I generally think you're a good user. I'm going to make some suggestions of things to work on or areas to become more involved in, although there are definitely things that I like about your edits.

The positive:
 * WP:CIV. In all of your interactions with other users that I've observed, you've been very courteous and nice, which what I really like seeing. Also, you seem to have a good knowledge of WP:AGF, since you often chose Twinkle's general rollback option when reverting page blanking/removal of content, and even the AGF choice sometimes. (diff1, diff2 diff3, etc.)
 * Article improvement. I like your article edits in general. While I wouldn't say that they're quite advanced, exactly, I've seen from your edits that you have good experience cleaning up and formatting articles, as well as referencing and expanding them with more info.
 * Anti-vandalism. Keep up the vandalism reverting! (while still being careful, of course). You have a good balance, in my opinion, of vandal-fighting and real article edits. As far as I've seen, you seem to be decent at not being too reckless with RC patrolling and reverting edits, which can be easy to do.

Some things to work on:
 * WP:GA. Sometime soon, you might want to try expanding/improving something to Good Article status; as far as I know you haven't majorly contributed to a GA yet. Pick something you want to write on, and start working your way to GA. I could be wrong - if you already have something in mind that you're gonna try to get to GA, that's great. And further along in the future, a couple of GAs or an FA would be best if you're considering adminship. The more advanced article-building experience, the better.
 * User pages edits. I've noticed that you've made, up to this moment, 184 edits to your userpage. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but if that continues at a similar rate, you're likely to get some folks who won't like the look of that. It can appear that you're more into how your userpage looks, or a sign of not focusing on building up the encyclopedia enough. Maybe try making less changes, or more of them in one edit to reduce your userpage edit count.
 * Edit summaries. It would be good to work on providing these more often, since they still seem to be kind of spotty by looking at your wannabekate stats. It only takes a few moments to fill in the ES box, and is highly encouraged amongst users as it's a quick easy way to identify what changes you've made in your edits. To help in remembering to add an edit summary, you can turn on the "Remind me to provide an edit summary" option under your Editing preferences.
 * Previewing edits. You might want to preview your edits more, as it appears that you sometimes have reverted your own edits after they didn't look right or there was a formatting error. I suppose this is okay to do occasionally, but previewing edits can be very helpful in catching errors before you actually make them. An example of what I mean is here.
 * Involvement in other areas. I would suggest that you get more involved in some other areas of Wikipedia, and broaden your knowledge and experience; mainly I'm thinking of WP:AfD voting, and also some helping at the desks (Help, Ref). Both of those things can help in fully familiarizing yourself with all of Wikipedia's ins-and-outs, guidelines and policies.

FYI, don't be discouraged that the the last list was longer. I mainly did that to point out the specifics; working on negatives is the best way to improve, not just all positives. I do suggest that you consider those things that I mentioned, although not all of them are distinctly critical problems. Generally, when I first saw some of your contribs, I really liked you, especially the lack of incivility, which so often creeps into people's discussions and disputes. Add civility with some more experience, and the combo would be great. Have a good day! -- Jamie  S93  18:57, 19 April 2008 (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?
 * I'm proud of my work in the Medicine Collaboration of the Week as that is collaborative work with other users. In addition, i'm pleased with my ongoing edits of Mucormycosis and Sézary's disease as i've spent plenty of time on those.
 * 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?
 * I think anyone here on Wikipedia would say they've experienced less pleasant users than others during their time, and i'm not exception. I've dealt with stress towards other users by simply checking over what i'm saying before I save the page as this enables me to remove anything that I may deem overly harsh. I avoid getting into disputes and edit wars by ensuring after the second reversion of an article/talk page, the dispute is solved at an individual users talk page, not on the article/talk page in question. This allows for things to be dealt with in an overall more professional manner. Secondly, I'm aided by fellow editors with their opinions on the matter.
 * I think anyone here on Wikipedia would say they've experienced less pleasant users than others during their time, and i'm not exception. I've dealt with stress towards other users by simply checking over what i'm saying before I save the page as this enables me to remove anything that I may deem overly harsh. I avoid getting into disputes and edit wars by ensuring after the second reversion of an article/talk page, the dispute is solved at an individual users talk page, not on the article/talk page in question. This allows for things to be dealt with in an overall more professional manner. Secondly, I'm aided by fellow editors with their opinions on the matter.


 * Review by StuRat (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 

Things to work on:


 * Your overzealous deletion of Ref Desk questions is a negative indication of how you would perform as an Admin. We are already way over our quota of overzealous Admins who block people for "what could possibly be taken as an insult".  What we need instead are Admins who will block people and remove pages only as a last resort.  StuRat (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment but I respectfully disagree. The first question to be deleted was a mistake, admittedly, and in the second one I may have been a little hasty but this doesn't make me 'overzealous' nor does it mean i'm going to go and block people without taking care in my actions. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk? contribs? 22:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)