Wikipedia:Editor review/Mono (3)

Mono
I'm thinking about applying for adminship sometime this year, however, I would like some feedback to becoma a better editor.

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * ''My favorite contributions are probably the articles I've written:
 * Doodle4Google
 * Google Chrome Extensions
 * Conversation threading
 * Google Sidewiki
 * Work in WP:39
 * Significant cleanup (still in progress) on The 39 Clues
 * List_of_teams_in_The_39_Clues
 * Cahill Branches
 * Creation of task force
 * Portal:iPhone OS and Portal:Google (in progress)
 * Reviewing at WP:AfC
 * Signpost articles
 * WP:NPPing
 * See all created articles mono 16:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Have you been in any disputes 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?
 * Recent dispute with Codedon, however, I've moved on and gained experience that will help me in the future.

 Reviews  I don't think RfA is a viable option this year, honestly. To put it bluntly, you need to stop using all templates when they aren't required (including those annoying ones). On another note, Signpost involvement seems fine from a reader's point of view and work in projects is good too. Still recommend reading over WP:N and its branches, as a few of your articles are at AfD. We don't need a history of.. or outline of... everything, either. Also, recommend no more adopting, but focus on your writing--maybe try something new, like historical subjects? Also sourcing: Cahill Branches is completely unsourced. In any case, I think you've come a long way, but there is much more to go.  fetch  comms  ☛ 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick review from  fetch  comms  ☛
 * Thank you, Ftechcomms (without the template)--mono 19:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Mono, you asked for an editor review; here's mine. My first impression of you was "This is a nice guy." However, that has changed greatly through our ongoing dispute. First, when you offer adoption to a new user, keep an eye on their page to avoid the user needing to go through the hassle of contacting you. In my case, after I accepted the adoption, I was left in solitude, with no clue as to how I should contribute constructively. In the future, please please respect your adoptees. Second, it is understandable if you misspell someone's name once, but when you are pointed out for it, it is imperative that you stop. You continue to misspell my name just to spite me. I see that you've misspelled Fetchcomms' name by misplacing the e and t. Is that to spite him? You seem to have a history of misspelling the names of those who point out your errors. Third, when I tried to help you by deleting some extra characters from your talk page, you responded by hostilely reverting my edit. I know that some people are quite arrogant and will not accept that they have done something incorrectly or unclean. In my opinion, with the little knowledge I have about Wikipedia, I can't see how superciliousness is going to help in life or on Wikipedia. I'd advise you to take not changes that users make in honest intention so seriously or personally &mdash; they are not attacks against the work that you do here. A small mistake on your talk page is no reason to lash out at others by templating them. This segues into my next concern. Templating too much, as Fetchcomms has mentioned, is unhelpful. The templates you gave me did not help me learn about Wikipedia at all &mdash; all they did was fuel our dispute. Next time a dispute comes up, I advise you not to resort to templating to try to prevail &mdash; it really won't work unless you're dealing with someone wimpy. Lastly, perhaps this quote will be even more helpful for you to follow than any advice anyone has given you."Making your mark on the world is hard. If it were easy, everybody would do it. But it's not. It takes patience, it takes commitment, and it comes with plenty of failure along the way. The real test is not whether you avoid this failure, because you won't. it's whether you let it harden or shame you into inaction, or whether you learn from it; whether you choose to persevere. (Barack Obama)" Live by this, and all else follows. Codedon (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Review from Codedon (talk)
 * One thing I did not mention was your article writing. Check out Sutherland Trail, an article you created late last year. See how much cleaner it looks now? Though I was still fairly new, I decided to try cleaning up that mess. After studying the many help pages the Wikipedia community produced for newcomers but mostly sifting through the markup of exemplary articles including wife selling and Colton Point State Park, I was able to upgrade the article. It's quite unfortunate that the editing skills of a newcomer can surpass those of you, a longtime editor. In short, improve your article work. Codedon (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Codedon, you need to seriously rephrase/delete that. See WP:TROLL. Mono, you do need more article work, although you talk percentage is high only because you leave plenty of talkback messages ;). Try looking at some GAs and GA reviews, etc. for article examples. Not much else I can think of (I might do a full review later). Come back soon, Airplaneman   ✈  03:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick review from Auntie E. (talk)

I've looked at some of your article work, and it shows that you still have some ways to go. Doodle4Google violates WP:CRYSTAL for one. But also looking at your edit counter, it shows that the majority of your edits are to user talk (49%), with only 14% of your edits in article space. That gives the impression to many RFA voters (rightly or no) that your focus here is more for socialisation than encyclopedia work. So I'd suggest you correct that imbalance and learn a bit more about how articles are constructed before making a run for RFA. Auntie E. (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)