Wikipedia:Editor review/Razorflame 2

Razorflame
Hello there. I would like a review on how I am doing here. Thank you. Razorflame 20:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My primary contributions to the English Wikipedia are my many vandalism reverts. That is the only thing that I am good at at this point in time, and the only thing that I have time to do right now.
 * 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 still have not had any major issues or problems between me and/or any other user on this site besides the few IP addresses that have had questions of me in the past, and I believe that I resolved their questions fairly quickly and civilly.
 * I still have not had any major issues or problems between me and/or any other user on this site besides the few IP addresses that have had questions of me in the past, and I believe that I resolved their questions fairly quickly and civilly.

 Reviews 

Just a comment on the aesthetics: The color scheme is pretty extreme. I get the impression it's as vibrant as your personality. That can be quite an asset but it's important to remember that the vast majority of people in the world are more subdued. Unless they're color blind, bright red / dark green / sea blue / canary yellow on lime green on teal is likely to strike most as gawdy.

That being said, the actual info is well arranged. Ordered and concise. Simple, yet elegant. I really like it. Two minor arrangement suggestions you might could tinker with:

1. See how the page looks with the Userboxes stretching 4-wide. I think the reduction in whitespace (or in this case, greenspace) would add to the aforementioned strength of the page's arrangement. Although you'll have to check that under various screen settings - while it may not work so well at 800x600, I believe the majority of people view pages at 1024x768 or greater (full-disclosure - I'm viewing it at 1280x960).

2. In the contributions box, the repeat of  'Made the article'  39 times homogenizes the list, greatly diminishing the scope of your contributions. Similarly, you might see how it looks without the country listed with every city (ie.  Olari instead of Olari, Arad). Perhaps you could make that section into a 2 column table (again reducing whitespace) - with the first column heading  'Made the Article'  and the second  'Contributed to Article'  (or  'Article Contributions'  or some such)

Additionally, I don't think it would hurt for you to compile the data (or its highlights) on your stats page and display it in a table in your Contributions section. It's interesting (and impressive) info that will make the page more robust.

I know how useful another perspective can be, so I just thought I'd give you some input to chew on. You are, of course, free to disregard any or all of my suggestions. Either way, good luck and have fun! -K10wnsta (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm appending this because I didn't have time to elaborate on my summary earlier (although it was the crux of what I intended to write). I got a bit sidetracked in offering input on how you could better display your contributions. Why? Because they're impressive. You've applied yourself to so many things across the various wikimmunities - I had to do a good deal of clicking from your page to see the scope of it (and every time I went back to your user page, I about had a seizure from the colors :) ). It looks like you've involved yourself in a little bit of everything.  I'm glad I had the opportunity to see your effort. -K10wnsta (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)