Wikipedia:Editor review/Spongefrog

Spongefrog
I'm called Spongefrog. I made an account in early February of this year, and became gradually more and more active over the following weeks. I got rollback rights a few weeks ago. Oh, and I don't normally act as immature as my userpage makes me appear, I swear. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!)  17:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Your awsome!!! Thanks for helping me out when I was in hot water!-- Coldplay   Expert  18:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're a funny person, who can always be counted upon to give a few laughs - and that's saying something. Plus you do a lot of productive work as well. I think we need more users like you; People who keep us hooked to WP. Who says encyclopaedia's are boring ? Not while you're around !! Keep up the good work, you may soon graduate to the status of being a role model !  Rkr 1991  (Wanna chat?) 19:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * you're a cool dude (frog, robot, czar, thing). you are simply amazing(I guess?) bravo, my main man (frog, robot, czar, thing) bravo. regards-- Orange  soda  kid  18:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense, but this isn't a section for pure compliments. Your supposed to review the editor, in this case Spongefrog. Abce2 | This is  not a test  23:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe, yeah, I sort of have to semi-agree with Abce2 here. Not that I don't like compliments or anything. I feel bad now, sorry, Lord Spongefrog  (review)   (I am Czar of all Russias)  09:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the funny guy who thinks he is the Czar of all Russias. You are amazing! December21st2012Freak  chat 23:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Alright then, let me back up my comments, I belive LSP is amazing becasue he has helped me out with several problems in the past as well as being very friendly to newcommers like me (am I still a newcomer?)-- Coldplay   Expert  18:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Guys, you are still missing the point. What you are supposed to do on Editor Review is look at Spongefrog's edits and then give him constructive suggestions on how he can improve them.  Things like "you need to leave edit summaries" or "you need to provide sources for your edits".  I am not saying Spongefrog is not doing those things, those are just examples, I have not actually reviewed his edits.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  17:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Abce2 and/or Spinningspark, why don't one of you set an example? Please, Lord Spongefrog  (review)   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  18:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Abce2 | This is  not a test  18:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Reviewed by: Spinningspark

Your edit count shows 6,000 edits, which is not bad going for someone who has been on for less than a year. Nearly 60% is in article space and 25% is in talk space which is a good balance (well ok, a bit more talk than average but well within limits). Too little in talk space can be a sign of an editor who cannot communicate with others (I get the feeling that has never been your problem) and too much can be the sign of someone who is on Wikipedia to chat instead of building the encyclopedia. Not too much store should be set by these kind of statistics though, there are all sorts of reasons they may be skewed, high edit count can be through using automated tools, absence of talk can be a Wikignome doing something blindingly uncontroversial etc etc. Your use of edit summaries is nearly (but not quite) 100%, also a good sign.

Articles created are all very small stubs so there is not much that can be analysed there. Other mainspace edits show a good range of articles being edited, again a good sign, people here to push a POV often show interest in a very limited number of articles, sometimes just one. Your mainspace edits have a good smattering of added references, you should continue to aim for absolutely everything you write being referenced. This is good discipline and is a check preventing POV and OR unintentionally creeping in. The vast majority of your mainspace edits seem to be small incremental changes, but in some cases if you view them all together, it can amount to a quite substantial addition to the article (example) and I see you were a major contributor to Charles Widmore and got it on DYK. Nevertheless, I feel you are at the stage where you could write more substantial pieces of your own rather than just tinkering with existing articles. Maybe expand some of your stubs?

I notice that you have ambitions to be an admin (according to one of your userboxes). I think you will make a great admin, you are not yet ready for an RfA but I think you have the right stuff to be one in time. However, I need to tell you that you will have to do some big time cleanup on your user page if you are serious about that. Don't get me wrong, I like your userpage, I even liked your "shame list" (at one time I considered restoring it just so I could put the humourless jerk of an admin who deleted it onto it, but I figured you are capable of making enough trouble for yourself without my help) and it will be sad if all that changes. However, you need to consider the impression you are creating for someone coming to your page asking for your help as an admin, or more likely, with a complaint. Is your page telling them they will get a fair hearing from you?, is it saying you will carefully and properly consider what they have to say? will they believe you are an experienced editor who understands what he is doing? It is no use saying that you will change it if you become an admin. If you want to be an admin you need to start acting like one now. I was lucky enough to have an excellent admin coach when I got the mop. I can't do better than repeat his advice; if you act like an admin, in a sense you are one already and giving you the tools becomes no big deal, if you are not acting like an admin, people will not believe you can do it and will be reluctant to make you one. That's not to say you should deliberately deceive people, just that you should always think "how would I handle this if I were an admin" and then go do the thing you just thought of.

One small point. I don't care too much for the row of barnstar symbols on the top of your userpage. This is the place many editors use for FAC stars. The barnstars can easily be mistaken for FAC stars at a casual glance and some people (but not including me) might think you are being deceptive.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  15:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, you covered it. Abce2 |  This is  not a test  22:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

 Questions

Additional Question from -- Coldplay   Expert  18:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * To begin with, I did Wikignoming almost exclusively, but have done some article writing and recently branched out into vandal fighting. I've done two GAs, both in collaboration with (although Drilnoth did most of the work to the first one). I do some WP:AfD work too. Very little experience at ANI, although I did help out  on Monday, after he was about to get blocked
 * 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?
 * No disputes really, but I had a couple of warnings early on in my Wikilife, mostly for an obsession with getting Barnstars (I had a list with all the people who had seen my userpage and not given me any). I think I apologised prolificaly, and I've more or less been forgiven. Oh, and I was once blocked. All I can really say for myself is that it was a variation on WP:BROTHER. That would explain most of it. Think that's all.
 * No disputes really, but I had a couple of warnings early on in my Wikilife, mostly for an obsession with getting Barnstars (I had a list with all the people who had seen my userpage and not given me any). I think I apologised prolificaly, and I've more or less been forgiven. Oh, and I was once blocked. All I can really say for myself is that it was a variation on WP:BROTHER. That would explain most of it. Think that's all.
 * 1) What is your strongest and weakest positions to wikipedia?
 * Umm...I'm not quite sure what you mean. Think you could clarify a bit more? Do you mean what am I best at and what am I worst at? Lord Spongefrog  (review)   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  18:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes sorry about that, I must have worded that wrong.-- Coldplay   Expert  23:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not really best at anything in particular. I'm just okay at most stuff. Oh wait, I'm good at typing out citewebs. I didn't use to be, but now I am. And I'm quite good at dealing with high amounts of vandalism in a short amount of time. To the same article I mean. I used to be horribly uncivil, insulting vandals etc. under the radar, but I'm not any more. So my worst thing is probably making decisions. Sometimes in an awkward situation, I'll panic, or not understand policy, and run off to an admin for help, Lord Spongefrog  (review)   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  08:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no, ignore everything above. Well, actually don't that's overreacting. I have almost no knowledge on uploading images or how to manage them and that sort of stuff, Lord Spongefrog  (review)   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  19:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)