Wikipedia:Editor review/Springeragh

User:Springeragh
I am not an administrator yet (and probably far from being one), but before that and while first things are still first, I'd like to be reviewed on anything you think I need to be reviewed on. I myself think that I really need more (main) edits, as my User, User talk, and Wikipedia edits quite dwarfs it. But I'll leave it to you. :) —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ 15:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Well, you're certainly off to a good start by recognising an area in which you could improve. You're doing very well overall, and I won't fault you on your wider contributions, but you're probably aware that you need a much larger history of mainspace editing to have a reasonable hope of succeeding in an RfA: aim for at least 1,000. I highly recommend you involve yourself in something like WP:RCP or improving articles that interest you to GA- or FA-class. As well as that, please try to use edit summaries on every edit you make: it takes a couple of seconds, but I can't emphasise how much easier it makes life for everyone. You're doing very well, but you may benefit from simply expanding your activities in the future. :) RandyWang ( chat/patch ) 11:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're doing a great job, but on an RfA, people will call you on the fact that almost all your Wikipedia-space edits are to the Esperanza Coffee Lounge. I would recommend participating in AfD and some vandal-fighting. Great job, though! --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 01:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, but I have followed quite a few RfAs. As stated above, I would encourage you to become more involved in editing mainspace articles (but I'm a fine one to say that!), and perhaps joining some WikiProjects. If you do wish to become an administrator in the future, people will also point out your lack of involvement in recent changes patrolling/vandal-fighting. On the plus side, you have shown many times that you interact well with your fellow Wikipedians, and that's an important skill. With a bit of work, you could become an attractive RfA candidate. --Tachikom a 00:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to go to college in a couple of minutes so, let me say this quickly. You've been a very good contributor, better than me,:-P, and where ever you make your edits, everyone of them count in some way. I haven't made an edit to the article space for a couple of days and it doesn't bother me. *some more ramblings about your sig and some wiki-serious stuff*. You're a good friend and dont ever change, mate. ;-) Jayant, 17 Years, India  • contribs 03:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Question: Does your mainspace edit count (95) just include those under your new username? Not to be harsh but, if not, you *really* have to contribute more to mainspace.  -- Samir धर्म  05:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Me again. I also urge you to use more descriptive edit summaries. Good edit summaries help future editors track what has been changed from version to version, as well as the reasons for the changes. Your frequency of using edit summaries can also be tracked using javascript tools, and it plays a factor in RfAs. Definitely less of a factor than the number and quality of mainspace edits, but definitely more than signature issues. --Tachikom a 05:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem like a really nice person, so I won't bitch about the fact that you have more coffee lounge edits than mainspace edits. No wait, I will :p Yeah, like everyone else said, work on the mainspace a little more, although every edit counts. Keep an eye on them edit summaries (you can put something in your .js to remind you about them, or there's an option in your preferences, as I'm sure you already know). While it's really great that you're so active in Esperanza (hell, I wish I had time to stick around there once in a while, heard they do some wicked cappucino) the encyclopedia should come first. Best wishes, &mdash; riana_dzast a  wreak havoc''' 04:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

 Comments 
 * Please consider simplifying your signature, if you are serious about pursuing an RfA in the future. While it doesn't bother me personally, there are some people who will automatically vote "Oppose" in an RfA if a candidate has a signature that is too long, too colourful, or that contains "non-standard" characters. People with visual impairments may also find your signature difficult to read. WP:SIG has more information regarding this issue. Thanks. --Tachikom a 16:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Non-standard meaning (for example) the ε and the Cyrillic Я? —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-¢|  ε  |Ŀ|T|♪-) 17:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but also the fact that your signature combines both regular and italic characters, and that it includes links to Esperanza, your talk page, and more. As I said before, it doesn't bother me personally, but you should be aware that some users do object to long or complex signatures. To give you some idea, I believe that Phaedriel was called on her sig in her recent RfA, though it ultimately didn't lead to an oppose vote (and in her case, it wouldn't have mattered). --Tachikom a 17:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. So would only a link to my user and talk pages be a good base? —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-¢|  ε  |Ŀ|T|♪-) 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not sure if that's sufficient. Keeping WP:NPA in mind, I don't want to name those users whom I know to be picky about sigs. I understand that you spent some time constructing your signature, and I don't want you to feel hurt... but at the same time, I don't want to see a hypothetical future RfA fail over something as minor as the length and complexity of your sig. My recommendation would be to work on your mainspace edits for now, and change your sig whenever you feel up to it. --Tachikom a 19:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please lose the fake "you have messages" boxes. For those of us who are very active on wiki and receive a lot of messages they are a pain in the arse. --kingboyk 09:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. :) — $PЯINGεrαgђ  20:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Statistics for: Springeragh (Permissions: N/A) - Total: 1594 - Main: 95 Talk: 22 User: 642 User talk: 365 Wikipedia: 428 Wikipedia talk: 18 Image: 13 Template: 6 Template talk: 4 Category talk: 1 --- Total edits: 1594 w/ edit summary: 1053 (66.06%*) w/ manual edit summary: 362 (22.71%*) Minor edits: 213 (13.36%*) First known edit: Nov 19, 2005 --- ---
 * See this user's edit history with Interiot's tool and edit summary usage (Warning:Both tools have stopped updating and the edit counts are way off. Please consider using Flcelloguy's Tool or Interiot's Tool 2)
 * User's current editing statistics according to Flcelloguy's tool. RandyWang ( chat/patch ) 20:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * - percentages are rounded down to the nearest hundredth.

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * Wow…I'm not really sure. Probably the articles I've created (1 and 2), simply because I created them; but probably the Konstantin Soukhovetski article, because I heard him in Auburn, Califonira in January and he played a concerto really well, and I'm happy about the article because a few other people have improved it farther than I ever thought possible. I'm also proud of my edits to romantic musicians. —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-¢|  ε  |Ŀ|T|♪-) 20:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * No edit conflicts or edit wars, but in the "circle of friends" I know, there has been an interesting blow-up that I would prefer not to talk about, mainly because I don't know everything that went on. If it were to happen directly to me, I'm not sure what I'd do, because it's never happened. I would probably deal with it as it came and depending on what form it took. —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-¢|  ε  |Ŀ|T|♪-) 20:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Good job! Nothin' bad that I see. Randfan 17:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)