Wikipedia:Editor review/ANNAfoxlover

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] ANNAfoxlover

ANNAfoxlover (talk • contribs) I'm Anna. I would like to be reviewed because someone suggested it on my talk page. Also, I want to know what other people think of me as a Wikipedia user. I do want to become an administrator in the future, but in the meantime, I want some tips from other users. Also, I am a member of WP:-D, and I am trying to make every user feel at home here at Wikipedia. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 20:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • Here's my review:


  1. Take a look in the edit window, compare your sig to mine, see a difference? Your's is 5 lines long at shortest, mine is 3 in a condensed state. Try shortening it.
  2. Also try to avoid signing sig books / editing your userpage (like I should talk ;-)
  3. Try doing some anti-vandalism work.
Don't nominate yourself for adminship until you have a higher mainspace edit count percentage (see your talk page for a further discussion).


I hope this helped.  ~Steptrip 01:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with signing sig books? I only do that now in my spare time, after I edit the mainspace in the morning. And I am doing anti-vandalism work, but am I doing enough? I think I am, but what about you? But I'll take your advice and try to shorten my signature. It is quite big. By the way, your sig is a little disruptive in the way it uses a hard-to-read font and bright colors. Do you have any suggestions for my sig? If so, (and I hope you do) please put them at the bottom of "My Signature's Evolution". A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 02:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I don't think it would be a very good idea to nominate yourself for adminship right now; you have less than 1500 edits, and only about 500 in the article space. Also, a lot of people are going to be annoyed at you for the signature books, and your signature itself. My advice: Stay here a few more months, get some more edits in the encyclopedia, and we'll see in October. Abeg92contribs 15:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, I see that your edits are going up pretty fast (2118 as of now). Still, the users above are quite right that you need a fair few more before you're ready for adminship. Some specific suggestions:
  • Concentrate on making more edits to the mainspace - only 525 of your edits are mainspace (around 25%), which could draw opposes at RfA. Both vandal-fighting and article-writing are essential; I know you already do both of these things, so keep it up.
  • More edits to the WP namespace would be good as well. Try hanging around WP:AFD, as participating in deletion discussions will give you more policy experience.
  • You can also increase your WP talkspace edits by participating in policy discussions. There's an interesting one going on at WT:AI, for instance.
  • I'm not going to complain about your sig book, high number of userspace edits etc., as I think these would be bad reasons to oppose in an RfA. What I will say is that, although some users don't like elaborate sigs and userpages, these things are more likely to be overlooked at RfA if you have enough edits to the mainspace and so on, per my comments above.
Don't be discouraged. At the rate you're going, you should be ready in 1-2 months. Just concentrate on the key areas of Wikipedia - articles, vandal-fighting, XfDs - to get appropriate experience across the encyclopedia. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, thank you very much for the encouragement. I think you have encouraged me the most in the time I have been a Wikipedian. By the way, I have a better signature. How is it? Again, thank you very much! ;-) A•N•N•A hi! 18:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
In response to Walton's review, WP:MOTD would be another great place in which you could gain some WP edits (we're highly understaffed at MOTD, and it lacks all of the heated debate present at WP:AFD.  ~Steptrip 00:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Anna recently nominated Great Barrier Reef for FAC, having never worked on the article before and then promptly went on wikibreak. I contacted her and politely (I think, you can check for yourself in her archives) asked her to do something on the (pretty lengthy prior to the FAC) to do list if she wanted to give back to the article (she had said in the FAC that she had used the article for research, so I guessed that she was nominating the article as a favour to it). I was completely ignored, despite Anna contributing to some "word association" games in the meantime. Anna has yet to contribute to the article at all. Sorry Anna, but you're getting a thumbs down from me. -Malkinann 05:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Remembering the sig deletion talk and your posts at Talk:Cuteness do not leave me thinking highly of your editing. I think you spend a little too much time in the 'Fun' mode to the point that WP is something of a playground to you. In all, I suggest you take things more seriously, and perhaps you will have chance in the future at being an admin. The Behnam 09:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with The Benham's comments. While there are far too many users out there that are much "worse" than you (that is not meant to be derogatory to you in any way), you do need to focus more on editing the encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't for fun; fun can't be counterbalanced by doing some mainspace edits in the morning. I suggest you find a website to entertain yourself that is not only built for that purpose, but somewhere you can do it without people badgering you about it all the time. In addition, I believe you have a long way to go before adminship yet, but if you keep working, it's certainly possible. Good luck. --Deskana (ya rly) 01:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, back then I was just looking for a place to have fun. I am over that now. I know that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a playground. That Talk:Cuteness thing was back in what I like to call my "not so good days". I take things seriously now, but I am still a member of WP:-D, but I know that is not the most important thing. I am much more serious now, and am editing the encyclopedia the most. I am working hard on the List of Cars characters article; IT'S A MESS!!! Oh, well. A•N•N•A hi! 02:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You could perhaps do with a slightly higher edit count, although there is no recognised minimum figure (some editores like 3,000+) But you do need to show a significantly higher participation in WP:NAMESPACE; both your wikipedia and wikitalk edit counts are too low, I believe, to satify most editors.--Anthony.bradbury 16:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:ATT, WP:3RR, WP:BLP. These are the most crucial rules in Wikipedia, in my opinion. Also, not to be nitpicky, but you need to create some articles, as well as trim down the signature to one or two lines (at max). The spam incident with the autograph book may render negative votes. In addition, you have hardly any reports to WP:AIV. That detail at this point will be looked down upon as well. Real96 05:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of Deskana's points, though I have nothing new to add. As long as you realise what Wikipedia is for and work within that, you could be a great editor. Skult of Caro (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please make sure to use the edit summary on your edits. Your current percentage stands at 24% for major edits. That will almost certainly get you shot down at an RfA. Also, I would strongly advise admin coaching. HornandsoccerTalk 15:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MfD

I am here because you nominated my sandbox for deletion. I am appalled! I resent the implication that my sandbox is an area for vandalism. Firstly I hope you learnt from the feedback you got through that exercise - see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Sandboxes. Secondly your nomination marked the edit as minor, had no edit summary and you failed to advise the main editor. I would definitely not support any editor for promotion to adminship who exhibits such behaviour. I think you are very out of touch with wikipedia expectations.--Golden Wattle talk 11:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I believe that every contribution changes Wikipedia. Since my edits are not vandalism, I would have to say that I am proud of every contribution I make.
  2. 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?
    When I first came to Wikipedia, I was pretty much a horrible user. I am extremely unproud of those first days. Well, what I did was I used Wikipedia as a web host for my own website, creating a survey. HighInBC and I got into quite a fight. But I'm over that now, because I know that Wikipedia's main purpose is to be a free encyclopedia. Another problem I had is when I found out about autograph pages. It turns out they were a lot of fun, and I got to know quite a few users. I guess they were too fun, since I went to users everywhere, asking them to sign my autograph page. It got way out of hand, since I got a few other users doing the same thing. I even caused an AfD discussion, putting hundreds of other users' autograph pages in danger. Deskana helped me a lot, and eventually became my current adopter. Now I am an experienced editor, editing the encyclopedia much more, and am currently working on becoming an administrator.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/i/Wikipedia%7EEditor_review_ANNAfoxlover_b663.html"