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)

Adding - I also agree that listing user sandboxes on MFD would garner some opposes from users if you were to run for RFA (which I highly suggest that you don't do...now). I personally feel that you are not familiar with policy, which is outlined on your welcome template, yet. I also suggest that you make a note on SuggestBot's page to see what articles you should edit. Also, you should avoid at all costs signature books, since they look social to some users. Real96 12:33, 29 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)

  • Golden Wattle's Review - 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)
    • Also don't tell fibs - the transparency of the editing history process means you may well get caught out. On your talk page you said you had been away and hence you had not straightened out a tagging issue on an article [1]. Your contributions history clearly illustrates that you contributed to the wikipedia each day between the 1st of April when you tagged that article (no edit summary and no comment on the talk page, another problem also) and the time when the issue was raised with you on your user talk page. --Golden Wattle talk 00:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • $UIT's Review - I'll say it straight out: Don't nominate yourself for adminship at this point. You lack the experience administrators have. You have low wikispace edits, low mainspace edits, low edit summary usage, and I have absolutely no idea why you nominated sandbox subpages for deletion, that was one of the most rediculous MFD's I've seen. Now, work on your mainspace and wikispace edits, and when you have over at least 2500-3000 edits, should you nominate yourself for adminship. Sorry if this sounded a bit harsh. Regards,--$UIT 06:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

AniMate's Review I don't see a problem with too many of your mainspace edits, but you have a long way to go before I'd even consider voting neutral on your adminship. You have six useless subpages, and you should really condense all of that nonsense into one subpage. For you to start an MfD on personal sandboxes, which are wonderfully useful tools, when you have SIX subpages that add absolutely nothing to the encyclopedia is going to disqualify you from adminship for sometime. If you're serious about wanting to be an admin, I'd suggest familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. As it stands, I'd say you have at least 1 year before you can become an admin. You're obviously quite young, and you've made some serious breaches of good conduct. Nothing blockable, but the subpages, the FAC for the Great Barrier Reef, nominating You and other words for deletion, and the sandbox MfDs have not won you any support. I guess I can't stress how useful and important sandboxes are. They help contributors create articles and figure out formatting without disrupting articles. Can you possibly tell me how subpages dedicated to the evolution of your signature, dedicated to userboxes designed to tell people how many more userboxes they have to go through, dedicated to your awards, dedicated to your quotes, and dedicated to your over abundance of actual userboxes add anything to the encyclopedia?

If the above sounds harsh, I apologize. I'm not the most prolific contributor, and you certainly won't catch me trying to boost my edit count to be an admin, nor am I saying that you are doing this. My point is, I'm here to research and contribute, occasionally (but rarely) dropping into the behind the scenes drama like this. Yes, drama. Many users I've observed use Wikipedia as a networking/MySpace type of site, which you've been guilty of unfortunately. Others view it as an MMOPRG, where they do battle against evil and make allies on their quest to reveal The TruthTM. The majority of "good" Wikipedians, simply come here to contribute and/or research. Administrators do that as well, with a lot of (unpleasant IMO) other chores as well. The point of these statements: I'm curious to know why you want to be an administrator. It's not a badge of honor... it's mostly janitorial work. AniMate 03:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ryan's Review I see nothing really wrong with your behavior, I would suggest choosing editing the Mainspace over anything else. I have seen your improvement over the last few months, and you are starting to do that. I am not trying to force anything upon you, and believe me, I'm not flawless, none of us are. Take these suggestions into consideration.

  • Wait at least a year before RfAing.
  • Try to have the majority of your edits in the mainspace.
  • If you don't want to actually edit the encyclopedia itself anymore, you're free to head on over to MySpace.

Again, I'm not trying to be mean, I just want to make sure you know what our standards are. I'm orking on those things myself :-) Ryan Got something to say? 13:02, 22 January 2008 (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.

[edit] List of Finding Nemo characters

Hi, on this article you showed that you are unaware of some issues, through leaving some mailmerge type markup in the text of the article. While that may be OK in user-space, it is not OK in article space to have something like Jake is a [[<fish>]]. He was voiced by [[<actor>]].

If you haven't got the details, but want to put the text onto the article, hide it through using the appropriate markup: <!-- '''Jake''' is a [[<fish>]]. He was voiced by [[<actor>]]. -->

Garrie 05:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I had just copied that from Notepad, and was just about to fill in the names, but then my computer shut down. I had a feeling I would get some messages on this problem when I could get back on Wikipedia. If my laptop hadn't shut down, I would have filled in the <actor> and <fish> stuff. My computer still shuts down frequently, and I am still having problems. A•N•N•A hi! 19:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page behavior

When I first saw you wanted to RfA, I cringed a little:

  1. Don't edit others' comments without a very good reason [2]
  2. In a content dispute, insisting others play along with your silliness is counterproductive. [3]

However, you seem to mean well and are generally a productive Wikipedian. Perhaps admin coaching will smooth your rough edges. —dgiestc 18:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What silliness? A•N•N•A hi! 20:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Saying you are a fox is cute. Expecting a community page be updated to reflect that is silly. —dgiestc 02:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? A•N•N•A hi! 19:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Dgies makes it clear above that s/he is referring to this edit to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians where you state I am not a human and hence you apparently want the page, albeit a humorous page, to not reflect that wikipedians are all humans but they maybe other species. It is a silly page perhaps but your contributions are not seen as helpful by user Dgies. --Golden Wattle talk 00:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)