Wikipedia:Editor review/Cocoaguy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Cocoaguy

Cocoaguy (talk · contribs) I request the editor review because after my un-successful RfA in September. I want to see how my editing has changed over the year I have been on Wikipedia. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 00:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reviews Hi there, I've had a good look at your user and talk pages, your RfA and your contributions.

User page: I know it seems petty, but many people at RfA dislike userboxes: they sometimes say it indicates a level of immaturity. Regardless of whether you agree, it might be as well to tidy your page (perhaps move the boxes somewhere less visible?) before you try again.

Talk page':I've looked at your archives back to May 2007. There is no evidence of incivility - quite the contrary, on occasions when you do get into a minor dispute with someone you seem to be able (see here) to keep your cool and explain the conflict away. You do seem to have quite a few 'non-free image' warnings. I get them too, it's no biggie, but maybe you should look again at the information you place when you upload images?

Contributions:You make usually constructive edits, but sometimes go a little far: in this edit it was right to remove comments that belonged on the talk page for the article, but wrong to add "This however is false, and anyone who believed it is stupid" as a comment on the article page itself. It's good to tag articles for speedy deletion, but this one was a mistake (as was pointed out to you by another editor). You use Twinkle appropriately when vandal fighting but I'd question whether this deserved an 'only warning' for vandalism. I think the area on which your RfA failed was largely about lack of mainspace edits. While the total numbers look better here, I still can't see really substantial article writing yet. For example, this diff represents 12 successive edits by you, but hasn't really changed the TJ Goree atricle very much. One article you did largely write yourself was this one, which may not really satisfy your article-writing critics at RfA (although not everyone thinks extensive article-writing is essential.)

As a general issue, your spelling and grammar (or maybe it's sometimes your typing!) sometimes let you down. You're making better use of edit summaries now than you were when you started, keep it up. The overall balance of contributions to different spaces looks OK to me - eg 64 to WP:AIV and 62 to WP:RFPP. I haven't tried tracking down what happens to these requests - but you'll know what proportion of these are accepted. My rule of thumb is that I'd be disappointed if more than 10% were rejected.

Overall, I'd suspect that if you went for RfA again you'd still get people saying you do insufficient writing, and some of the diffs above would probably be enough to gather you some opposition. I'd suggest not going for RfA again yet: write more articles and carry on the vandal fighting and new page patrolling, trying to be a bit more conservative in what you tag, perhaps? Good luck - Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    The minor edits, ex. wikification, cleaning up of articles, vandal fighting etc.
  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?
    No, i have not been in any stressful situations on wikipedia lately.