Spongefrog ( talk · contribs · count) 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 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. SpinningSpark 15:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Questions
Additional Question from -- Coldplay Expert 18:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Spongefrog ( talk · contribs · count) 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 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. SpinningSpark 15:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Questions
Additional Question from -- Coldplay Expert 18:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)