Wikipedia:Editor review/Llama man

User:Llama_man

• You've been doing a good job. You seem to be a fast learner, you have been involved in different areas, such as moving userbox templates per the German Userbox Solution, some vandal fight with popups, etc. My suggestions for the moment would be participating more in AfD, RfA, and perhaps stepping into a higher level of vandal fight by installing Vandalproof. Keep up the great work. Regards. --Húsönd 15:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You've been doing a lot of good things :-) IF you are thinking about an RfA I'd sugggest more deletion-related experience -AfD and newpages patrol. I would also consider changing the tone of your userpage slightly. The extensive userboxes and the 'wikifriends' list can come across as a bit myspacey. Having only 3 months' experience will mean that people look much more closely at things like your userpage for evidence of your judgement and maturity. However, keep up the good work - you are definitely on the right track. The Land 17:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there, Llama man. A couple of comments:

  • Your signature is currently over 200 characters. Per
    suggestions
    , it is suggested it to be below 200 characters. Maybe you could address that before others begin asking you that as well?
  • Currently essjay's tool is down, so I can't check your edits are balanced. However, I easily noticed that, out of your last 1000 edits, you had done only 7 edits in article talk pages. As I had said before, Wikipedia is a community-driven encyclopedia, where users are expected to discuss, disagree and agree by expression opinions in talk pages. While you seem to have a good number of user talk pages, you don't have enough article talk pages. Personally, this indicates you are not participating in "improving" the encyclopedia, only in "maintaining" it. That is, when you revert a vandalism, you are maintaining the current status. However, when you take your time to discuss in an article talk page about how to improve, what should be done in articles, how to modify it to make the article a good or featured one, etc, you are helping improving/developing it. This is my point of view, and since you are requesting ideas for a future RFA, I suggest you to participate in article talk pages. When presenting yourself, you should be able to say "I am proud of my work at this article". Some people require administrators to have helped at least one article to reach featured status. I don't think that is a good idea, however I expect a future administrator to have helped at least one article to reach the good status.
  • Your edit summary usage is pretty good. I also see you warn vandals in their talk page. However, I think you should use different summaries depending on the "gravity" of the offense. In example, summary for test1 or obsene is "warning", thus you are "punishing" someone who was testing something with the same edit summary as one who was purposely modifying the article to offend someone. Personally I use {{test1-n}} due [[article]], {{test4-n}} due [[article 2]], etc. I know this is fairly subjective, but I like being able to check the history of a talk page and know how many serious warnings the user was given with a simple glance.
  • The good thing about Wikipedia GFDL license is that we can see the full history of edits a user has since the very beginning. This allow us to see how much the editor has matured in his time here. There are three edits of yours back in June where you blanked the Llama article three times, lending an administrator to block you. While time has passed, and you had demonstrated your good faith in Wikipedia, I am not sure if many would agree to give you adminship with that precedent. Personally, I expect candidates not to have been blocked in the last 6 months. This is completely personal, though, and others may think a shorter or longer term is needed to "redeem" yourself.
  • I see you have uploaded a single image,
    fair use criteria
    states low quality versions are always preferred, as it is easier to claim fair use in them than in high quality ones.

  Overall, you have advanced quite a lot. One thing that talks very well about you is that, after being blocked, you decided to stay with this username, accept the punishment and rectify yourself. Many may have just created a new user to start anew, so this is a good precedent for your willingness to improve. You are already a good editor and vandal fighter, and hopefully your first days in Wikipedia have taught you that some edits made by novices are not vandalism but instead tests. You may be a good candidate in a couple of months, maybe by next year. So keep it up, improve your interaction with others by coordinating efforts in a talk page in order to improve an article to

  good status, and someday you will be able to become administrator. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 01:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• You are a very good editor, you help out with others and your edits are everyware and they are good edits.__
  .M.S 14:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• View this user's edit count using a PHP version of Interiot's tool.

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

   As I stated before, I am most impressed with my efforts to revert vandalism. I am also impressed with my edit count, though about 250-300 of my edits were welcoming new users, when I had recently joined the

   welcoming committee

   . I answer the occasional wuestion at the reference and help desks, too.

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?

   Yes, especially Buzawz. In retrospect, I very much overreacted to those personal attacks. The second occasion was when some anon put a personal attack on my talk page, but I just ignored that, partially because I had dealt with it before and partially because I think less of anons than registered users.