Wikipedia:Editor review/Milk's Favorite Cookie

Milk's Favorite Cookie

Milk's Favorite Cookie (talk · contribs) I thought I should have an editor review since I plan on running for an RFA next month. (or the month after that). I have made a little under 12,000 edits. From late January and till date, I have 100% edit summary usage. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Review by Pedro

Hi, and thanks for your prolific contributions so far! I see that you're looking to run for adminship so this review may be a bit harsher than I would normally give. Editor review is, IMHO, an opportunity to praise an editor whilst giving them pointers on mistakes or ideas on things to do. You are an experienced candidate, so I'm going to "mini-RfA" my comments. I hope that is the feedback you're after.

The Nasty Bit

Length of Service. Your account has been here ages, but you have only being prolific in the last 9-10 weeks or so. I'd certainly advise waiting until March for an RfA as I've seen many fail because all edits were amassed in a short period.
Burn Out Go steady! There's no prize for amassing hundreds of edits.
User Name I see you had a change of username. At RfA it would be best to explain the reasons for this.
Your Talk Page That continued font is horrible in IE (of course everyone should use FireFox!) and some people's signatures seem to be breaking the code. It really is trick to read some threads, which is not a good thing.
Editing for adminship This is not a good idea. Don't edit just to get the buttons - trust me, you'll be disapointed at investing all that time when you get them. Edit for enjoyment.
Article Talk Pages Although you have a high level of User Talk edits some of them really don't seem relevant to collaborative building of an encyclopedia. More Article talk may demonstrate this.
Protection Policy I noted a couple of declined requests for Page Protection - I'd re-read a familiarise yourself in that area.

The Nice Bit

DYK's by the plenty!
Substantial article work in your field of interest.
Civil and pleasent talk page discussions.
No history of edit warring.
Your Featured Images - it's great to see a future administrator with an interest in images, and enhancing our articles with photography.
Dedication to the project, as shown by your edit count, if nothing else!
Edit summaries.

So, on balance 98% of what you're doing is great - and I mean really great. But RfA is a funny old place, and I'd advise you to try and overcome some of the issues I've highlighted before running - it's the 2% that fails them, sadly. Again, please don't take this criticism badly. I'm kind of assuming you asked me to review based on my RfA experience (i.e. I hang out there too much!!). I hope this helps and I look forward to supporting your request in March. Very Best. Pedro : Chat 08:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Yupik

I'm really concerned about this user's use of machine translation tools in German articles. The resulting articles make other editors have to heavily edit them in order for them to even approach normal English. As machine translation is a definite no-no, I'd unfortunately vote against any RfA at this time. Can you provide any explanations as to why you're using machine translation instead of requesting the translations at Wikipedia:Translation? -Yupik (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good example of the type of text coming out of the machine translations: Regular Kolumen write currently Munich Mayor Christian Ude, moderator Juergen fly, health expert Hademar bank Hofer, comedian Django Asül and film critic Ponkie. Daily appears in the local section of the newspaper a drawing of Franziska Bilek (from Abend Zeitung (Munich)). -Yupik (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I wish to second Yupik's concern here. They are really horrible, although I hesitate to speedy them as nonsense, the way Yupik does. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would concur with this concern. Many of the articles this user is adding are complete, unsalvageable gibberish. Others make a little bit of sense, but not much. --L. Pistachio (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I've been using the nonsense tag as stated in this proposal to change the speedy criteria: Proposal failed because: This was considered redundant with CSD#1: patent nonsense. An article that is unsalvageably unintellegible can be deleted regardless of whether it's a translation or not.. -Yupik (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool

Questions

Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
Since my time here at Wikipedia I have made over 50 articles very few are stubs. However, one of the articles I made, SKN St. Pölten - I'm very pleased with. It is good size in length, and after adding many more references, and after it meets all GA criteria I plan to nominate for GA. I also significantly expanded House of Hohenstaufen, another contribution I'm quite pleased with. Also I have added much to Boston Celtics, which hopefully will soon a featured article. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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?
So far, no. I'm glad I have not so far. However, I do have a feeling that I will be one in the future. If such occurs, I know that there is no reason to get stressed over 1 article, and I plan to do just that. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Can you explain this edit? [1] Not only is it chronologically out of order within the article, but it isn't even relevant to the article in the slightest. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 03:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole I think your edits & antivandal work are great. I did want to mention, though, that the other day I removed a bunch of your reports to AIV because the vandal had not edited since the last and only warning, etc, e.g. [2]. I'm aware that warnings aren't a prerequisite for blocking, but this is a little beyond the norm. Inappropriate AIV reports will hurt you in an RfA, because as an admin they'd be inappropriate blocks. You don't want to get labeled as being trigger happy. I'd echo Pedro's thoughts about how it's not a race, and add that if you're editing with the intent of looking good on RfA, people will be able to tell, and it leaves a bad taste in their mouths. But like I said, on the whole you're doing great and I'm sorry to focus so heavily on this minor negative point. delldot talk 05:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]