Cinemaniac

Cinemaniac ( talk · contribs) Hi! My username is Cinemaniac, and I'm requesting an editor review. I've been an official editor of Wikipedia for over three months now, and I'd like to see what people think of my contributions—whether they add value to the encyclopedia and whether they are substantially positive. My sincere hope is that I contribute generally fine edits to Wikipedia. However, don't hesitate to critique my input! Feedback is appreciated. — Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs) 02:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Reviews

Review by Pedro

Hi Cinemaniac, and thanks for your efforts here! You contributions so far have been, well, excellent. You are clearly editing areas of interest and seem to have a firm grasp on editing policy. You use edit summaries well, which is very important. Your talk page indicates a desire to collaborate as well, as does your use of article talk pages. The question is probably how you'd like to move forward. If you want to stick at article and content that's great - it is why we are here! If you are looking at going in this direction then you may find you want to branch out a bit. Why not do a bit of recent changes patrolling when you have a minute? I notice you don't have rollback on your user rights logs - I'd be delighted to grant this if you wish. Also, you may consider providing some input at WP:AFD - you seem to have a good grasp of policy so I'm sure you could help out here. In adition you article building skills may help save something rather than see it go. To be honset, you're doing great, so keep on doing what you're doing. It really depends on wether you want to take things to another level through adminship, but it's not the be all and end all! Hope that helps. Pedro :  Chat  08:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Thanks, Pedro, for the review. I'm glad to know that somebody else approves of my willingness to collaborate; I've always tried to be polite and cool upon encountering a vandal, which happens every once and awhile (especially if I patrol the list of recent changes). I often try to sneak a little humor or constructive criticism into my comments, as you will see if you read this conversation I had with a former vandal; he was actually a friend of mine in real-life and has now decided to quit vandalising and channel his efforts elsewhere. Also, although I'm not one of those "anti-adminstrators", I currently do not wish to be an admin, but thanks for the invite anyway. Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs) 02:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Comments

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

Questions

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

   Almost immediately after I registered, I started a discussion with several other editors concerning Mel Blanc and whether or not his claims concerning Bugs Bunny's evolution could be truly verified. I'm glad to see that I was able to help out in settling something so disputed. Around the same time, I was able to significantly expand the Princess Leia article by adding a section over her well-known slave outfit and hairstyle, along with citations; those edits garnered a rather positive feedback. Shortly after this, I helped generate some healthy discussion at Talk:The Bourne Supremacy (film) and Talk:The Bourne Ultimatum (film) concerning "trivia" and plot holes, and, during that discussion, persuaded an IP to get a username; in the meantime, I added the "references to previous films" section to the Ultimatum page. More recently, I, along with the helpful collaboration of two other editors and various peer reviewers, gave the Duck Soup article a much-needed boost; I am currently trying to bring the page up to good article status. A similar assessment was done for the Princess Leia page. In short, I'm proud of the edits I've made to various articles for WP:COMEDY and WP:US-TOON. — Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

3. 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?

   I must admit, I'm not entirely sure what constitutes an "edit conflict", but I'll go ahead and state a few things for the record. Normally, I'm often busy reverting constant, disgusting fanboy vandalism from the "Metal Bikini" section of the Princess Leia. (Other pages I help guard against vandalism are Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse.) No, I wouldn't say any other editors have caused me stress. Even if I am stressed out during editing, for some reason, I will never take it out on someone else. You respect me, I respect you; you don't respect me, I respect you. — Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs) 03:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I've looked at a number of your edits, the better ones are those where some very concrete thing is added or changed. Others, you should just skip, because they don't strongly affect the article, one way or the other. Example, in the Ed, Edd n Eddy article: "Edd, usually called "Double D", who is rather intelligent and polite, if high-strung<ref name="DVDTalk"/>; and Eddy, who is the avaricious 'leader' of the trio". The sentence is correct now, but it was actually correct before you changed it -- without the bolded words. (Are you familiar with the broader meaning of ellipsis?) At any rate, such minor changes are not encouraged, because a handful of editors with different styles could endlessly revise one another's work to no particular advantage.

Also, you need to explain your edits in more detail. You called the changes you made to Elena Montero on July 29, 2008 copyedits. Copyedits are wording and sentence structure for readability -- your edits deleted existing material, and replaced it with your own. 67.169.127.176 ( talk) 04:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hmm... very interesting feedback. I'll keep it in mind. Sorry I didn't respond to your critique sooner — as the status on my userpage and quick glance at my contribs indicates, I've been rather busy in real life lately. My schedule is getting increasingly cluttered as I've begun exploring new areas, so my activity will be off-ond-on 'round here for quite awhile.

Before I wrap up this reply, though, I gather from just this one edit that you seem to be quite a knowledgeable wikipedian. I'd suggest you consider creating an account and getting an original username, as it'll only make editing more easy for you. Thanks for your comments again, and Happy Editing! :P — Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs) 01:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

If the comments were useful, then you're welcome, of course. You seem to have an interesting perspective on some matters, I hope you continue to refine it. I'm not too much into "personalities", so I do a lot of editing anonymously. 67.169.127.176 ( talk) 08:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Your comments were useful, indeed. I appreciate that you took the time to review some of my edits; I'd put this editor review up months and months ago, and only really got one reply. I'd hoped to keep this ongoing, though, and the fact that you actually put in your two cents here was very uplifting, in a way. :)

I notice that you apparently came across me via some recent work on the A Night at the Opera article. I find that interesting, to say the least. You must foster a great appreciation for vintage films and actors from the "golden age". I do, too.

One more thing: I used to edit anonymously a lot, too, but the computers I would often contribute from were part of a shared network system, so I didn't want to get unjustifiable blocked for vandalism or something — hence the account. I'd hate to see something like that happen to you, as your contribs so far have been excellent — but then again, I suspect that the computer you use is yours, and yours only. In any case, keep on doin' what you're doin', and best wishes to you. :) — Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply