Tompw

Tompw (talk · contribs) I've been an active member of WP for a some time now (2+ years), and have worked on a very wide range of articles (for example, those relating non-League football, elections, Nunavut, railways, mathematics...). I also specalise in templates, and am a major contributor in the Featured List process. The reason why I want to undergo editor review is to get an outside view on my methods and actions, and see where I can improve. Tompw (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

I am very impressed by your content contributions and your adjudication of Featured List candidates. I believe that the institution of Featured Lists, like Featured Articles, is intended to motivate experts to contribute their very best work. You have succeeded in that, so I commend you.

If I had to suggest a possible improvement, I would say this: a featured list is really nothing more than a well-organized set of links to other articles. (Likewise with templates.) The true strength of such a list lies with the articles to which it links. If you think you've finished work on a list, the next step is to review all the articles on that list and see what improvements you can make to those. Perhaps you are already doing that.

I wish you good luck. YechielMan 04:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delldot: Hey Tompw, a quick look at your talk page shows that a lot of people come to you for advice on FL's, so you must be an important person over there. I was also pleased to see that you help folks, like when they come to you for help with templates. To me that's a very important quality. In the brief look at your talk page, I saw no evidence of conflict, also a very good sign. The few user talk edits I looked at you were very friendly, helpful, and not afraid to ask questions, three more great traits. Good edit summary usage, both in consistency and usefulness of the summaries. I didn't see many major mainspace contributions in a brief look at your contribs, but I don't think that's a big deal, as long as you're making good contributions in some area. Also, I may have missed those few huge edits in the midst of all the minor ones. It looks from the count that you've contributed a great deal to some pages, so I must be missing the big edits. Crapload of talk edits, surely that's from tagging pages with templates, right? Looks like you're quite familiar with policy. You've become a mainstay in a niche that not many others work on, and you're friendly and helpful; I think you're a top-notch contributor! delldot talk 18:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    1. The Featured Topic Canadian election timelines, because I helped bring 13 lists up to Featured standard. In particular, the article Timeline of Canadian elections, because no-one had done anything like that before.
    2. The non-League football league navigation boxes I created(full list), because they brought standartds to the league articles that p[reviously had been reserved for "higher" leagues only, and also helped increase awareness of non-League club articles.
    3. My contributions to Homotopy groups of spheres, because I was able to make the article (on a difficult area of maths) more accessible and also more useful. Since then, others have built on this, and it's now a Good Article.
  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 have occasionally had minor conflicts relating to the closure of Featured List nominations. I dealt with this by explaining my actions as best I could, and so far that seems to have worked. Some disputes have caused me stress, and if I feel this is getting to much, I take a 24-hour wikibreak to allow things to cool off.


Additional Questions from Dfrg.msc:

Borrowed from Glen (talk · contribs), I'm sure he wont mind. These should test you editing skills, and show if you have any weaknesses which you can work on. So, just write your answer next to the Question. Good luck.

Speedy Delete or not:

  1. CSD1 Yes - no substance of any kind.
  2. CSD2 Yes - trivial website
  3. CSD3 Yes - looks rather like an advert
  4. CSD4 Yes - nonsensical
  5. CSD5 No, but ask on talk site for a demostration that this band meets notability requirements.

Vandalism or or not:

  1. [1] Mild vandalism (not malicious, but still should be deleted)
  2. [2] Definately vandalism.
  3. [3] Definately vandalism.
  4. [4] Not vanadliam... removal to discussion on talk page.
  5. [5] Not vanadliam, but shoudl be reverted as doesn't make garmmatical sense
  6. [6] Not vandalism,. but needs a ((fact)) tag.

Have fun! Dfrg.msc 07:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More