Wikipedia:Editor review/Turlo Lomon

Username
I have no desire to be an admin, but I am constantly trying to improve the quality of my work. I have recently started major edits on articles. Turlo Lomon 10:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 

You are a fantastic wikignome, particularly in vandal fighting. You continually revert nonsense, insulting and outright bad changes to articles. You should take great pride in those efforts.

From the few number of article improvement edits you have made, I would encourage you to spend a little more time towards those efforts. I believe you have a solid potential to be an excellant contributor. This is not to disparage your vandal fighting, but rather to compliment your sense of writing and reason. Participating in some peer reviews might help you get started towards that, while also answering requests for input. For other ideas about how to dive in to article contributions, there is also always a number of backlogs, especially articles that need cleanup.

I would also urge you to consider participating in WP:XFD and other editor review requests. Both need more user participation, XFD often having entries with few contributors and ER having a backlog. Once you feel comfortable with editor reviews, I'd also recommend participating in WP:RFA.

Overall, you are an excellant and tireless vandal fighter, but I'd encourage you to become more active in other areas. Vassyana 11:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

 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?
 * Very recently, Drizzt Do'Urden's scimitars. I am quite pleased with the end result.
 * 1) 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?
 * This recently came up with the Drizzt Do'Urden's scimitars merger (from Twinkle (scimitar) and Icingdeath. First I made sure we had a group consensus on the action. We had one person who disagreed, and has been fighting a merger for a long time. None of his feedback was productive. Quite simply, I asked what he was displeased with and what would he like to see. I didn't hear from him again, and was still receiving votes of support, so I continued with the merger. 
 * 1) Optional question from Vassyana: Did you contact the dissenting user on their talk page? Did anyone else express any reservations about the merge? What kind of conflict occured?
 * Yes. I specifically asked for their input on the article before the merger was done. I created a temporary page for just that reason. I never did get a reply, although he did visit the talk page regarding other discussions. The end result was a great deal of positive feedback. I have not heard of one complaint about the resulting article. Turlo Lomon 12:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Optional question from Vassyana: How do you feel about your edits on polar region and Jason? How do you feel about the current state of those articles?
 * The polar region article was my first major edit. It was on the challenges section of on recent changes, and I thought I would give it a go. I am pleased with how it turned out, and as a result, I learned a great deal more about the different methods information can be displayed with. The Jason article has been mostly a reversion of vandalism. It is a well written article, and one that I am personally attached to. I have done my best to keep unrelated material off of it, going so far as making sure it was properly documented on the Jason (disamiguation) page. I really can't take credit for the material there as being my own. However, I would have no qualms making changes if I saw something I felt was in error. Turlo Lomon 12:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The polar region article was my first major edit. It was on the challenges section of on recent changes, and I thought I would give it a go. I am pleased with how it turned out, and as a result, I learned a great deal more about the different methods information can be displayed with. The Jason article has been mostly a reversion of vandalism. It is a well written article, and one that I am personally attached to. I have done my best to keep unrelated material off of it, going so far as making sure it was properly documented on the Jason (disamiguation) page. I really can't take credit for the material there as being my own. However, I would have no qualms making changes if I saw something I felt was in error. Turlo Lomon 12:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)