Wikipedia:Editor review/Nmajdan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Nmajdan

Nmajdan (talk · contribs) I thought I'd try getting reviewed before its MFDed. I have been a contributor since April 2005. I have 7000+ edits. I'm still undecided on whether I want to be an admin, so I don't plan on pursuing that road anytime soon (I don't think, but anything can change). However, I thought it would be nice to hear what I need to improve on. ↔NMajdan•talk 16:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

  • As I have known the editor under review, an independent review would also be of benefit. Nmajdan, we've worked quite a bit together at WP:CFB and on templates and WP:CFB things together. I've seen your awesome work with the OU football items and templates systems you've created, and even though we haven't always agreed on the format/method, it was for minor things that was more of a preference system than anything major, and your willingness to discuss the items calmly is always appreciated. I do wish you would help out in more than just OU articles, and perhaps now that most are getting GA or above you'll have time to spread out, but that's not to say your articles aren't very good or the OU isn't important, I just think you could broaden your horizons slightly (at least to the Big 12 -- maybe even OSU). I really appreciated the awesome peer review you did for Ralphie, which both was detailed and extremely helpful. You could perhaps provide this expertise to other articles needing review. I was surprised to see your involvement with the other OK articles (because I thought you only focused on OU football), which is good to see as well. You also could perhaps lead the WP:CFB into a more collaborative article writing effort such as the defunct Collaboration of the Month or even informally somehow. While I've grown to fully trust you and your edits, and even see your helping out in some of the help areas that are on my watchlist (and anytime I see your name popup in my watchlist, I go checkout what you've done), I'm not sure you would pass a RFA mainly because I don't see any involvement in any "admin duties" and there seems to be no need for the tools. If you decide to go for RFA, you should decide what admin duties you want to do and help out with that area now, building experience in that. I would fully trust you with the tools and support you should you have a reason, but the standard RFA question #1 I think you would have a hard time answering. I also would think I might be selfish and oppose you at RFA so that you won't spend your time doing admin duties and focus on article writing which you are quite good at, and to see you explore into other articles that would benefit from your help. In summary: Fabulous editor -- spread out a little more please -- always calm, rational, correct and helpful, but no reason for admin tools that I can see. --MECU≈talk 17:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If I were answering #1 right now, I would definitely be working on backlogs such as Category:All images on Wikimedia Commons, Category:Images with no copyright tag, Category:Images with no fair use rationale and so on. I do occasionally participate in XfD discussions so I'd help out there occasionally but I'd primary be focusing on the backlogs mentioned above.↔NMajdan•talk 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
  • I don't agree that it's "WAY too early" for this user to ask for a review. Why should they have to wait? They've been doing vandal patrol and it's reasonable for them to want feedback on their work in case anyone has input that could be useful. However, you were nice about it and didn't bite, so that's good. Sorry I don't have time for a thorough look at your contribs now to give you a decent review. delldot | talk 00:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Like I said, he had been around three days. I do not feel one is capable of adequately reviewing somebody that has been around only a short while. Would a boss review an employee that has only been around three days? I haven't looked at the editor since then so I hope he took my advice.↔NMajdan•talk 02:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I have a pretty narrow focus on Wikipedia, usually to articles relating to the University of Oklahoma or college football. I have been the primary contributor to the University of Oklahoma article and have seen it improve to GA status. I have nominated it for FA but it won't be approved. I hope to get it to FA status eventually. I created the Oklahoma Sooners football article and got it to GA and it also failed an FA nomination. I hope to get this one up to FA eventually as well. I have created many articles on former OU presidents and head football coaches (Owen, Harts, Jones, Mackenzie, Gibbs, Blake, Luster, Boyd, Evans, and Brooks). I've also created other articles relating to OU such as RUF/NEKS, Campus Corner, The Pride of Oklahoma, Sherri Coale, and 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team. Other college football articles I have been a heavy contributor include 2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings (a Featured List) and it successor, 2006 NCAA Division I-A football rankings; Coaches Poll, Harris Interactive Poll, and 2007 Fiesta Bowl. I also am proud of Oklahoma state elections, 2006. I also have made many templates for use by the College football WikiProject including {{College coach infobox}}, {{NCAAFootballSchool}}, {{University of Oklahoma}}, three templates for listing a CFB schedule ({{College Athlete Recruit Start}}, Entry, and End) and three templates for listing college recruits ({{College Athlete Recruit Start}}, Entry, and End). I think that about sums it up.
  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?
    No, I don't feel I've personally been in any conflicts. I've had a difference in opinion on how I feel an article should look but I don't believe this ever caused my undue stress. I try to make sure my opinion is well documented on the talk page and I would urge the other party to do so as well. Most people that I have had issues with in the past were new users so I've tried to make sure they were informed on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.