Wikipedia:Editor review/Terence Ong
Terence_Ong (talk · contribs) I've been editing on Wikipedia since January 2005 and chalk up a total of 9000+ 10000+ 11,000+ edits. I'm not an admin currently but I would like to say that I had two RFAs. The first which I declined, and the second which I withdrawn. I'm planning to run for an RFA in June, feel free to give comments or criticisms.
Reviews
- I see Terence around a lot, basically all on AfD, as I don't edit in his fields of expertise. Glancing through the contributions that Terence noted, they look good. Terence understands the policies of Wikipedia well and handles himself well when interacting with others. With AfDs I am often surprised to arrive sometimes afterwards (and this is true of many other people) and see that he has suggested Speedy delete but did not tag the article himself? ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have to say I don't find Terence much on the WP, but my experiences on IRC are positive. Computerjoe's talk 18:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I concur with Computerjoe. — Nathan (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Terence has been spotted on the SGpedians' notice board and has been a great help in roping in more SGpedians as well as making the place more active and lively. Kudos.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! (Tdixang is down with the flu and will be inactive) 09:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments
- See this user's edit history with Interiot's tool and edit summary usage (Warning:Both tools have stopped updating and the edit counts are way off. Please consider using Flcelloguy's Tool or Interiot's Tool 2)
Questions
- Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- Answer NTUC FairPrice, Anglo-Chinese School (International) and Light Rapid Transit (Singapore). The first two articles I mentioned are articles I created from scratch. Despite the articles are not fantastic or anything, its one of the better articles I wrote so far. Without saying, there have been changes to the article which I definitely do not mind since it is a Wiki. At this point of time, I'm rather contented with the content and quality of the article though I may expand it in future. For Light Rapid Transit (Singapore), I helped expand, cleanup and improve the article to the style of its sister article i.e. Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore). I hope to pay more attention to the article in future, and hopefully become a good or featured article.
- 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?
- Answer The latest conflict is with User:Monicasdude. It all started when Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) was a featured article candidate when he objected. He refused to accept the concensus and finds trouble with the article. When MRT was promoted, he claimed the article had "weasel words" and was a "POV article". I also suggested to him about him archiving his talk page, but my comments were blanked thrice. This followed up with a RFC which another user filed, but he did not take the RFC seriously. An arbitration case followed the RFC and he was placed on a civility parole. Another time was with the people of the WikiProject Airports and WikiProject Airlines. The WikiProject Airports wanted a standard format for airlines and their destinations in a standard format. However, Singapore Changi Airport one was in a table. When they tried to standardise it, there was a lengthy dispute over it. I then made a personal attack at two of its members without realising it was against it when I was still unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Since then, I've learnt not to make personal attacks on anyone and remain civil at all times. Not long after, another editor from sister WikiProject i.e. WikiProject Airlines and I had a dispute over Singapore Airlines subpages. This articles do not exist for other airlines and the editor sent both the articles to AFD and one was deleted with the other kept due to a lack of concensus. The dispute was whether the two articles, Singapore Airlines flight numbers and Singapore Airlines fleet violated Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.