Wikipedia:Editor review/Zunaid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Zunaid

Zunaid (talk · contribs) I've been editing actively for about a year now. While I started out mostly on AfD pages (I was and still am a deletionist and exclusionist), I've of late taken to editing articles about South Africa and sports cars. I am also an NP and RC patroller, and regularly AfD, PROD or CSD articles. I would like feedback on my South African-related edits (especially POV-wise as these topics are very controversial), my XfD nominations and participation, my User talk conduct towards new users and my reverts of content and vandalism. Comments about my editing style (I subscribe to the bold, revert, discuss philosophy and maybe get over-zealous using it) and other general comments are also appreciated. Note: I do not intend to run for adminship but would nonetheless appreciate comment on what my chances would be should I change my mind. Zunaid 11:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Positives
  • Great work on writing and improving articles, especially those dealing with South Africa and automobiles.
  • I'm also impressed with your numerous AfD contributions and vandalism fighting.
Suggestions
  • There isn't a lot I'm concerned about, though you should give vandals a warning after reverting their edits. See Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings.
  • I do not agree. The editing buddies and / or sock puppets of this editor placed the above comment. This editor, and some of his mates, is ganging together to edit all articles that are exposing the true situation in South Africa. They are clearly vandalising other people’s work, and systematically destroying articles that are of value. Therefore they are of great value to the ANC government in South Africa, but of no value to an encyclopaedia. This editor is creating propaganda. His method is to systematically delete sections on an article that does not support his POV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.155.4.60 (talk • contribs) .
  • Hello there, Zunaid. Here is my review, I hope you find it useful.
    • I should mention that your user talk page layout is pretty strange. It is nothing bad, just thought I would mention it.
    • I personally don't agree with one part of the BRD essay, the one where you discuss personally with one or at least two editors about the change, as you would have to do the same cycle everytime another user reverts your change. However, as long as you discuss in a civil way and don't revert back, it should be ok.
    • Very good work with South African farm attacks and Honda S2000. You could do some minor polishing to the articles applying some style guides like Capitalization, but overall they are pretty well written. Also, when the references has several entries, consider using references-small to minimize the size of the references section, see here for an example. As for Nissan 350Z, you should tag it as belonging to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles so that it gets qualified. And consider sending one of those articles to peer review to get information about how to improve them to good or maybe even featured status.
    • I also notice you have uploaded 3 images in the past, all of them deleted. Hopefully you have learned the different image copyright tags since then :-)
    • Analyzing your edit numbers, you have 10% of article talk edits and other 10% in user talk edits, with 50% in the main namespace. Because of BRD, you are bound to have discussions often, and it is a pity one was big enough to go to ArbCom. However, the fact that you decided to step down and wait until its resolution (something suggested in this essay) implies a good knowledge about human behaviour.
    • Your edit summary usage is very high, and they appear to be pretty long and descriptive. It is good that people still consider them important.
    • A very high participation in AFDs, which is obvious as you consider yourself a deletionist and exclusionist. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parekh, you chose the best option even though it was the last added and nobody had supported it as of that time. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aashiq al-Rasul, however, I would have suggested Userfication instead of deletion, but since I didn't see the original article, it is just a thought. Note that you tagged an article for speedy deletion, but ended userfied. Note that, when you send the article to AFD, you don't usually "vote". It is understood that, when you AFD something, you favour the deletion unless otherwise stated. The other AFD participation I had checked were "common", and I have no comments about them.
    • Also, check the different warnings you have available. As a patroller, you should have knowledge about them, so that you don't need to edit the comments every time. Also, as seen here, it was good that you took your time to write down the warning, but try not to use shortcuts, as new users don't really know about them, see this for an explanation :-)
    • Finally, apparently you maintain a good level of neutrality in your edits. As you can imagine, reviewing every edit you have made is time consuming, so I will trust the small sample I took for this. As long as you provide a reliable reference for conflicting edits, you should be neutral enough.
    Answering your questions, you are pretty neutral regarding South African topics. Your participation in XFDs is good, although you focus mostly in Articles. You can also spend some time with categories, templates and redirects for deletion, where few people actually spend time. Also, the fact you spend time talking with new users, explaining them (although with acronyms) why their edits have been reverted or their articles being deleted. However, you should also consider using the templates that already exist in addition to your explanation, as these are standard ways of warning and informing users in most situations. Finally, please consider sending some of the articles where you edit to peer review, where you will get information about how to continue improving them until reaching good or featured article. And, as always, remain as cool until now. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 23:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog's comment: Gosh, I can't be nearly as comprehensive as ReyBrujo was above. I just wanted to say that I am very impressed with what I have seen of your work. I really appreciate the thought, care, patience and neutrality you put into your edits, sometimes in the face of huge provocation. Please keep up your good work. Best wishes, --Guinnog 14:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions

  1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
    I am particular pleased with my contributions to South Africa-related articles, in which I've strived to introduce balance by removing or editing unreferenced and strongly POV statements, the best example of which is South African farm attacks (which I boldly rewrote at one point, citing what I thought was well-considered reasoning), which is now as neutral as an inherently POV topic can be. I've also done extensive work on Crime Expo South Africa (rewrite) to remove POV-pushing. I am also pleased with Mazda RX-8 (rewrite), Honda S2000 (rewrite) and Nissan 350Z (edit history), articles which I boldly edited to rewrite for style and/or NPOV at various points. I'm also proud of the article on The Stig (rewrite), which at one point was filled with speculative fancruft, but which I now consider to be one of the best primary source-derived articles on the 'pedia.
  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?
    There was a MASSIVE edit conflict (history) on Honda S2000 for a few months, with User:SpinyNorman strongly pushing his POV and constantly reverting other editors. I dealt with it by trying to reach a consensus on the talk page first, and then seeked a RfC when that did not help. The issue was eventually settled through the ArbCom, who placed said user on multiple probations. It didn't cause me stress but it was extremely frustrating, to the point that I left the article until the conclusion of the ArbCom case.