Wooyi

Wooyi (talk · contribs) I've been editing wikipedia on a lot of articles recently period when there was little or no homework and much spare time. But currently i might get busy and not able to come for a period of time. Here I'd like to request you all to give assessment and constructive criticisms to my edits, so I will improve when I come back. Thank you! Wooyi 03:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

• Hi Wooyi! Greetings from another Chinese editor :) I occasionally edit Chinese Wikipedia as well.

I like the fields that you're interested in. History, biography of political personale, law and criminology are all sophisticated topics, so good for you! I am glad that you have never confronted any major conflicts since your talkspace edits are not low. There are always disagreements in AfD and image copyright disputes, so you don't have to worry too much about it (and it's not like you are worried about it anyways :)! ).

The only thing I'd like to recommend you is about your editing habit. I have one suggestion: Don't spend all your time on Wikipedia at once (I am referring to the huge spike in February), distribute them. When you are busy, you can still edit Wikipedia, but you can edit articles that relates to the homework subjects that you are working on (which I often do).

Cheers! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A number of comments:

• You have a fairly good balance of mainspace to WP mainspace edits, which suggests a good combination of article-writing, participation in XfDs, etc. This will help you if you want to become an admin in the future.
• Good work with images as well. (You caught me on that Chavez picture!) There aren't that many admins who work the image side of things, so this will give you a huge advantage at RfA.

• All in all, after you've chalked up another 1000 edits or so I would strongly encourage you to go for RfA (if you don't want to self-nominate, I would be pleased to nominate you). You would have a very strong chance. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm concerned by your comments about the undue weight section of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. If you had raised some new and meritorious argument against it I might be intrigued, but the things you assert are the same things that disruptive editors have tried to assert at this site since its inception. It appears that you're unfamiliar with the reasons why that is consensus policy and, based on that post, I'd strongly oppose your candidacy if you tried for adminship at this time. If you wish to discuss this further please respond at my user talk page. Durova^Charge! 14:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• On the FG arbcom talk page you accused me of revert warring. If you want your accusations/allegations to be substantive, please back it up with examples, as I am interested where this 'revert warring' is on the FG-related pages! You then proceed to say I should be admonished, which puts your capability of neutrality and non-involvement into doubt. Naturally you are free to accuse, but to say I should be permanently banned for your allegation that you cannot even support with examples places your ability (especially if you are seeking to become an administrator) into doubt. We all make mistakes, so I'm giving you a chance to either explain or correct yourself here. Jsw663 11:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the examples are here in the ArbCom page. Also from your userpage I see you have a strong anti-Falun Gong POV, which would borderline COI. I didn't say you should be banned, just admonished. The brutal persecution of Falun Gong in China is evident from many sources, so your removal of sourced materials does constitute disruptive edit warring, though I don't know if it should be termed "revert warring". Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review}

Well thanks for explaining yourself at least. The examples quoted by Kirill actually make me look like a pro-FGer, as the edits I made were objected to by the anti-FG community, and supported by the pro-FG one at the time. Moreover, if I should be admonished, then so should users like Asdfg, who engaged in much more serious edit warring, yet I don't hear you make a case for that. The comments on my user page + user talk page are in response to a vandal who repeatedly vandalizes anti-FG and 3rd-party users (for not objecting to Sam's edits publicly all the time, for instance). This is why I got sick of this vandalism and posted those comments. When an anti-FG vandal does similar actions to my user pages, believe me, I will post similar anti-anti-FG comments too.

It has also struck me that you say FG persecution in China is 'evident' as validity for admonishing any critics. This would indicate your personal bias. I'm not objecting to placing UN sources, etc. on the FG page to support the FG cause, because it does exist out there (read the FG talk page for more). However, writing an encyclopedic article which passes off allegations as fact is a totally different matter. This is why I questioned your ability to be neutral, and it seems pretty clear to me that you have not been able to distinguish Wiki-neutral language (encyclopedic), and my genuine personal beliefs, which have no place on Wiki. Jsw663 10:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather weak participation at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop. While well-intended I see serious naïvity in statements like "Personally I don't think there is such thing as 'crank'". There is indeed such a thing as a crank, there are a lot of them, they cause considerable disruption in Wikipedia's science articles and they drive away good editors (often experts who have made tremendous contributions). The statement is not too far removed from "Personally I don't think there's such thing as 'vandal'". It reflects inexperience at best. 75.62.7.22 09:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   I have contributed in a various of areas. The ones that I'm particularly pleased include my participation on the creation of WP:CRIME project and my work of adding infoboxes to criminal biographies, also I've edited and added infobox to US politicians, which is something I am pleased. More importantly I am particularly pleased about my contribution to Supreme Court cases and justices, and federal judges.

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?

   Generally I have refrained from engaging in any edit wars or personal attacks, and I've seldom confronted major conflicts. The only ones were image copyright ambiguity and AFD arguments, but none of them are major, and I have usually been civil.

5. In what specific areas would you like to improve?   The Transhumanist   09:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   As of now I would say I need improvement in my familiarity with the wiki codes and tools, also there are other things I might not know that I would like you to tell here.

6. What tools do you use?   The Transhumanist   09:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I currently have AWB, for tedious minor edits, but as of now I have not used it because I've not found such tedious edits after I got AWB. I might try to get VandalProof because I have been and I am interested in fighting vandalism. Today I just added WP:TWINKLE and found it very useful.

7. What (other) departments would you like to work in?   The Transhumanist   09:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Departments? Do you mean category or topics, or places like AFD, MFD, RFA, etc.?