Wikipedia:Editor review/Gzkn

User:Gzkn
Hello all. Just completed my first month of active participation at Wikipedia, and I humbly submit myself to a review. What can I do to improve? Short "About Me": I've kind of dabbled in a lot of places in my short time here. Mostly, I spend my time fighting vandals and doing reviews/peer reviews at WP:FAC. I've also recently started to dip my feet in the article creation process (see my answer to question 1). Note: I have no interest in becoming an admin at this time, so this isn't a preparation for an RfA. Just a general "how's my driving?". :) Thanks a bunch! Gzkn 05:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

 Reviews 



 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've only recently started to spend more time editing/creating articles, so I don't have too many yet that I can point to. I created Robert Bazell and Robert Hager, and I rewrote Steve Kroft. Those were mostly in preparation for my current project, Peter Jennings. I've rewritten about half of his biography so far. I have also particularly enjoyed helping improve FACs to FA status. Gzkn 06:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * Hmmm...not really, although that could be because I haven't yet done much editing in real contentious atmospheres yet. There was only one blatant vandal that I ever became annoyed at. Even though I never interacted with him, he was a prolific troll, and trying to keep up and revert his edits was tiresome (he also disguised his vandalism quite well so that he avoided a block for a while). But he got permanently banned soon enough. I've become involved in doing some "behind-the-scenes" work at MedCabal to work on my consensus-building skills. Recently, I was criticized for my harsh comment to, and perhaps I did overreact. But I'm not the best judge of that situation, so hopefully one of you can let me know. :) Gzkn 06:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I guess the below has changed my answer a bit. I'm not stressed at all (especially since I really have no interest in the article in question), and I think I'm doing okay in handling the situation so far...let me know. :) Gzkn 02:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I guess the below has changed my answer a bit. I'm not stressed at all (especially since I really have no interest in the article in question), and I think I'm doing okay in handling the situation so far...let me know. :) Gzkn 02:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Changing Pages with no good reason

I sincerely hope this user does not become an editor as he/she just changes pages without even leaving a reason,

This is one example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_of_Life

A complaint has been issued against you.Neutral2006 20:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not true - you yourself just left an unexplained edit there. I don't have time to look into the matter of edit-war there between you and Gzkn right now, but I might. Valters 22:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not explaining the revert. I've elaborated on the article's talk page...not really an edit war between us though. I have no interest in the article. There is, however, an edit war going on among Neutral2006 and two other editors if you want to weigh in. Gzkn 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Valters Please show me where I have left an unexplained edit, Everytime I have edited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_of_Life I have left a comment in the discssion page. So you are making statements without even researching the facts. Valters this is simple not true, I am not in an edit war with Gzkn or AnonMoos, I have simple saw what AnonMoos was doing to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_of_Life and I wanted to help the article, but AnonMoos seem to be intent on destroying it, and then to top it off Gzkn came along and reverted the article without even leaving a reason and only left a reason "AFTER" I complained.Neutral2006 20:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Overly critical editing/deletion
As mentioned above, Gzkn did initially edit the Flower of Life page without giving a reason. He later gave his reasoning, after Neutral2006 complained. This however is not the problem. I don't care that he didn't explain his actions, I care that he took such actions in the first place.

Take a look at the article in its proper state, after all my long hours of work contributing information:

Then take a look at what he did to it:

Any rational person should be able to immediately see how ridiculous this is.

Upon further investigation one should be able to see the enormous amount of references cited (over 150, which includes some exceptionally reliable book sources) and how the basis for deletion was a biased opinion towards the religious beliefs presented.

In conclusion, Gzkn is in my opinion, judging by his actions, a horrible editor. sloth_monkey 13:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm...I'll let other editors comment on your incivility. I would like to point out though that I reverted this version with your byline surreptitiously inserted in the right corners, not the one you listed. Gzkn 13:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Radical editing/deletion
Merged and radically altered the page on "Notable non-graduate alumni, Harvard" This was absolutely without reason, and was invasive and without merit. Merging a list of people who had not graduated nor taught only injects trivia into a list of notable alumni and teachers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.253.202.168 (talk • contribs)


 * I left the merge proposal there for five days, and there was no response. Responded further at talk page. Gzkn 00:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)