User:Wickethewok

 Click here to leave a new message

I'm a Wikipedia administrator who contributes mainly to articles involving electronic music and modern art, though I also do work on WP:AFD and New Page Patrol. For user edit counts, I recommend Interiot's Tool, which is what I use. In case you're wondering, a main reason for my decrease in monthly edits is that I've been writing articles more offline, rather than in browser (lost too much work from accidentally closing browser windows). I am also on meta: User:Wickethewok and Commons:User:Wickethewok.

Articles I've contributed to significantly:

 * Music
 * Sasha (DJ)
 * The Orb
 * Ambient house
 * Sander Kleinenberg
 * Chris Fortier
 * Phil K
 * Nick Warren
 * Danny Howells


 * Baseball
 * Tony Oliva
 * Keith Law
 * Earnshaw Cook (DYK)
 * Catcher's ERA


 * Art
 * Hans Namuth (DYK)
 * Carolee Schneemann (B-Class)
 * Hannah Wilke
 * Lynda Benglis (DYK)

Miscellaneous stuff

 * Image:HonusWagnerCard.jpg
 * My image gallery
 * WPEM/Electronic-music-project
 * Discogs
 * User WikiProject Electronic music
 * User CWRU


 * Music clips
 * Full house music demo
 * Amidst the Raindrops clip
 * Full Deepecho downtempo demo

Future projects

 * Electronic dance music
 * John Digweed
 * /projects
 * /tocreate

A brief aside
I am a strong believer in making Wikipedia a more trustworthy source of information. While vandals certainly bring down Wikipedia's legitimacy, articles about your friends' garage band and lists of Street Fighter moves don't help much either. While I admit I am rather demanding with respect to verifiability and no original research, I believe it is best for Wikipedia. While Wikipedia certainly is home to some fantastic articles you wouldn't see anywhere else, this does not mean there need to be articles for every Yu-Gi-Oh card, every unit in StarCraft, or every forum meme. Many times on AFD, I've seen people ask for newly created articles to be allowed time for "organic expansion". This is a bad idea. Allowing for "organic expansion", if there actually happens to be any, just means that when the article is nominated for deletion a month later, its editor(s) will be upset about losing hours of work instead of minutes. The most important piece of information I can offer regarding deletion is this: third-party reliable sources trump all. If you have non-trivial reliable sources on a subject, it is most likely verifiable, notable, and not original research. If you don't have these sources, then chances are it fails those respective policies. So, please, when adding information to Wikipedia, always cite your sources.

All that said, Wikipedia has greatly improved its standards for reliability over the past year and continues to every day. With more admins and editors taking a hardline approach to nonsense, original research, unverifiable information, and those who purvey it, I am highly optimistic about the future of Wikipedia.

Some links

 * Useful
 * User:Uncle G/On notability
 * User:Uncle G/On sources and content


 * Arbitrary
 * CNET article about AFD
 * ESPN Chat comment re one of my edits