Wikipedia:Editor review/Σ

Σ
I would like to know the quality of my deleted edits, if I'm making a mistake, if I can write or not, and if there's anywhere I need to improve. CSD log and PROD log. -- Σ talkcontribs 06:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * Destroying vandals, creating redirects, expanding USSR-related articles, Runescape when there's a new update, and NPP. I am currently working on an article about coal balls.
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * Being a new page patroller and vandal fighter, it's nearly impossible for me to avoid a dispute of some sort. where I was contacted by a new editor experiencing a difficulty understanding notability and verifiability.
 * Being a new page patroller and vandal fighter, it's nearly impossible for me to avoid a dispute of some sort. where I was contacted by a new editor experiencing a difficulty understanding notability and verifiability.

 Reviews 

Review of speedy/prod tagging by ErikHaugen
I've looked through a few of your speedy deletion tags and deletion proposals, and they look great to me. I appreciate the courtesy blanking on the one A7 that was a little dodgy. One small nit is that in one of your prod "concern" notes you mention that the article is unsourced: being unsourced is not a reason to delete, so it would probably be better to say "there aren't any sources" or "I couldn't find any sources" or something; that would be a more interesting and relevant claim. I'll try to check some more soon. Great work! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This A3 tag is in error, I think, since there is some content explaining what the subject is. Also, it was applied very soon after creation. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I am not an admin, so naturally I have no idea what was on that page. Could you provide a copy of the article somewhere? Thanks, -- Σ  talk  contribs  04:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Tagged WP:CSD within a minute of creation. The entire content of the page was:


 * 'Previously called SoapBits. Used for testing Web Services. Found on Codeplex under http://storm.codeplex.com/'


 * What you  should preferably have done was to  check for any  previously  deleted articles under STORM (Web Service Test Application) - because it  looks like a potential spam page and such  pages often get  repeatedly recreated until  an admin  finally  salts them. Run the same checks for articles under "SoapBits', check  the creator's contributions to  see if they  have also  created other dubious or spammy  articles that  may  need bringing  to  administrators' attention  or tagging, and check  the creator' s talk  page for warnings about  any other policy  infractions and escalate the warning  levels if necessary. By  the time these checks had been carried out, enough  time would have lapsed to  see if there was any  intention  on  the creator's part to  expand the article and if not, it  could then have safely  been tagged A1 or A3 as appropriate. Help  understanding  the principles involved in  patrolling  new pages is available at  WP:NPP with  further details on  policy  at  WP:DELETION, and detailed descriptions of deletion criteria at  WP:CSD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Review of speedy tagging
Overall everything looked well tagged. I looked through about 20 of your speedy tags, focusing on A7 but not being overly picky, and the worst I could find was Avi Vinocur where you tagged A7. Avi Vinocur claimed to be the songwriter behind a song featured in an advertisement. While this wouldn't survive an AfD, I think it was an "assertion of significance" and would have been better as a PROD. Really not a huge deal as I tend to be more strict than others on what qualifies as A7. I feel the intention of A7 is to cover the generic "I wanna be on Wikipedia"-type of articles with zero significance. Again, everything else looked great.--v/r - TP 17:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Brief review and question
Well, I've seen you here and there, and a quick look through your contibs shows a classic vandal-fighter set-up. Lots of mainspace and user talk edits, but not a whole lot of edits to any single article. Still, you obviously know what vandalism is ;), and you've done a good job there. I do have one question for you though. In the discussion you just linked to, in Q.2, you told the person this. Very true - FB, Youtube and blogs are not considered RS's. However, just a few days later, you created an article which relied heavily on Facebook: two of the sources, and almost half of the footnotes were sourced there. I'd like to know your thoughts.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  11:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If I may comment here, the problem—not that it's that big of a problem!—is Σ's unqualified claim that facebook and youtube are not reliable sources (disclaimer: I work or have worked at both). The about page hosted on fb is just as valid a reference as any game's official website, I think. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 13:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see what you mean. Having looked it up, I confused FB being a RS with FB being strongly discouraged as an external link. My apologies to Sigma.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  13:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As a note, the article in question was about a Facebook application. -- The Σ talkcontribs 02:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it's appropriate to reply here to ErikHaugen, but I will nevertheless. Facebook and Youtube are not considered reliable sources because they are mostly used for user-submitted content, and do not have any editorial control whatsoever. The same applies for blogs, IMDb and Wikipedia. All of these are generally not reliable as sources per WP:RS. What defines a reliable source is its editorial control over the content it publishes. All of the above sites do not enforce editorial control or in some case any control whatsoever (Youtube, Facebook), therefore, as a general rule, they cannot be considered reliable sources. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, the unqualified claim that they are not reliable is incorrect. External links/Perennial websites has more, and see the relevant policy about using a self-published source as a source about the publisher. You note that Facebook and Youtube do not exercise editorial control. This is mostly true, but the owners of the channels/pages on Youtube and Facebook may, and if those owners are, for example, reliable news outlets, then those channels/pages might be reliable sources. Saying that the medium is unreliable is like saying that TCP/IP does not exercise editorial control, and therefore internet-based sources are inherently unreliable. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Facebook is reliable, so long as the publisher is controlling it, but it's not a 3rd party source, and therefore does not show notability. I must've confused the two in the response User:Nolelover linked. My mistake. -- Σ  talk  contribs  05:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Kudpung
There was a time when I used to  be very  skeptical of your attitude. However, since you began stalking  my  work and talk page, I have noticed not only a marked improvement, but  a distinct  increase in  the number and quality  of your contributions to policy  matters. Hoever, don't let  my Wikipedia opinions on policy  development  and change influence you, but  do consider further deepening  your knowledge of fundamental policies - you  may  even be a suitable candidate for adminship  in  the not  too distant future. Be sure to read WP:NPP over and over again until  you  either know if off by  heart  or are sick of it,  and also read this, and this, and recommend the essays to others wwhen you're on patroll. Keep up the good work :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Brief Review
Σ is probably one of the most helpful editors on Wikipedia, suggesting new ways of using Wikipedia and answering all my questions and helping me out when i was a newbie. I'd certainly recommend him to become an admin of some sort. (Unless he is already) :) Goldblooded (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, and the obsession with coal balls is charming. (Having said that, I think the first sentence of the Coal ball article should be split up into two sentences.) Npmay (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)