Wikipedia:Editor review/Sykko

Sykko
I have been around for a couple of weeks, and was interested in seeing what others think. My main objective is to get an idea of how well I am doing so far and if there is anything I can do to improve. I have no plan to ever go for RfA since I have read enough about it and know that most of the good stuff is available to all editors. Of course this brought up another thing I am Interested in advice for, which is things I might enjoy doing. If when doing a review of me you can think of a wikiproject, or task that a user like me might be interested in please suggest it. I feel a bit alone around here so far but I think that is because I just haven't met anyone and am used to more social based sites so getting involved is a major goal of mine. %% -SYKKO- %% (talk to me) 03:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * Thanks so much for being willing to help out with the ER backlog. But it makes me a more biased reviewer--I start out with immense liking for you. :P I don't have time for a full review now, so I'll add some questions to help me when I do get started (I think it makes sense for ER to be a dialog, don't you?). I saw the first edit to your talk page inviting input about your work, I think that's great that you're open to criticism.  I relate to the rules paranoia, I'm like that too. But on the whole, I'd hypocritically advise you to WP:BOLD because odds are very good that that'll be a net benefit to the project.  Especially considering how fast you are at picking up on stuff--you're way ahead of most people with your amount of experience on the project.  From a quick look at your contribs it looks like you're very friendly and get along well with folks, and overall it looks like you're doing awesome.  More to follow.   delldot   talk  06:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and no problem with helping out. I have enjoyed it a lot so far! I have answered the additional questions below. Good questions by the way, the first one caused me to do quite a bit of thinking as I had not previously really considered if I could put it into words before.


 * Also I am editing the original statement, I put AfD when I meant RfA (I essentially wanted to explain that I don't have some dream of applying for admin down the road and simply want to become a better editor) mixed em up. it's the "f"s in the middle I guess %% -SYKKO- %% (talk to me) 07:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, good clarification, but I had missed that in the first place! Still don't have time for a thorough review, but I do have a followup question.   delldot   talk  02:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have already got a bit of a better grasp on things just from some of the questions. I think it will help going forward in case there are other articles that I want to start or improve from stubs going forward! %% -SYKKO- %% (talk to me) 18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Now then, sorry for the delay. Some thoughts: Overall, you're doing great, I'm very impressed with your rapid progress and your civility. I'd love to see more writing from you. If you ever need any help or advice, don't hesitate to ask me, I'm always glad to do that kind of thing. delldot  talk  05:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The first thing that struck me is how conscientious you seem, making effort to seek feedback and advice, which I think is great. But don't worry too much if you don't get any, it just means you're doing a good job (and/or no one's paying attention).
 * In all of your interactions I saw, you were very friendly, going out of your way to show goodwill.
 * I like that you try to explain your thinking clearly, going to length to do so, rather than leaving a templated message or something when you disagree with someone.
 * I was also impressed by how calmly you handled the AFD of AEF--I think your easygoingness will take you far on this project. I saw that you're on an AEF messageboard or something, are you involved with the project?  If so, are you aware of the COI guideline, and what do you think of it?  I bet your experience with the AEF article has taught you a lot, definitely a good thing.
 * You've picked up a lot more of Wikipedia than most people do in a few weeks on the project. In fact, in other people's ERs, you're giving out advice that shows you're familiar with policies and guidelines to people who have been here longer.
 * You didn't go into too much depth in the reviews though, for example you could have looked longer through their user talk page and article talk edits to get a feel for their interactions.
 * Why did you capitalize the T in Cable Theft‎? Per WP:NC, it wouldn't be capitalized unless it's a proper noun.
 * There are some Wikipedia subculture things you have to pick up still, lots of minor things that you get from hanging out here for a long time. For example, no one says 'vote'. It's just not the cool thing to do.  You'll pick up on these things, whether or not you decide to conform to them.
 * I think it's great how much you've gotten into technical things like templates, I can tell you're a useful addition to the project. Have you heard of the ImageMap thing? Strikes me as the kind of thing you'd get a kick out of playing with.


 * Reply by Sykko
 * I will try to keep this reply quick since this ER is already huge. Thanks for the advice, I didnt think you could give me more info that would be more helpful than you already have but it's definately been topped. The comments on my reviews is great, and will be helpful going forward! thanks! with AEF, yes I read COI, and it kinda borders for my case. I almost joined their development team. All in all AEF being my first controversial issue here has been a huge learning opportunity. I should admit, I spent alot of time reading policy before ever getting involved, but things like WP:NC are examples of the stuff I am working on now. Vote is a word I have just now been noticing might not be best to use around here :p And for Image map, that used to be one of my favorite HTML tags back when learning html some 6 or 8 years ago and I am glad that there is a wikimedia verison! you are right I am very interested!.


 * In finishing, (So much for being short) Thank You very much for the review! It has been extremely helpful!


 * One last question. I feel satisfied with this review and am ready to move it to the archive. Should I just add the link with the date it was originally submitted to make room? %% -SYKKO- %% (talk to me) 05:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome, I'm glad you found it helpful. Remember, you're always welcome to come to my talk page with questions or discussion, too.  Yes, to archive the page, you add it to WP:Editor review/Archives in alphabetical order by your name.  Then you edit WP:ER and remove the link to this page and the four dashes above it or below it (i.e. make sure it's review, line, review, line). If you see other review requests that you think have gotten adequate reviews and are older than a month, you can archive those too.  It's a good way to help out with this neglected page, actually.   delldot   talk  14:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool
 * Please also comment about my Editor Reviews that I have given so far here, here, and here if you have any input

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * The improvements I made to the Las Vegas Portal. also I feel happy with the fact that I have been able to catch on quickly, and I have enjoyed creating my own user templates as well, which have already come in handy.
 * 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?
 * Yes, on the first article that I created Advanced_Electron_Forum, the largest section of the article was deleted. I took it very personally and was rather upset. A week or so later I found WP:OWN which set me straight and I somehow felt better. Other than that there have been a few times where I have been frustrated because projects I have joined are pretty much inactive, but I am dealing with that by trying to breathe some life back into them if I can.
 * 1) Do you now understand why the large section was removed?  delldot   talk  06:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes and No, I guess I could put it best by explaining that it didn't seem to fit when looking back at it, but at the same time I don't think I know enough yet to explain why to another editor if it was me deleting the section. I would say the obvious thing is consistency, and perhaps the fact that the subject is rather minor and doesn't need such an extensive listing of history. The truth is it isn't incredibly notable as a subject in the first place which was why early on I was paranoid about the article being deleted. As a result I would say to have such a detailed list would have been better placed either in a list as a sub page, or not at all since really the topic needs to gain more solid ground before really being something that has a proper history to list there. %% -SYKKO- %% (talk to me) 07:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your use of the word 'notable' was exactly what I was looking for. In addition to being kind of questionable by the notability guideline, the info looked to me like it might not be verifiable, since it likely had not been written about in sources that were not related to the subject itself (i.e., the software's own website wouldn't count; not neutral enough). I think they were justified in removing the content simply because it was unreferenced; it's likely that an independent reference couldn't be found for that info.  One rule of thumb I use is "would this have been covered by news sources or journals?" Obviously, that's going to work better for some subjects than others, but you get what I mean, right? When in doubt, stick with your ironclad sources: journals, mainstream media (for some topics; these aren't as good for topics such as science), and books published by respected publishers like university presses.   delldot   talk  02:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A followup question: When you're concerned or unsure about the notability or obscurity of a topic, how would you go about figuring out whether it should be included in the encyclopedia? How would you make sure your article wasn't questioned on these grounds by others?   delldot   talk  02:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lately I have been checking for major news publications or networks on google. For example on the article that I started about a major local sporting event called Corporate Challenge I feel that I would be capable of easily defending it due to the following article as a result I would feel much more confident in defending that article as being notable and that any attach would have to be on the quality which isn't exactly a standard since there are plenty enough stubs around here with alot less info on them than that article which I would say is somewhere between a good stub or close to start quality article (and I plan to do a bit of work on it still, but need some pictures and maybe a few more sources first). I should also note that the AEF article has been nominated for deletion, and I am not really opposed to the idea, and replied essentially saying as such. %% -SYKKO- %% (talk to me) 18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I like your advice about considering (put in my own words) Ff it would fly in mainstream media, I think that will be a big help for me going forward. so definately thanks for that! %% -SYKKO- %% (talk to me) 18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I noticed in one of your earliest edits that you used a geocities site as a reference. I take it you are now aware of the guideline on references? (So I know what to focus on in your review).  delldot   talk  06:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I? lol, that had to be the narcolepsy article right? That was the one that started it all really, it was the reason I registered in the first place. I would say that I was definately not really thinking of the idea of what is reliable or not at the time. I would say though, that even now I often question myself on my sources for references because reliable is a very subjective thing. I think that is definately the kind of thing I could work on in the future. Either way, my understanding on the WP:RS policy is much clearer. It is more a matter of if I am following that guideline well enough these days that I worry about one way or the other %% -SYKKO- %% (talk to me) 07:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, yeah, you're definitely ahead of the curve in your familiarity with policies and guidelines. Definitely drop me a note on my talk page if you ever want my input on a question. Also you can ask for input on the talk page of the article or on WT:RS.  But again, when in doubt, go for only the toughest, most RS.   delldot   talk  02:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! will do. %% -SYKKO- %% (talk to me) 18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I? lol, that had to be the narcolepsy article right? That was the one that started it all really, it was the reason I registered in the first place. I would say that I was definately not really thinking of the idea of what is reliable or not at the time. I would say though, that even now I often question myself on my sources for references because reliable is a very subjective thing. I think that is definately the kind of thing I could work on in the future. Either way, my understanding on the WP:RS policy is much clearer. It is more a matter of if I am following that guideline well enough these days that I worry about one way or the other %% -SYKKO- %% (talk to me) 07:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, yeah, you're definitely ahead of the curve in your familiarity with policies and guidelines. Definitely drop me a note on my talk page if you ever want my input on a question. Also you can ask for input on the talk page of the article or on WT:RS.  But again, when in doubt, go for only the toughest, most RS.   delldot   talk  02:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! will do. %% -SYKKO- %% (talk to me) 18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)