Wikipedia:Editor review/Σ

Σ

Σ (talk · contribs · count) 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 ^talk_contribs 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.

3. 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. One discussion 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 _{^talkcontribs} 04:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Tagged WP:CSD#A3 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 ^talk_contribs 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. Wikipedia: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 _{^talkcontribs} 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)