User:Wonderfl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Tomjenkins52)
Jump to: navigation, search
Editor - silver ribbon - 2 pips.jpg This editor is a Yeoman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.
en This user is a native speaker of the English language.
Noia 64 apps karm.svg This user has been on Wikipedia for 9 years, 4 months and 25 days.
Stock alarm.svg Because of real life, this user will be editing on and off.
Cscr-featured.svgSymbol support vote.svg
Merge-arrows.svg
Symbol delete vote.svgBooks-aj.svg aj ashton 01b.svg
This user values the quality of Wikipedia articles over the quantity and thus supports the merging of related content and deletion of articles that violate policies and guidelines.
Be bold.png This user is bold, but not reckless, in updating pages.
Face-angel.svg This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know.
MedCom laurel.png This user believes in civility and assuming good faith.
Unbalanced scales.svg This user strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues.

Hi there! I'm Wonderfl, a longtime Wikipedian with an interest in technology, software, electronics, gaming, DIY, and hobby aircraft.

I enjoy filing in gaps by creating articles about notable subjects that have none, or rewriting existing articles to fairly represent the subject. I also strive to be impartial and to support as many statements with inline citations as possible.

If my articles helped you, or you'd like to support my work, consider awarding me a barnstar. (Click the "heart" icon on the top of the page)

Contributions[edit]

Content that I have entirely authored and illustrated.

WikiLove[edit]

Thank you to everyone who took the time to spread a little WikiLove. You make Wikipedia a better place!

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your work on many software related articles. Andries (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Keep up the good work. Theroadislong (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for the OpenStudio page. duncan.lithgow (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for taking the initiative to write about the IOIO! This article has been notably missing for a long time. Ytaibt (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


Currently, this editor has earned a Yeoman Editor (or Grognard Extraordinaire) service award.

To get to the next level, Experienced Editor (or Grognard Mirabilaire), he needs to meet the editing requirement.

Progress towards the next level (by edits): [ 1715 / 2000 ]

85.8% completed

   

FAQs[edit]

Why do they keep deleting my stuff?[edit]

Good question. Many reasons.

  1. You haven't the citations - This means that the other Wikipedians cannot verify what you have said and would delete it since you have not linked to any "proof" of the topic - You haven't linked to any URLs or books where the topic is mentioned directly, and unambiguously. (you cannot link to one URL that says "2", another that says "3" and claim that "2 + 3 = 5" in Wikipedia.) The easiest way out is having the topic published by a company that is related to the subject, and adding a link to that on Wikipedia, although this is generally bad policy since you are adding citations to self published sources, and in general only links to reliable sources are trustworthy. I mean you can't exactly trust a link to a YouTube video that says pigs are blue, can you?!
  2. The topic is not generally accepted, and is your own opinion or discovery - Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia, because otherwise any fringe theory or gossip could be added in, creating a large jumble of facts and half-lies. Therefore, only topics that are generally accepted, or notable enough, are permitted to be published on Wikipedia. If your topic/addition is important, discuss it on the talk page and why its relevant and not your own opinion, add citations from other parties other than yourself or your company, and maybe your addition will be accepted.
  3. They don't understand - Often other Wikipedians with less expertise on the subject might misunderstand or simply fail to understand what you've written. In this case take the argument to the talk page and try to explain, not fight. A lot of bad blood is caused by simple misunderstanding, so assume good faith, and explain your way out. Explanation is the best way to resolve disputes here on Wikipedia, and stay connected to the community.
  4. It isn't written "correctly" - If your writing is a mess (ambiguous, confusing) or if you haven't written it in a neutral tone, editors may delete your addition because it "doesn't fit". Try again. Look at other writing on the topic and try to frame your writing in a similar manner. The basic idea is that writing on Wikipedia must sound "neutral" and "unbiased", so if you are passionate about something you'll have to tone down that passion, and write in an almost boring and monotonous fashion. Surprising, this "boring" style of writing also makes for more believable reading, since people are more likely to believe "matter-of-fact" statements than passionate arguments.

Why is everyone so irritable?[edit]

Ah. Welcome to Wikipedia of the real world. Ever watched Skyfall? We're the last rats standing. Everyone here on Wikipedia has been through a lot of bitter arguments and heartbreaking insults, and we who have stayed, have chosen to contribute to this beautiful project despite the past, not because of it. Sometimes its editors who take the guidelines too seriously and behave like Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter. Others have genuine misunderstandings and misperceptions and heated arguments are quickly started. To this effect, there's even a policy that says "Don't bite the newcomers".

In most cases, these "irritable editors" don't really hate you or your work, but at some point they were "victims" of the same system that you are currently. And in time they learnt the rules, and learnt how to survive. And so anyone who does something that doesn't fit, well, its quite natural to lash out at them and give them the same treatment they recieved when they were newcomers. This vicious circle is really hard to prevent.

I started as a loner, and had to figure my way out. But possibly not everyone has had such a bitter experience with Wikipedia and there are gems who really do everything they can to help. I hope you're lucky enough to encounter such editors, and in case you have trouble, try to understand the situation and talk your way out. Insults, credentials, threats, such things don't work on Wikipedia and shouldn't be tried.

  1. If you encounter a harsh, abusive individual - try to steer clear instead of getting embroiled in a lengthy and often endless debate.
  2. If you encounter honest criticism of your additions - learn, try again and discuss the matter on the talk page.
  3. If you have someone repeatedly revert (undo) your additions - you can file a complaint regarding edit warring at the noticeboard, especially if the person undid your actions without sufficient justification 4 times or more.
  4. If you don't understand the system - read my guides and maybe you'll figure out what goes and what doesn't on Wikipedia.