User talk:OceanLoop

Welcome!

Hi OceanLoop! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 03:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sylvester Park has been accepted

Sylvester Park, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ktkvtsh (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, a dedicated editor for Thurston County!

Hey OceanLoop!

Welcome to the show! It's pretty awesome to see a new editor dedicate themselves to Thurston County. As someone born and rasied here, there's a great amount of underserved articles, especially pages covering communities, parks, and geologic locations, that can use some buffing up.

I want to also reach out to you to give you some early advice that would've served me well when I started. I only do so because there are some guidelines (known as Wikipedia Guidelines (WP's) and Manual of Styles (MOS)) that are gospel as per the consensus of the editing Wikipedia editing community. Having one's own efforts removed or called out can be demotivating, but hopefully what I list below will prevent that and keep you motivated to stay around!

I noticed some of your recent work and am very appreciative of it...and a touch jealous you have the time! Some notes to keep in mind:

Galleries - see WP:GALLERY; I personally don't mind them and they are allowed in articles of a certain topic or if it helps to convey the information, but you'd be surprised at how much blowback you could receive. Best approach is to intersperse photos throughout the article, making sure to add them to a pertinent section if possible

Dates in refs - see MOS:DATEFORMAT and WP:CITESTYLE; usually without fail in articles within the United States, dates are written MDY, with the month being spelled out. Why? Some coding/tracking/log concern I think or maybe a site-wide OCD thing, but that is the consensus.

Edit summaries - see H:ES; noticed a few edits where you removed or rewrote parts of an article but did not mention that in the summary...no worries!...but being as open with what work you did helps other editors track and make sure things were done properly, changes are agreed to (WP:CONSENSUS), and nothing was done in an untoward manner...not to accuse you of that in the slightest! Even when you're doing everything right the worse thing to be accused of at Wikipedia is lacking WP:AGF. The more open we are about exactly what we did serves us all well!

Refreshing source dates - Noticed that you were being diligent in double-checking the source used - FANTASTIC - and keep that up...but refreshing the access-date in the source isn't necessary and for tracking/log reasons, messes up something behind the scenes (or so I've read). Unless you expand from an already listed source, editors are encouraged to leave the original access-dates unbothered.

I hope that helps even though you didn't ask for it! Expect in your early editorial career to be overruled and perhaps your efforts reverted. Some editors have a lighter tough, some swing hammers. But keep at it and you'll get the full gist of it in no time...I'm about 3% of the way there myself.

I'm no good at coding but if you need any help in the future, please reach out and don't be timid in reaching out to some of our best in Washington state at WikiProject Washington or at the overall Teahouse.

Good luck and happy editing!

OlympiaBuebird (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warm welcome and fantastic advice, which I have read and will do my best to implement in future edits.

I look forward to the full editing experience - from strict criticism to the joy to discovering and sharing new sources.

Please continue to share your wisdom and suggestions for local edits!

- OL25 OceanLoop (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Hi OceanLoop! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Olympia, Washington and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia: it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Nixleovel (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - good to know; will keep the Minor edit tag use to the prescribed minimum going forward.

- OL25 OceanLoop (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]