Yikes. My first edit on WP (as an IP, this account came a few months later) was ten years ago today. What to say? Came across a Chinese fortune cookie paper I had saved the other day: "If you put up with small annoyances, you will gain great results." Decent advice in general. And, allowing for sometimes larger values of 'small' and lesser values of 'great', a pretty good description of writing WP articles.
Not a waste if I'm an 'influencer' or 'protector'?
December 2008 interviewed by BBC World Service producer about Scorpions album/Internet Watch Foundation/ISP blocking episode, might have been an unnamed referent in this BBC story
May, October 2012 – interviewed at length by one major news organization about WP and ongoing presidential campaign, contacted by another, but neither story ran. Once your 15 minutes are up, they are up!
Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Imperial triple crown jewels upon Wasted Time R for your contributions to articles political and otherwise in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC. Cheers, Casliber (talk· contribs) 05:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Awake, you sleepers, from your sleep! Rouse yourselves, you slumberers ... who are wasting your years in vain pursuits that neither profit nor save.
Early history
Starting in January 2005 I made around 1,000 edits as anons User: 68.197.107.71 and User: 67.108.122.62, never feeling committed to the idea that WP converges to quality or that anyone reads these articles. I'm still not sure on either account ... a page view count mechanism would be really helpful. In May 2005 I began using this account; within a little more than a month I had another 1,000 edits. Too much!?
Well, with even more time in the past, this below is an example of how WP has improved. All of the problems mentioned here can and do exist, and can sometimes drive editors crazy, but over time it is also possible to maintain stable, high-quality articles, even on (some) political subjects. And the best-selling music artists article mentioned below has gotten a lot better.
The biggest problems in WP articles, especially those dealing with popular culture:
Excessive detail in the wrong places, such as an article's intro
Inconsistent levels of detail within an article or across a set of articles
Just plain too much detail
The first article I ever edited is also just about the worst article in Wikipedia, List of best-selling music artists. Missing or bogus data, pov agendas, pure vandalism, heavy churn, perpetually under VfD. The edit was this: [1]. I picked this article because I could tell it was pretty worthless, so if I blundered it totally, no harm done. The same still applies.
Proper usage in music articles
Quotes and italics
Popular music article writers, please memorize Wikipedia:Music#Albums, bands, and songs. Albums go in italics, songs go in double quotes, bands are just proper nouns, and only the first reference to the title subject of an article (and any alternate names of it) go in bold. How hard is this to understand? Yet there are jillions of music articles that get this wrong in every which way.
Another common fault is placing punctuation inside the double quotes used for song titles, such as:
Her biggest hits were "Fool to Love," "Cry Every Day," and "Tears for Years."
Take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks. Song titles are clearly the case where the punctuation is not "part of the sense" of the thing being quoted, and therefore should be outside the double quotes. Thus the above should be:
Her biggest hits were "Fool to Love", "Cry Every Day", and "Tears for Years".
I've seen more than a few cases where people make the same mistake in their coding with italics:
Her most popular albums included ''No Love Supreme,'' ''Sorrow Tomorrow,'' and ''Love is Pain.''
which is really ridiculous – do the titles on the real album covers include commas and periods?
It is true that other publications (New York Times, Rolling Stone) put punctuation inside the double quotes in the first case, but Wikipedia standards are clear that you don't; see WP:MOSLQ for another statement to this effect.
Barnstars
Not sure I really believe in this metaphor, but ... some years later and after 32 of them, it's nice to feel appreciated ...
The Minor Barnstar
For making minor edits to improve the quality in the Il Divo article I award you this Barnstar Rosameliamartinez 09:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep up the good job with the many concert [tour] articles. I'd award one of those stars, but there's some silly administrative debate on the appropriate star to hand out for WP:MUSIC contributions. --Madchester 21:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar
I, Eseymour, award you this Editor's Barnstar for your fine work in leading the dismantling of Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies and integrating the content into appropriate separate articles. Awarded on the 13th of November, 2007.
The Barnstar of Good Humor
Thanks for the laugh from the Britney Spears comment at WP:GAR. I’m envious that your life is so carefree as to allow you to place concern on train wrecks troubled pop stars. ;) Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑtalk 17:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The Wasted Time Barnstar
For putting up with all the garbage that goes along with political articles and for being able to keep cool for 3 years without running away like many of us have considered. I will waste some of my time to give you this waste of time barnstar. STX 19:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
This barnstar is for your tireless efforts in creating and improving the Hillary Clinton article, please keep up the good work. Thanks! Dwilsotalk 04:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar
For being able to listen to criticism, and improve in your ability for NPOV writing a very informative section on the Cultural and political image of Hillary Clinton. Kudos!! ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 03:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
To Wasted Time R, on the occasion of press coverage of your wiki work. Few have represented Wikipedia so well and at its highest level of excellence. As others have said, well done. Congratulations! -Susanlesch (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar
To Wasted Time R on a very special occasion, in recognition of outstanding contributions to Wikipedia. Susanlesch (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The Half Barnstar
For incredible collaboration to get John McCain up to GA status. Keep up the good work! Eustress (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For going above and beyond the call of duty to deal with the Hillary Rodham Clinton FAC when the nominator didn't follow up. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For this, I, J.delanoygabsanalyze, hereby award you this Tireless Contributer Barnstar. I don't think I have ever seen such dedication anywhere, let alone on Wikipedia. Congratulations, and keep up the good work! J.delanoygabsanalyze 03:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
United States barnstar of national merit
I award you the barnstar of national merit in recognition of your ceaseless contributions of excellence in the United States Senator John McCain article and biographical series. —
For all of your hard effort in getting War Tour up to GA which, if it is indeed the first Tour article to make it to that level, is an accomplishment to be proud of. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
For commendable patience and tolerance in the face of his GA reviewer's continually missed deadlines and inane complaints about phrasing, I award Wasted Time R this barnstar of good humo(u)r. Steve Smith (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar
Awarded to User:Wasted Time R Appreciation for splitting that "time" between your own excellence in editing without forgetting about those of us still plodding along. Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar
For you excellent work on the Arizona SB1070 article, repeatedly editing and contributing with other users. Theo10011 (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
Thank you for helping me out three and a half years ago when I did not completely understand how things worked. You and User:JayJasper are tied as the most neutral wikipedia editors. I am proud to have collaborated with y'all.Southern Texas (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence
For extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service. Cheers! —Eustresstalk 22:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of National Merit
This tricolor-beribboned barnstar is awarded for the recipient's even-handedness in addressing nation-of-origin issues on Wikipedia. (And, by the way, cogratulations on the George W. Romney bio's having become an article especially featured on Wikipedia!)
this WikiAward was given to Wasted Time R by Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) on 23:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar
A great article on Lenore Romney. Congrats on the GA and may we see many more!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar
Thanks Wasted Time R! You assisted in various ways on the Paul McCartneyFAC. Thank you! Without your help McCartney would not be a FA today! ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence
For your work on Political positions of Mitt Romney, where you put your nose to the grindstone and just kept on fixing the article, even while the rest of us squabbled endlessly. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I'm beginning to see why they call this "silly season". I've noticed the upheaval going on with many of our politics-related articles, and I'm impressed with the calm, respectful, and neutral way in which you deal with the POV coming from both sides. I can't say I envy your position, but I have great respect for the work you're doing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar
You, Anythingyouwant and Gabe deserve any one of several barnstars for your work at Mitt Romney's FAC, but I chose this one because of your tireless effort cooperating with the other two in resolving the many many issues that had to be tackled. Congratulations on helping get the article to where it is hamiltonstone (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar
for such careful attention to the sources in reviewing DYK nominations, specifically in regard to Ved Vejen. With gratitude. -- Ipigott (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for all your efforts and for your time. Miss Bono (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The U2 Barnstar
I hereby award you the U2 Barnstar for your efforts in helping Wikiproject U2. Congratulations! For your Contributions on Morleigh Steinberg's Article. Enjoy it Miss Bono(zootalk) 14:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
i don't know if this is the right bstar to say thank you for all you are doing for Morleigh Steinberg's article... but THANKS A LOT Miss Bono(zootalk) 12:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
For your contributions to bring George McGovern to Good Article status. With 18,000 views a month, this article serves as many readers as ten average GAs put together. Thanks for going after the big topics--it's hugely appreciated! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for lending your talent to the Sgt. Pepperpeer review and FAC. Because of some wonderful teamwork during the last month, the article is among the best on Wikipedia today. I couldn't have done it alone, and I hope that someday I can return the kindness and generosity that I've enjoyed during this process. Cheers! GabeMc(talk|contribs) 16:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Why it's a waste, Part 2
Too much wasted time has taken its toll. Have wiped my 1000-item watchlist and only put back a few obligations and obscure things I care about. Edits should be few(er), once I finish some things I started.
From December 2006. Didn't work.
Why Trivia sections are bad
Here's another example of where WP works – back in 2005–06 trivia sections drove me nuts, but standards were drawn up, editors imitated one another in getting rid of them, and now it's rare to see any.
All sorts of articles, mostly popular culture ones but some other kinds as well, have picked up sections named Trivia. This is not a good idea!
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a catchbin for every factoid about a subject, as some non-Wikipedia popular culture web pages are. Wikipedia articles should have a cohesiveness of content. If a "Trivia" item is really important, it should be put into one of the mainline sections of text in the appropriate spot. If a "Trivia" item is somewhat important, it can often be pushed down into a subordinate article (such as an album or song article for a musical artist, rather than the main article). If a "Trivia" item isn't important, it should be left out of any article! It's that simple.
Trivia sections are the lazy way out; they represent no organisation, no structure, no cohesion. They should all be gotten rid of, something I've tried to do when I've encountered them in articles I've worked on.
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#Trivia for a guideline against Trivia sections in music articles.
And Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles for a guideline against Trivia sections in all articles.