User talk:OceanLoop

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]

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]

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]

@OlympiaBuebird Thank you again for being a good friend and copy-editor while I used this platform, although now it has become apparent that my contributions here are no longer welcome. Farewell and happy editing! 🌊 oceanloop 02:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Hello, OceanLoop, and welcome to Wikipedia.

I am glad to see your improvements to articles about state agencies and the Olympia area, so I would like to offer some tips that should make your path to becoming a more experienced editor much smoother.

To start, the use of primary sources has to be carefully considered on Wikipedia, as there is a preference towards independent and secondary sources (such as newspapers). For state agencies in particular, this means avoiding the use of the state websites for facts that may be contestable or deemed controversial. The reliable sources guideline is also worth reading, as there is a standard on Wikipedia that can exceed those found in the real world; for example, a website like ThurstonTalk is not considered reliable due to its lack of known editorial standards and professional recognition.

In infoboxes, please do not delete too many of the unused parameters, as they might be filled at a later date. Similarly, red links that do not lead to existing articles should remain in place if the subject is potentially notable and could support an article eventually. There are general guidelines on what is notable, mostly based on whether it has more than a few in-depth sources from outside the immediate local area. There are also more specific guidelines for notability based on different types of articles, such as geographic places, biographies, and organizations.

The use of image galleries is generally discouraged, as is the use of too many images, which causes sandwiching of text. Washington State Capitol probably has too many inline images relative to its current prose, but should be expanded in the future (I have been eyeing it for a project for a while, but have not been able to devote much time towards it). I have also noticed that you have been uploading public domain images to Wikimedia Commons, which are appreciated. However, it is preferred that they are properly categorized to make finding and organization easier for other users.

That's all I have for now. Keep up the great work. SounderBruce 21:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bruce, for the many great tips; I will do my best to remember them all!

Understood about primary sources - they are often the lowest hanging fruit to pick.

I am still somewhat unsure of when use of increase/decrease templates is appropriate (esp. in infobox), and would very much appreciate your take on that.

Please keep the advice and diligent corrections coming!

- OL25 OceanLoop (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see User:SounderBruce and User:OlympiaBuebird have given you some tips on adding images. My concern is with adding satellite images to city articles. Perhaps these editors have a different perspective and could join the discussion at Talk:Moss Point, Mississippi#Satellite imagery for US city geography. --Magnolia677 (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olympia National Bank building, 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.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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!

Gheus (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delphi School, 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.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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!

MCE89 (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		Awarded to OceanLoop, an editor of fine craftmanship and talent, who is simply rocking it. Washington state has long needed new blood, who is as motivated and energized as you, to compliment the long-serving and other awesome hardworking folks around here...keep up the awesome efforts! OlympiaBuebird (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello OceanLoop! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Arizona article history, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding those maps to city articles. I think it would be best to use a different highlight color, as the blue outline makes it look like all of these cities are underwater. Perhaps a bold red (#B00000) with no inner color? SounderBruce 03:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely; I was waiting for someone to chime in with feedback. What do you think of my updated change to Olympia, Washington for effect? OceanLoop (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do think a bolder color would help, especially since gray and black are used in the maps for some roads and other outlines. I also think we should have a standardized caption for these maps; something like "Interactive location map of [city name]". SounderBruce 03:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, how about now? It looks very much improved to me. OceanLoop (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better, I'll try and roll out the changes with AWB where I can. SounderBruce 03:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not totally sure if this is possible, but I think having an inset map in the default view would be helpful. Something similar to what is used at Washington's 1st congressional district. The original static maps have them to provide context and it's far better than being zoomed all the way into a city's boundaries. SounderBruce 06:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that is indeed interesting. It may look good to "picture-in-picture" the topological feature map to showcase some of our state's natural beauty as well. I will do some sandbox experiments this week. OceanLoop (talk) 06:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello OceanLoop! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Mapbox shapes, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think that the edit reverted by this edit was good faith; I think it would be better to have an edit summary explaining reversions like this. I at least came from recent changes to see why it was reverted and was surprised that there was no explanation. Stockhausenfan (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You must be confused, as the revision you linked is undoing clear vandalism. OceanLoop (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep undoing the edit that adds Deta Surf to the browser list? 2601:1C2:880:E6E5:C7E:F5D1:8B8D:BA44 (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read your talk page. You can't use Wikipedia to promote your products. OceanLoop (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my product? 2601:1C2:880:E6E5:C7E:F5D1:8B8D:BA44 (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be productive, please sign up for an account and get familiar with the rules and guidelines, especially WP:NOTPROMO OceanLoop (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how does it "promote" it? It's literally just linking to the website since it's still in alpha. Should it just be put in as an entry without a link then? 2601:1C2:880:E6E5:C7E:F5D1:8B8D:BA44 (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need a link to an unqualified external website without secondary references. See WP:NOT and take note every single other entry in List of web browsers has a dedicated article with independent citations. OceanLoop (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for doing the right thing at the oil spill article. Could you pls make the exact same edit at List of rivers of Israel? I don't want to go into edit warring with that moronic anonymous activist. Thank you! Arminden (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, done. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping Wikipedia excellent! OceanLoop (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Big Ass Lake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Twin Lake. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I repeated the direct link to the source of this section, FOR YOU. I even added a SOURCE section. You deleted my change again. If you do this again, I will definitely report you. 2A01:E0A:AAA:29B0:6795:ABF2:84A6:91F6 (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. While you're at it, please read the guidelines on citing sources. Happy editing! 🌊 oceanloop 15:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this message is for me, it is clearly in error, as my revisions were undoing violations of Wiki guidelines. 🌊 oceanloop 19:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

OceanLoop (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I think you banned the wrong user. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Le_R%C3%AAve_%28opera%29&diff=1308199625&oldid=1308199418

I think you banned the wrong user. 🌊 oceanloop 19:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nobody is banned; you're blocked for 48 hours, and indeed, you were edit warring. Other editor announced he wanted to but didn't do so. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

🌊 oceanloop 19:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not, in general, an exception to the 3RR. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism"

The user I reverted explicitly said "I WANT AN EDIT WAR" - which I also reported to no avail - how is this not to be construed as vandalism by a reasonable editor? 🌊 oceanloop 21:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is said in an edit summary cannot be vandalism. Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

OceanLoop (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I reverted vandalism (the edit summary for the revision reverted was an explicit "I WANT AN EDIT WAR NOW" from the anonymous vandal). This should not count as edit warring, especially if the full context of my contributions are taken into account. 🌊 oceanloop 22:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your block has expired. Please take care to avoid 3RR in the future. asilvering (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

🌊 oceanloop 22:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked the other user too. But content disputes are not WP:VANDALISM. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand that, but feel strongly this was not a mere content dispute, but rather a defense against vandalism. Does intent not factor into this discussion at all? 🌊 oceanloop 22:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I just read the original noticeboard discussion and it is factually incorrect. "As for Rouncival, they only reverted twice." - So it is apparent @Daniel Case did not perform the required due dilligence on the article's history to qualify their decision. @Jpgordon thank you for correcting them. 🌊 oceanloop 23:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  First, don't lecture anyone about diligence when you can't even spell it correctly.

  It is apparent from what led to this block and your unblock requests that, while you have achieved extended-confirmed status in just over two months since you began editing, you still have much to learn about the ways of Wikipedia (Or, as Shakespeare put it, "Thou hadst been old before thou hadst been wise"). It is unfortunate that you have had on this occasion to learn things the hard way, but we all do at some point or another in our lives, online or off. On-wiki, you're not the first, and while I hope you will be the last that is probably always just going to be a hope.

  The due dilegence I did led me to check again to make sure that the editor making themselves most block-eligible was in fact the one making the report. This happens sometimes. More than you realize, in fact.

  Like more than enough other editors, you confused edits that were well-intended but deficient with malicious editing (Please read that link and tell me whether you see yourself in it). As a result, you made six reverts of different editors in 24 hours. As I noted in my message at the noticeboard, a note which you seem to have overlooked in disparaging my remarks, none of your edits was exempt from 3RR. This leaves us with a clear and unambiguous violation of the three-revert rule.

  Yes, I was aware of Rouncival's remarks. And? Your point? You accuse me of having not reviewed the history, but offer no evidence, no diff, of Rouncival having made more than the two reverts I mentioned (because there isn't any). At ANEW we are primarily interested in whether edit warring occurred. It does not occur just because someone says they want to do it. They said they wanted an edit war, but nevertheless it was you who gave us one. So you got blocked, as inevitably as night follows on day (I would have, to be fair, considered that edit summary grounds for a longer block if they had broken 3RR or otherwise edit-warred, but by itself it is to me not actionable).

  That jpgordon chose to block them anyway is ... well, I will just say that I defer to the judgement of a fellow long-time admin, and leave it at that. It is independent of the ANEW report, in any event. This situation is not improved by your obsequious flattery in thanking him; it fools none of us, and it is not going to get you unblocked.

  You might more productively spend your time in the penalty box (so to speak) by reviewing this section of the edit-warring policy page and taking it to heart. As mentioned there, the correct situation here might well have been to request page protection instead. Indeed, had I not been unable not to notice your flagrant edit warring, I might well have implemented that solution anyway (though perhaps only as pending changes) as a more preferable option to a block.

  If, once this block expires, you insist on learning nothing from it, then I must warn you you are setting yourself up for a run into a buzz saw of increasing hostility from other editors that can only result in longer blocks, until one becomes indefinite. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have a disability which requires me to use assistance software, which sometimes makes spelling mistakes. I am sure you did not mean it, but could you please re-word your response to be more calm and neutral? Wikipedia:No personal attacks states, "Avoid condescension. No matter how frustrated you are, do not tell people to "grow up" or include any language along the lines of" and your response in this style is making me quite unwelcome, and frankly uncomfortable. Perhaps it would help for you to take a break and let another administrator participate in this discussion in the meanwhile? I will also commit to reviewing your linked guidelines in an effort to de-escalate. 🌊 oceanloop 03:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Will you retract, then, your utterly unfounded assertion that I was not doing due diligence? Once you have, I will strike that first sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  and, wow. First quoting, "Avoid condescension" and then continuing with "Perhaps it would help for you to take a break and let another administrator participate in this discussion in the meanwhile?" without ironic intent is pretty funny. Regarding due diligence: I'm a WP:CHECKUSER. This gives me the ability to look at a suspicious sequence of edits and, if justified by our policies (which include verifying probably WP:LOUTSOCK behavior), to investigate more deeply than Daniel can. And none of this matters. You were edit warring, you had no WP:VANDALISM excuse for it, and when seeking unblock, it's about your behavior, not about anybody else's. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wild Wild West, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Grant and Cornfield.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Loops!

First, leaving isn't helpful. Get back on the job, my friend! Do you know how many community, town, and city articles need updated maps? How many Thurston County articles need to be expanded, fixed, and improved? You are the person for the job...and I knew that within just a few days after you first signed up!

Second, from above, remember this ..."some editors have a lighter touch, some swing hammers"...looks like you had to take some bruising from a 10lb sledge, huh? Take the base concerns of the issue to heart but ignore the human part. What I noticed is a concern over a lack of experience and taking on a large role so quickly. My experiences with you dictates you know what you're doing, but to others (as reading the above block conversation) it seems to come across to a few admins as perhaps that you are branching out too quickly while not yet having the knowledge of the system down pat enough? Stings but understandable...so scale back. You're not hurting anyone by not participating in the behind-the-scenes patrolling. Even though I think you were doing a fine job, there's plenty of editors who enjoy, and can handle, that aspect.

In time, get back into it. In the meantime, have fun here. Forget the harsh tone from the block, I know it won't be easy, but a negative experience with a few editors should not signify the whole. The volunteer efforts we all put in leads to one thing first and foremost...knowledge. To be undone by the tone of just a few is not worth the loss of you to this grand project.

I've got your back. You've proven yourself in a short amount of time to be a valuable editor that many of us in Washington state keep hoping for in droves. So get back in here and help us finish the work!

My thanks for all you've accomplished so far,

OlympiaBuebird (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]