Misplaced Pages

User:CyberAnth: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:46, 13 January 2007 view sourceCyberAnth (talk | contribs)7,558 edits {{User:CyberAnth/wikibreak}}← Previous edit Revision as of 20:47, 13 January 2007 view source CyberAnth (talk | contribs)7,558 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:CyberAnth/wikibreak}} {{User:Kchase02/wikibreak}}
<nowiki> <nowiki>


Revision as of 20:47, 13 January 2007

User:Kchase02/wikibreak

The Signpost
24 December 2024
Tip of the day...
Upgrade Recent Changes in my preferences

Have you tried the Advanced options in your Recent changes user preferences settings? It requires a modern browser to work and is disabled by default.

Unlike the normal "recent changes" page, these options can summarize edits to the same page and let you dynamically expand and collapse the list items. For multiple edits to the same page, it also provides a single "changes" link which will show you a view of the differences (diffs) between these combined edits and the last non-recent revision.

After changing the Advanced options, the "Recent changes" list takes effect immediately and can be reversed by unchecking any option.

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip Read more:Help:Recent changes  m:Help:Recent changes   Become a Misplaced Pages tipster To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}


This user is a participant in WikiProject Good Articles.
talk | Changes log | GAN report
Editing Misplaced Pages is something this user does as a hobby.
This user is bold, but not reckless, in updating pages.
This user is a Christian.
This user is an academic.
This user is a bibliophile.

User:Akrabbim/UBX/Lines

This user enjoys writing.

User:Rfrisbie/Userbox/INFJ Template:User working published book Template:User published academic journal Template:User published magazine Template:User published textbook encyclopedia

This user is interested in politics.
This user is interested in drama and acting.

Template:User cook Template:User backpacking Template:User tea

Misplaced PagesThis user helps make Simple English Misplaced Pages better.

About me

I am a devoted Christian, but please don't even try to stereotype me because I am sure to not fit.

I enjoy contributing to Misplaced Pages because it allows me to expand my knowledge bases. While my contributions to date have been in relatively narrow areas, most of which have surprised me upon looking back, my interests are actually wide-ranging.

I consider myself to have developed expertise in applying Misplaced Pages content policies. Most particularly, I am a hard-ass stickler for requiring that verifiability and notability be established.

My Wikiphilosophy

I consider Misplaced Pages to be one of the greatest things since sliced bread.

I consider Misplaced Pages to be one of the worst shit-holes since shit first stank.

If you are a noob here, you will understand in time, although I am doing everything I can to make this project better.

That is why I am largely a deletionist.

A big problem with Misplaced Pages is that the verification and notability policies are not applied rigorously enough.

Any statement that uses deletion as antonym for improvement will go nowhere. Some people need to understand that expansion does not equal improvement.

No one should have to take time to find sources for another editor, because the editor adding his or her addition should have his or her sources right in front of them and be able to easily cite and attribute from it. Otherwise it is very probably original research or (at worse) unattributed plagiarism. The Burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it.

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. - Jimbo Wales

Favorite critical quotes about Wikipeia


Readability, which wasn't great to begin with, has plummeted. Formerly coherent and reasonably accurate articles in the technical section have gotten worse as they've gotten longer. And most interesting of all, the public is beginning to notice. What they don't like to talk about is that on Misplaced Pages, the truth is determined in the end by a physical contest. Whoever has the endurance to stay awake at a keyboard and maintain his version of the edits wins.


It's worth reflecting on the reason Wiki-kernel would never fly: code actually has to work, not merely be written.


Involvement in Misplaced Pages has taken its toll on a significant number of decent, fair minded people who with the most honorable intentions, have tried to alert the project to its social responsibilities and failed. Such voices could be heard on the Misplaced Pages mailing list, speaking up for quality. Misplaced Pages is losing good editors at an alarming rate, but who can blame them for leaving?


Is Misplaced Pages a source of reference, or just a great big game?


Regardless of whether Misplaced Pages actually is more or less reliable than the average encyclopedia, it is not perceived as adequately reliable by many librarians, teachers, and academics. The reason for this is not far to seek: those librarians etc. note that anybody can contribute and that there are no traditional review processes. You might hasten to reply that it does work nonetheless, and I would agree with you to a large extent, but your assurances will not put this concern to rest.


A very large amount of maintainers leads to infighting, procedural foolishness, and ultimately a very slow advancement schedule. There's an interesting book called The Mythical Man-Month that goes into this in some detail, but the basic idea is: the more people you slap into a project that's behind, the more the project will fall behind. Unintuitive, but true. Even in the case of raw horsepower, this becomes the case; you would think that if the basic job (photocopy this paper) was simple enough, the job would go faster with more people, but it doesn't. You end up with people photocopying stuff wrong, collating wrong, bending pages badly, skipping pages... and the errors increase as you smack more people on. And you fall behind.


I'm afraid that I have to refuse your request for a "free-use" photo of myself for use on Misplaced Pages.


I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a student writing a research paper.


I stated specifically that you must use reliable sources. Do you really consider Misplaced Pages to be a reliable source?

High school teacher's comment on a student paper. The student cited Misplaced Pages.


As a high school librarian, part of my job is to help my students develop critical thinking skills. One of these skills is to evaluate the authority of any information source. The Misplaced Pages is not an authoritative source. It even states this in their disclaimer on their Web site. (The librarian also says that she uses Misplaced Pages as an example of an untrustworthy site in her teaching of students to develop critical thinking skills).


Misplaced Pages is at intersection of Knowledge Warfare.


"Thousands of people, all over the world, from all cultures, working together in harmony to freely share clear, factual, unbiased information… a simple and pure desire to make the world a better place."

Oh please??? What a shameless crock. Look at any Misplaced Pages Talk page on any controversial subject, and, instead of "people working together in harmony", you will typically and unsurprisingly see a bunch of mediocre nerds with too much time on their hands and with rather uninformed opinions on too many subjects, bickering among themselves in an attempt to forge an entry that will represent a "consensus" of their uninformed opinions.


While there is no need to be an expert on the article you're working on (in fact, there are some advantages to being completely ignorant of the subject to start with), by the time you're done, you will have at least a working knowledge of the topic. (From Misplaced Pages:Project Galatea)

Major contributions

Pages I have started or de-stubbed and authored

In the order in which I have done them:

The AfD Rescue Barnstar
CyberAnth, I award you this barnstar for your awesome expansion of Bonny Hicks during its AfD, prompting a snowball keep. Fabulous job!--Kchase T 05:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sexually-related articles and me

You might wonder why a devoted Christian such as myself has so many sexually-related articles among their contributions. It is because I believe in the value of making scholarly contributions to truly notable sexual topics. On the other hand....

Sexually-related pages I have nominated for deletion that were deleted

What else would I say to other Wikipedians?

The top things I would say to other Wikipedians are,

  1. Cite while you write. Please! It takes probably five times more time for someone to come along and dig up citations for your work than for you to just cite while you write!
  2. Remember the Missing Wikipedians! If you have a proclivity to be a toxic, abusive person, please take it to somewhere less important than Misplaced Pages.
  3. Quit being a page mindguard. WP:NPOV really is how encylopedias should be written. That never comes from your interest groups's Groupthink, so please quit trying to enforce it on your favorite pages.
  4. Or to summarize the above two, Don't be a dick or a Fuckhead. If you have a problem with me saying this as I have, please read this.
  5. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/27/wikipedia_britannica_and_linux/

Examples of lamest content I have found on Misplaced Pages

From an article, Handjob, which I nominated for deletion:

Christian theologians have addressed the question of whether a hand job is a sin as simply part of the general question of whether masturbation is a sin. Strauss asserts that masturbation is not specifically condemned in Scripture, but conversely does not recommend it, acknowledging that he does not answer the question.

Thanks. That clears things up a lot. Keep trying to cover up the real nature of the article with meaningless academic-speak.

My Sandboxes / Drafts

Please feel free to improve whatever is there.

My handy Wikilinks

Categories: