Misplaced Pages

User:Verdatum: 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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:36, 6 December 2007 editVerdatum (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,749 edits more details about me← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:28, 14 April 2015 edit undoVerdatum (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,749 editsm →TODO list 
(31 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Userboxtop}}
Hello. I am a wiki addict, and the founder and principle contributor of
{{WikiProject:Tel}}
{{User Article Rescue Squadron}}
{{User:Qwfp/Userboxes/Pro-admin but not for me}}
{{Userboxbottom}}


I am a ] by trade, and to that effect, I am the administrator of a private ]. Hello! I am a wiki addict, and the founder and principle contributor of . This is the result of my research in the realms of ] and ] building. I am a ] in the ] industry by trade, and to that effect, I am the administrator of a private ]. I am also a classically trained musician and I have 8 years experience in the ].


I have no desire to be admin Misplaced Pages at this time. It's a crazy job, and I have the utmost respect for those who choose to undertake the task. I am however ready and willing to voice my opinions related to ], welcome new users, and do what I can to help others. While specific questions may be better asked to admins, I'll happily do whatever I can to answer whatever questions are asked of me.
I generally don't create articles, but I'm quick to edit to uphold style. I'm usually reluctant to add content without citing a reference.


== General philosophies ==
I am a firm subscriber of the ].
I am a firm subscriber of the ] Principle. It's worth taking the time to listen to opposing arguments, because it is entirely possible that I could be wrong about anything.


== Misplaced Pages philosophies and habits ==
⚫ I really hate the term "]" It's needlessly agressive and needlessly insults the contributors. In my experience, I'd estimate that half of the time the term in invoked as a reason for removal, it is content that I agree should be removed. But not because it is cruft, but because it fails ] ] and ]. It also gives the impression that the invoker is on a quest to remove all detail related to various fandoms. This forces the dissenting arguer into an aggressively defensive position which hinders communication and impedes ] discussion.


I generally don't create articles, but I'm quick to edit to uphold style. I'm usually reluctant to add content without citing a reference. I, like so many editors are fearful to subscribe to a labeled ], but if forced to select a primary identifier, it would be ]. From the ] community, I've learned that problems that severely bother people tend to get fixed. And if a problem severely bothers you, then maybe you should be the one to fix it. In the world of WP, if a page is really ] you shouldn't ], you should fix it. If too busy, then tag it for cleanup, and just let it go.
I'm also not (yet) big on burdening my user page with template descriptors. If I want you to know something, I can type it out. If you want to learn something, you can take the time to read it :)

Concerning deletion, I am in favor of the Criteria for Speedy deletion as reasons for deletion. But other reasons for deletion often alarm me. My major objection is in regards to history. As an administrator of multiple revision control systems, I strongly appreciate the value of change logs and article histories. History allows you to see the evolution of an idea, it allows you to trace when problems first occur, and it reveals what work has been rejected through consensus so that the work does not need to be wastefully redone, only to have it removed again for the same reason. Article deletion hides this history from regular editors. A deletion should signify "This article does not belong on Misplaced Pages in any form; there is no benefit for any revision to be visible to editors." Often, it is just this case that "This article contains unsuitable content that should be removed from the current revision. Other content could potentially exist once it is found." Or "This article could exist if needed, but at this time, this topic can properly be covered in it's entirity within another article." in these cases, cleanup, redirection, and/or merging are preferable solutions.

⚫ I really hate the term "]" It's needlessly aggressive and needlessly insults the contributors. In my experience, I'd estimate that half of the time the term in invoked as a reason for removal, it is content that I agree should be removed. But not because it is cruft, but because it fails ] ] and ]. It also gives the impression that the invoker is on a quest to remove all detail related to various fandoms. This forces the dissenting arguer into an aggressively defensive position which hinders communication and impedes ] discussion.

Since one of the projects asked nicely, I've caved on my opinions of userboxes. I still think most of the personal details ones are silly (with the possible exception of gender).

==TODO list==
I really gotta start listing out the things I'll claim to do "in a few days, pending discussion" on talk pages. I'm starting to edit too many articles to keep it in my head.

* Reorganize ], ].
* Review and recover any properly referenced material that had been deleted from ]


{{tasks
|image=off
|requests=
|copyedit=] lead section
|wikify=
|merge=
|split=
|verify=],]
|cleanup=]
|expand=], ]
|disambiguation=
|stubs=
|update=
|npov=
|infobox=
|other= reorganize scope of ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
}}

==User Subpages==
* ] - possible candidate for ]
* ] - Major reorganization.

Latest revision as of 22:28, 14 April 2015

Userboxes
This user is a participant in WikiProject Telecommunications.
This user rescues articles for the Article Rescue Squadron.
RfAThis user thinks most administrators do a good job but has no wish to join them.

Hello! I am a wiki addict, and the founder and principle contributor of The Special FX Wiki. This is the result of my research in the realms of Prosthetic makeup and prop building. I am a Software engineer in the telecom industry by trade, and to that effect, I am the administrator of a private XWiki. I am also a classically trained musician and I have 8 years experience in the pharmaceutical industry.

I have no desire to be admin Misplaced Pages at this time. It's a crazy job, and I have the utmost respect for those who choose to undertake the task. I am however ready and willing to voice my opinions related to policy, welcome new users, and do what I can to help others. While specific questions may be better asked to admins, I'll happily do whatever I can to answer whatever questions are asked of me.

General philosophies

I am a firm subscriber of the Fallibility Principle. It's worth taking the time to listen to opposing arguments, because it is entirely possible that I could be wrong about anything.

Misplaced Pages philosophies and habits

I generally don't create articles, but I'm quick to edit to uphold style. I'm usually reluctant to add content without citing a reference. I, like so many editors are fearful to subscribe to a labeled philosophy, but if forced to select a primary identifier, it would be eventualism. From the open source community, I've learned that problems that severely bother people tend to get fixed. And if a problem severely bothers you, then maybe you should be the one to fix it. In the world of WP, if a page is really bad you shouldn't propose deletion, you should fix it. If too busy, then tag it for cleanup, and just let it go.

Concerning deletion, I am in favor of the Criteria for Speedy deletion as reasons for deletion. But other reasons for deletion often alarm me. My major objection is in regards to history. As an administrator of multiple revision control systems, I strongly appreciate the value of change logs and article histories. History allows you to see the evolution of an idea, it allows you to trace when problems first occur, and it reveals what work has been rejected through consensus so that the work does not need to be wastefully redone, only to have it removed again for the same reason. Article deletion hides this history from regular editors. A deletion should signify "This article does not belong on Misplaced Pages in any form; there is no benefit for any revision to be visible to editors." Often, it is just this case that "This article contains unsuitable content that should be removed from the current revision. Other content could potentially exist once it is found." Or "This article could exist if needed, but at this time, this topic can properly be covered in it's entirity within another article." in these cases, cleanup, redirection, and/or merging are preferable solutions.

I really hate the term "cruft" It's needlessly aggressive and needlessly insults the contributors. In my experience, I'd estimate that half of the time the term in invoked as a reason for removal, it is content that I agree should be removed. But not because it is cruft, but because it fails WP:V WP:N and WP:NOR. It also gives the impression that the invoker is on a quest to remove all detail related to various fandoms. This forces the dissenting arguer into an aggressively defensive position which hinders communication and impedes WP:Civil discussion.

Since one of the projects asked nicely, I've caved on my opinions of userboxes. I still think most of the personal details ones are silly (with the possible exception of gender).

TODO list

I really gotta start listing out the things I'll claim to do "in a few days, pending discussion" on talk pages. I'm starting to edit too many articles to keep it in my head.


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

User Subpages

Categories: