| Revision as of 23:16, 6 August 2008 editRavenswing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers59,924 edits M← Previous edit |
Revision as of 14:39, 14 August 2008 edit undo65.216.70.60 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → |
| Line 69: |
Line 69: |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
<br> |
|
<br> |
|
Hello! I'm a forty-something paralegal living in the Boston area. My Wikiactivity centers around hockey -- I'm a longtime statistician and sometime member of SIHR -- but I'm interested in everything from military history to politics to roleplaying games (and no, not in the console games that marketing departments insist on calling "RPGs"). |
|
Hello! I'm a forty-something paralegal living in the Boston area. My Wikiactivity centers around hockey -- I'm a longtime statistician and sometime member of SIHR -- but I'm interested in everything from military history to politics to roleplaying games (and no, not in the console games that marketing departments insist on calling "RPGs"). But above all this, I'm a unbelievably sad little man who uses the forum of Misplaced Pages to live out an alter ego of being someone with a measure of "power", something I sorely lack in my dull and miserable life. As you'll clearly see if you look at my talk page, I frequently hack at other's contributions with no guideline other than my own opinion as to how it should be, and then when challenged, I act as if I'm too good to be bothered with such things. |
|
|
|
|
|
When I first stumbled across Wiki, I spent about a month memorizing the list of WP's, and now I endlessly refer to them in all of my bombastic, arrogant, uninformed edit descriptions and replies to the people who challenge. Notice how I didn't see I memorized and '''understood''' them--simply memorized them. But hey, spout off a regulation enough times, and you seem smarter and more authoritative than you are, so that's the strategy I use. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''PET PEEVES:''' |
|
'''PET PEEVES:''' |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''I am not particularly interested in "putting myself over"''' (to borrow a useful pro wrestling term). Who really gives a damn how many contributions I've made, what articles I've started (38, apparently ), what credentials I have with which to beat you over the head with the implication that '''I''' am so much cooler than '''you''', or anything other than whether I can prove I know about what I'm talking? I'm proud of my work here, and tickled by seeing it recognized, but I'm never going to post a puffed up list declaring the articles I've helped bring to FA/GA status or listing my DYKs. I'm more into editing stubs into real articles than creating new articles. What Misplaced Pages needs more than sheer page count is improved '''quality''' of articles. Many editors who look for a catchphrase that makes for an easy slur call this "deletionist." |
|
* '''I am not particularly interested in "putting myself over"''' (to borrow a useful pro wrestling term). (And if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you, too...) Who really gives a damn how many contributions I've made, what articles I've started (38, apparently ), what credentials I have with which to beat you over the head with the implication that '''I''' am so much cooler than '''you''', or anything other than whether I can prove I know about what I'm talking? (Certainly no one else but me..) I'm proud of my work here, and tickled by seeing it recognized, but I'm never going to post a puffed up list declaring the articles I've helped bring to FA/GA status or listing my DYKs. I'm more into editing stubs into real articles than creating new articles. What Misplaced Pages needs more than sheer page count is improved '''quality''' of articles. Many editors who look for a catchphrase that makes for an easy slur call this "deletionist." I personally, when describing myself, prefer "douchebag". |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''I am extremely particular about grammar, spelling and the non-use of diacriticals.''' I see no reason why time-honored grammar usages are invalidated just because today's typists are lazy sods, and if you have a burning desire to put umlauts and diacriticals over proper names, go over to the foreign language Wikipedias where such usages are proper -- this is the English Misplaced Pages, last I checked. (And don't bullshit us; they don't use diacriticals on non-North American en-language websites any more than in Canada and the US.) |
|
* '''I am extremely particular about grammar, spelling and the non-use of diacriticals.''' I see no reason why time-honored grammar usages are invalidated just because today's typists are lazy sods, and if you have a burning desire to put umlauts and diacriticals over proper names, go over to the foreign language Wikipedias where such usages are proper -- this is the English Misplaced Pages, last I checked. (And don't bullshit us; they don't use diacriticals on non-North American en-language websites any more than in Canada and the US.) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''I care strongly about documentation.''' If you assert it, you should be prepared to back it up, with a non-Misplaced Pages verifiable source. If you can't, you should retract it. |
|
* '''I care strongly about documentation.''' If you assert it, you should be prepared to back it up, with a non-Misplaced Pages verifiable source. If you can't, you should retract it. Of course, I don't follow this directive myself. My bersion of "backing it up" as it applies to my own work is to simply act pompous and world-weary, and run away from the challenge by claiming it to be "bothersome" and not worthy of my time. |
|
|
|
|
|
* That being said, '''computer verification isn't the be-all and end-all of everything.''' An ] was filed sometime ago against an author who had jack for Amazon.com sales ranking and not many Google hits. No kidding, folks, he wrote several popular books in the Seventies and early Eighties, pretty much nothing since, and his stuff's gone out of print. Any number of prominent Victorian authors have Amazon rankings which aren't anything about which to write their descendants. |
|
* That being said, '''computer verification isn't the be-all and end-all of everything.''' An ] was filed sometime ago against an author who had jack for Amazon.com sales ranking and not many Google hits. No kidding, folks, he wrote several popular books in the Seventies and early Eighties, pretty much nothing since, and his stuff's gone out of print. Any number of prominent Victorian authors have Amazon rankings which aren't anything about which to write their descendants. |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Subjects that should be ''prima facie'' grounds for CSD:''' dorm buildings, bands or wannabe auteurs with Myspace pages for lead Google hits, game/fan/mediacruft that received less than ten minutes of screentime or ten pages of action, MMORPG gaming guilds, elementary schools, any portmanteau "X in popular culture" list ... gods, I could go on for a bit. |
|
* '''Subjects that should be ''prima facie'' grounds for CSD:''' dorm buildings, bands or wannabe auteurs with Myspace pages for lead Google hits, game/fan/mediacruft that received less than ten minutes of screentime or ten pages of action, MMORPG gaming guilds, elementary schools, any portmanteau "X in popular culture" list ... gods, I could go on for a bit. But I need to log into my Kirk vs. Picard newsgroup, and possibly take my once-monthly shower. Only if there's time, though, on the shower. |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Articles that should be blocked from CSD:''' Articles within six hours of their creation, unless they're blatant vandalism, hoaxes or attack pages. It drives me nuts to see articles CSDed or AfDed four minutes after their creation, and from watching ], many articles are CSDed ''seconds'' after creation. Folks, Misplaced Pages doesn't give prizes for the first ones to file a CSD. What is your freaking hurry? (Alright, now I realize that this is a hallmark of people shilling for admin. You're getting a firm Oppose from me.) Can we give these people ''some'' chance to improve their articles? |
|
* '''Articles that should be blocked from CSD:''' Articles within six hours of their creation, unless they're blatant vandalism, hoaxes or attack pages. It drives me nuts to see articles CSDed or AfDed four minutes after their creation, unless '''I'm''' the one doing the filing. Folks, Misplaced Pages doesn't give prizes for the first ones to file a CSD. What is your freaking hurry? (Alright, now I realize that this is a hallmark of people shilling for admin. Shit, why do you think '''I''' do it?) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''People who pick over this user page for ammunition to use in AfDs and other discussions:''' If you think this means you, you may well be right. Needing to find some dirt to fling because you can't win on the merits of the argument is a sure sign that a collaborative encyclopedia is not the environment for you. Maybe Encarta is hiring. |
|
* '''People who pick over this user page for ammunition to use in AfDs and other discussions:''' If you think this means you, you may well be right. Needing to find some dirt to fling because you can't win on the merits of the argument is a sure sign that a collaborative encyclopedia is not the environment for you. Other sure signs are excessive quoting of WPs with no real understanding of them, and pretending to be too important and bothered by it all to respond with a decent argument. (Wait, that description sounds familiar.. Is it...me? Nah... Couldn't be.) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''There should be a guideline with equal force to ]''' - that in their own turn, newcomers have a duty to act respectfully, courteously and with maturity, to make an effort to acquaint themselves with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and to assume good faith on the part of existing editors who seek to apply them. |
|
* '''There should be a guideline with equal force to ]''' (See? Even within my user page, I can't resist citing a WP!)- that in their own turn, newcomers have a duty to act respectfully, courteously and with maturity, to make an effort to acquaint themselves with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and to assume good faith on the part of existing editors who seek to apply them. Then I could use said guideline as another WP I could cite against people who don't just meekly buckle under to my meritless and arrogant editing and deletions. Now I just act as if I'm owed their awe and fealty. But if I could actually cite a WP to '''demand''' it?? WOW!! |
|
|
|
|
|
* To steal the wording from another editor, and in the same fashion as above ... "] is not a suicide pact. If someone writes a post with blatant personal attacks, signs another user's name, then starts posting in multiple places calling for the banning of the innocent party, they are a troll. Calling them such is not a failure to AGF: it is a logical deduction." It's maddening how often the aggressor gets off scot-free in the ensuing chaos, because blame-the-victim is SOP. |
|
* To steal the wording from another editor, and in the same fashion as above ... "] is not a suicide pact. If someone writes a post with blatant personal attacks, signs another user's name, then starts posting in multiple places calling for the banning of the innocent party, they are a troll. Calling them such is not a failure to AGF: it is a logical deduction." It's maddening how often the aggressor gets off scot-free in the ensuing chaos, because blame-the-victim is SOP. |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Finally, I care about research.''' This is an encyclopedia, and not only do we have an obligation to know about what we're talking, we have no right to vote or make edits in willful ignorance -- if you insist on being ignorant, go hang out in a blog instead. It drives me nuts to see AfDs filed on articles where the nom could -- and ''should'' -- have taken five minutes to follow up a few Google hits and realized the genuine notability of the subject. It drives me just as nuts to see "seems notable," "seems non-notable," "looks good" and their ilk. Translation = you don't really have a clue. You're really just guessing off of a five second glance at the article, swallowing any presumption whole and racking up a quick meaningless edit on AfD. News flash; no one will give a damn five years from now about your edit count. We are supposed to be building an encyclopedia here, not playing some geeky MMORPG and competing for Game High Score. |
|
* '''Finally, I care about research.''' This is an encyclopedia, and not only do we have an obligation to know about what we're talking, we have no right to vote or make edits in willful ignorance -- I'm sorry.. I had a whole paragraph of shit that I was going to put here, but I just couldn't get past this point without laughing my ass off too much to type. I'm sure you are, too. |
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
'''"But the biggest worry is that the great benefit of the open-source approach is also its great undoing. Its advantage is that anyone can contribute; the drawback is that sometimes just about anyone does. This leaves projects open to abuse, either by well-meaning dilettantes or intentional disrupters. Constant self-policing is required to ensure its quality."''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
'''"But the biggest worry is that the great benefit of the open-source approach is also its great undoing. Its advantage is that anyone can contribute; the drawback is that sometimes just about anyone does. This leaves projects open to abuse, either by well-meaning dilettantes or arrogant, power-mad douchebags like myself. |
|
'''-- ''The Economist'', 3/18/2006''' |
|
When I first stumbled across Wiki, I spent about a month memorizing the list of WP's, and now I endlessly refer to them in all of my bombastic, arrogant, uninformed edit descriptions and replies to the people who challenge. Notice how I didn't see I memorized and understood them--simply memorized them. But hey, spout off a regulation enough times, and you seem smarter and more authoritative than you are, so that's the strategy I use.
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
