Hello. I am but a tiny mote in the Grand Scheme of Things. Possessed of a damn fine edjumikayshun, I currently work in the field of Emergency Management. When the fit hits the shan, I am one of the folk armed with acronyms and shovels. I believe in fighting the good fight, and sometimes that means my hot temper gets the best of me, and lands me in hotter water.
"Vocatus atque non vocatus, deus aderit"
"Quisque pro omnibus" It's turtles all the way down". We are all in this together.
"Since nothing that we do matters, the most important things are what we do."
I also tend towards a Mergist point of view, and used to be an inclusionist (and still am where it concerns including all others in the editorial process). However, I find that I have grown into a a bit of an exclusionist after noting the sheer amount of uncited information in articles; I tend to require citation for seemingly smaller arguments, as they tend to serve as a launching point for larger arguments.
No Angry Mastodons - edit while you are at your best, and take a break if you aren't. Full stop.
Wikipedia is not a directory - keep your fannish, largely unreliable, unsourced and unimportant crap out. I mean it.
Verification - it's not just a policy, it is the main hurdle to understanding how encyclopedias work; verification, not truth, is the litmus for inclusion.
Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith - but don't ignore bad behavior. AGF is not a suicide pact. Seek alternatives to venting within Wikipedia (Krav Maga and yoga help me quell the urge to throttle those who appear to richly deserve it).
It ain't about you. It never was. It never will be. You are not the smartest person in the room while editing Wikipedia. Ever.
Penguins swarming to feast on human flesh.Lonely Antarctic researchers engage in the dangerous exercise of cruising for dates among the indigenous folk. Moments after this picture was taken, both men were robbed at beak-point.
The intro sentence from this version of the Stephen Hawking article
The fact that evil gets its own article while good is a disambiguation page. From the disambiguation page, the only article about "good" only deals with it in juxtaposition with evil. The fact that we are unable to discuss goodness on its own merits just might say something about the world.
Listcruft like this, and the people who voted to keep it
The extent of the Puritans' devious machinations, as noted here
What does a Victorian sufferer of MPD like Mr. Hyde do on an evening off from mayhem? He makes jam, that's what. There's actually a B&B for this. No, really.
As if Wikipedia wasn't frustrating enough to edit, this comes up. Yay.
You are not getting paid for editing here, and likely, your presence is needed elsewhere.
Why argue with people over something you are not going to receive credit for having defended? That is stupid.
Edit-warring is pointless - those who do think they are either "saving" the article or somehow magically altering the voice of dissent among others. I've done it myself, and am hoping its the latter - coz' magic is purdy.
No one is the smartest person in the room when it comes to Wikipedia. Not you, not me. Acting appropriately humble is a good step towards WP:AGF.
The learning curve is steep in Wikipedia, but most good editors are good climbers.
Discuss your edits before making them: I don't care if you are Albert-friggin' Einstein, if you fail to discuss your edits before adding twenty of them you are going to get reverted out of principle. Every time.
It's okay to not know everything about an article you are editing; there are contributors enough to fill in the blanks.
If you do not learn something new from Wikipedia every day, you have wasted that day.
cn tags are ugly, but they should be replaced by citations, not simply removed or replaced with a section or article tag. Doing such is just lazy editing; roll up your sleeves and find a citation, instead of spending three hours whining about how the cn tags are ugly.
Being blocked sucks. Editing with people who don't care if they are blocked sucks so very much more.
Admins, being ordinary folk, can have bad days, too. At their worst, they can be be rude, petty fantastically thick-headed, morally bankrupt and can even be blocked. Fear not the admin, but respect the crap they put up with. It is their only real saving grace.
Of course, there are cabals. Don't be thick.
Civility is the way by which your friends will appreciate you more, and your enemies will either receive justice, go away or grow to be your wiki-friends.
We are not in a hurry, and shouldn't even entertain ideas of acting quickly.
I am often aware of how little I am aware of.
I am an evil uncle; I feed my nephews chocolate and caffeine and then turn them back over to my siblings and document the results.
I am an evil editor; I give other editors various adverbs and split infinitives and turn them back over to the community and document the results.
User:John_Broughton- (anyone who can deal with the headaches he does daily deserves several rounds of drinks); not only that, but the feller took his love of Wikipedia and made cash off it! How cool is that?
User:Bignole- (I have grown to admire this guy's depth; plus he's rather forgiving)-I currently owe him copious amounts of liquor
User:DavidShankBone - Far and away one of the very best resources Wikipedia has, bar none. He goes out and has enough street cred to make Wikipedia what it is today. He is in fact The Man. Apparently, h doesn't get along at all well with...
Alison - she shares her toys! , but apparently hates David. I can like both, while never inviting them to the same parties.
User:Abd - personification of 'take a deep breath and think about what you're doing'.
User:Edgarde - the fellow has a wit, and links that poke Wikipedia. Yay!
