|This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at
Facts about myself
- I suck at wikipedia
I don't like the formatting style, I don't know about your weird overly bureaucratic politics and I don't read a kilo of confusing manuals and tutorials to make it all better. But I will edit pages which are incorrect, written in a sloppy or misrepresenting style or lack information. Regardless of whatever rules you might dig out, I will do everything I can to only contribute to articles such that my edits improve information quality. After all, there is only one wikipedia.
- I like to be colloquial on the internet
Why not have some professional real-talk on the discussion pages? What's the point to sound well behaved and formal about stuff, when you are just putting up an act that doesn't change the facts of the situation (and instead it rather obfuscates your driving motivation)? Neither does that cure ignorance. Manners serve very little to no social function on the internet, especially not if you are talking to entirely random people. Just get it sorted out - and fast. Down with the formalism. We can throw wikipedia policies at each other and hide behind that for weeks, month and years to come. Or we can sit down and talk...
- I care a lot about accuracy and eliminating bias from my viewpoint
And no one cares about your editing rules if it results in deceptive or sigle-sided information, however so slightly. First comes reality, then you can worry how people will perceive it, and only after that you can worry if it sounds palatable. You people got it backwards here sometimes. Deleting pages because the grammar was bad, reversing edits and deleting facts because it could be understood wrong. I don't care if you have rules that forbid me to include suggestive data which doesn't come from some governmental-founded mega study, if all you do is to doubtlessly enforce the mainstream opinion by eliminating the perspectives of probabilities, hidden behind the excuse of keeping neutral viewpoints. What's with that binary truth business here sometimes? If you can't know for sure and there are uncertainties, how can you promote to put it any differently? How can you promote to delete contradictory pieces of information, just because they don't meet your universal standards, which are more than often inapplicable and nonsensical in the individual situation? In the end, cherry-picking on information and the correlations of that information is borderline censorship and nothing more than the manipulation of people's opinions. Neither financial power, nor size, nor the majority play any part in determining a neural viewpoint. To imply and promote that is the cancer of wikipedia.