DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered is a mostly ex-user, of many years' experience, who is - ah, you guessed! - disillusioned, bitter and knackered.
I first edited this encyclopaedia in September 2002 and my attempts to give it up have not yet been wholly successful. In my worse moments I sometimes think of Wikipedia as a graveyard of creativity and common sense, into which I hoped to avoid once again being drawn, and I sometimes feel that I shouldn't really have this account at all. Ho hum. On the other hand, to be fair, I have other moments of thinking, er, hang on, this is quite good actually, and I like it. Tsk! Such indecision ...
And then I have other other moments of thinking, yes, I was right all the time about the graveyard.
Famous quote: "The collegial editing environment on Wikipedia would be just fine if it wasn't for all those other people."
- 1 Middlesbrough is not Middlesborough
- 2 Seamless is not Seemless
- 3 Clement Attlee is not Clement Atlee
- 4 Consensus is not Concensus
- 5 Drive-by tagging is evil, wrong and lazy
- 6 Useful odds and ends
- 7 Whatever
- 8 Interesting stuff
- 9 Notes to self
Middlesbrough is not Middlesborough
Seamless is not Seemless. Please check the links. Seamless means without a seam - you know, a seam like a line of stitching or a seam of coal - so it's without a noticeable join. That's what all the editors writing "can be played back seamlessly with the crossfading backend" and other such marvellous things actually mean. It is seamless: it has no seam. You can't see the join. Seemless, on the other hand, is a Wretched Young Persons' Popular Music Ensemble™ which flourished 2002-2009. Seemless is not a real English word: it is a witty neologism like Beatles. Everyone knows what The Beatles are, but few people think that beetle is spelt otherwise. Similarly, most people - it is to be hoped - know that "seamless" is the correct spelling in precisely 99.78% of all cases. In general, I change "seemless" where it is blatantly a mistake, and leave it alone where it is or might be the word related to Wretched Young Persons' Popular Music™. OK? Goodoh! :)
Clement Attlee is not Clement Atlee
... nor any other misspelling. It would be nice to get this right. Really.
- One A
- Two Ts
- One L
- Two Es
Consensus is not Concensus
The one on the left is correct. The one on the right is a made-up spelling, or "wrong" as it is sometimes daringly termed. Consensus is related to consent, and has sweet FA to do with the census. Geddit? Good.
Drive-by tagging is evil, wrong and lazy
||An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. That editor can't be arsed to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopaedic duty by sticking on a tag.
Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about.
I think it's a spectacularly useless piece of editing to add an NPOV tag (and certain others) to an article without having the basic courtesy to go to the Talk page and explain what's wrong with it. People who do this should (1) look at what the NPOV tag actually says (because I must conclude, from their behaviour, that they have never actually bothered to do so) and (2) pop in and have a nice little read of WP:DRIVEBY where it says, inter alia:
- Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.
It is not an act of "last resort" to drop in for three seconds to an article, tag it, and run away. If you do this, and I remove your lazy driveby tag, well, what did you expect? Look again: The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page. Simple enough, no?
Useful odds and ends
My own safety copy of Foxhill's excellent page Internet reference sites accessible with a valid UK Library card.
is was very useful. (But the "official" one on the History page is pretty good too.)
Whatever. It's only an encyclopaedia.
See above under "Whatever".
For stress-related reasons it is better to stay away from contentious areas and stick to bunnies, kittens etc or whatever seems least likely to erupt into hissy fits. There are too many difficult people with too much time in their hands. It's a classic no-win/no-win situation.
See above under "Whatever". Rinse and repeat.
- Frog boiling (LRB)
- User:Mike Christie/How I survive Wikipedia
- User:Awickert/Curmudgeonly opinions
Note: these are all nicked directly or indirectly from User:Jimmy Pitt.
Notes to self
M 35; S 32; H 48; C 11 (1,0); H2;A! .
CCSS CCCS CSCS