|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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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
Welcome to my Wikipedia user page; my username here is Yetisyny. I started as an anonymous/IP Wikipedia user back in 2003 and have been an active contributor to Wikipedia ever since. I was in college at that time, and received a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science and Math from Cornell University in 2004. Unfortunately, piecing together my full edit history over all those years is kind of hard, because I have had different ISPs and connected to the Internet from different places over the years, so for instance, edits I made in my college dorm room, edits I made at my parents' house, edits I made when I was on vacation in various places, edits I made when living in different places, those obviously have different IP addresses. And even edits made at the same place have different IP addresses, because ISPs routinely change people's IP addresses using Dynamic DNS. The point is, I've made a huge number of edits to Wikipedia over the years, the vast majority of which were accepted as being positive changes by other Wikipedia editors and are still present on this site to this day. However, I didn't actually sign up to Wikipedia for an official user account until 2011, because people without user accounts can do almost as much as people who have them. The reason I signed up for a user account was I wanted to create an article and that isn't something people without accounts can do. Other side benefits of having a user account are things like being able to edit articles that are protected against vandalism by anonymous/IP users. Now I wish I had created a Wikipedia user account many years earlier so that all of my edit history could easily be viewed in one place (mostly so I could view it, and look at what is going on with articles I have edited in the past, because it's hard to keep track of which articles I've edited in my head). So, if anyone viewing this doesn't have a Wikipedia account yet, I urge you to sign up, it's definitely worthwhile and gives you more privileges than you have as an anonymous/IP user that isn't logged in.
Anyway, I have also contributed to a number of other wikis on the Internet besides just Wikipedia. I am actually an admin at 2 wikis on Wikia.com: the SubGenius wiki (which I founded, since I am an ordained SubGenius minister and the previous SubGenius wiki was deleted off the Internet by its founder), and the StarCraft wiki, and my username over at Wikia.com is The Overmind (if you ever played StarCraft you know who that is). I am also one of the biggest contributors to a wiki on Wikidot.com: the Liberal Crime Squad wiki, where my Wikidot.com username is Liberal Elitist. And the Liberal Crime Squad wiki happens to be about an open-source game that I am also one of the developers of. There are a number of other wikis that I have looked at but never edited such as Encyclopedia Dramatica, Conservapedia, RationalWiki, and many others (Enyclopedia Dramatica being my favorite one to look at). Once I founded a liberal wiki called The Liberal Encyclopedia aimed at being a mirror image opposite/parody of Conservapedia, and it was hosted on Wikidot.com, but it didn't last very long, since I was the only person who edited it, other than a few vandals, and I hardly contributed any content at all, and eventually Wikidot.com just deleted it because it wasn't any good and didn't have any active contributors other than vandals (I kinda abandoned it after starting it due to lack of interest).
So, yes, basically what all this means is, I am quite skilled at understanding wiki syntax, having edited at Wikipedia and other wikis (most of which use MediaWiki) for years. I've learned how to code all sorts of things in MediaWiki syntax, especially through my editing of various wikis over at Wikia.com, and am fairly well versed in wiki formatting, templates, tables, categories, userspaces, and so on. The fact that I am a computer programmer with a degree in it along with innate programming skills also helps. Also, for those wondering about what languages I know, I am a native speaker of English from the U.S.A., I was exposed to a lot of Hungarian when growing up but never really understood it, I studied Latin in high school but have forgotten 99% of what I learned, I studied Spanish in college and also spoke it while overseas in Mexico for awhile, and more recently I have been visiting Austria on a regular basis and learning some German. So I'd rate my English ability as perfectly fluent, my Spanish and German ability as intermediate, and my Hungarian and Latin ability as almost zero knowledge at this point.
One thing that I do find a bit baffling (although less baffling than the Hungarian language) is Wikipedia policies. These are specific to Wikipedia and not shared by other wikis such as those on Wikia.com, and Wikipedia has many, many different policies, many of which seemingly contradict each other, and many of which, if interpreted literally, would require people to delete the vast majority of content on Wikipedia. I have gotten fairly good at looking up Wikipedia policies, understanding them, and citing policies in things like the debates that happen when there's a delete request or move/rename request for an article. Oh, and the article that I wanted to create, back when I first created my Wikipedia user account, want to know what happened to it? An admin deleted it almost instantly after I added it, even though it was a perfectly good article that cited sources, had a neutral point of view, had proper grammar, was well-written, and everything. Can you guess what was wrong with it? It failed to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, that was the problem. Of course, I contested this, and argued that the article should be restored, and that it WAS notable, but my logic did not prevail, and ultimately I realized that I had been wrong and the subject of the article wasn't actually notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, and that the people who deleted it were correct, at least in terms of what Wikipedia's official rules say. I also realized that a large percentage of Wikipedia articles are written about things that are similarly not notable enough according to Wikipedia's official rules, yet I still believe they ought to exist (so therefore I do not nominate them for deletion even though I could). I am a strong believer in being an inclusionist on Wikipedia, and having well-written articles with proper citations and a neutral point of view on almost everything, even things whose notability is questionable. While I understand the deletionist point of view (which is basically based on a well-founded desire to minimize vandalism and other noble intentions), I fundamentally disagree with it, because the less articles there are on Wikipedia, the less valuable of a resource Wikipedia is for finding out information on a wide variety of subjects, and we ought to focus on making Wikipedia as valuable of an information resource as possible, so that the collective knowledge of humanity can be shared and preserved for future generations. Additionally, I think that the current official rules of Wikipedia are too deletionist and need to be revised in a more inclusionist direction, and the current rules of Wikipedia give deletionists an inherent advantage. My disagreements with some of these Wikipedia policies are some of the reasons why I have contributed more to other wikis than I have to Wikipedia itself (basically, other wikis tend to be more lax with the rules and give you more leeway as an editor, you see a lot less of your good-faith edits reverted, articles you create are more likely to survive, and so on, but the downside to other wikis is that they are all much smaller, and of course most of them have lower quality content and aren't really encyclopedia quality, plus the other wikis probably won't survive as long as Wikipedia).
But despite my disagreements with some of Wikipedia's policies (and the fact that Wikipedia has multiple contradictory policies that allow both sides in any policy argument to cite equally valid policies showing that their side is correct), I still remain here on Wikipedia as someone who edits it and tries to follow its policies in my edits (and as someone with Asperger Syndrome I take the policies very literally). I generally focus most of my editing on things like fixing typographical errors, problems in spelling and grammar, reverting obvious cases of vandalism, that sort of thing, along with updating out-of-date information that is no longer correct (for instance, on an article about a software program, updating it to the latest version, or on an article about a city that says who its mayor is, updating it to have the current mayor rather than a former one). My hope is that if I do enough of that non-controversial stuff to improve Wikipedia in ways that pretty much everyone would agree are improvements to articles, eventually I might garner enough clout on this site to be able to help convince my fellow Wikipedians to eschew deletionism and embrace inclusionism, and have Wikipedia change its rules in a more inclusionist direction, allowing it to maximize its potential to be a valuable information resource on almost any subject. But even if that does not occur, I can still be happy about the large number of positive contributions I have made to Wikipedia and other wikis on the Internet, most of which are noncontroversial enough that almost everybody would agree that they are, indeed, positive contributions. And, given how long my user page is, I would say that it is pretty obvious I am an inclusionist by now, because of all the things I have included in this page that aren't entirely necessary. My usual writing style is quite verbose and that is what you see here on my user page, but when I edit Wikipedia articles, I try to minimize my excessive verbosity as much as possible, and keep things concise. However, on my own user page, being concise is not necessary, nor is there any real benefit to it, other than saving time for people who want to read this page as quickly as possible, and I do not care about the predicament of such people because their choice to read this user page is entirely their own and they don't have to read it if they don't want to, plus it's a user page, not an encyclopedia page, so it doesn't have to have encyclopedia quality concise wording, so therefore it doesn't. If you have any complaints about this user page, please redirect those complaints to yourself, because you are the one who chose to read it, I didn't make you read it.
--Yetisyny (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)