User:Jaysweet

This user is married to Mariah, a fellow Wikipedian.

athThis user is an atheist.

MSThis user has a Master of Science degree in Computer Engineering.

This user plays the guitar.

This editor is a WikiGnome.

Hello there! I'm a dick who likes to report people. My user page was very grouchy for a long time, so I've decided to make it a little less grouchy. I still am too lazy for userboxes, so nothing here but plain text and us chickens, thank you. I finally added a Userbox in a show of solidarity inspired by an MfD discussion I find highly offensive, and from there I just decided to start creating more.

I love Wikipedia for two reasons: I am extremely pedantic, and I enjoy the exercise of creating consensus. Unfortunately, I am also lazy so my mainspace contributions are somewhat weak. I'm usually not willing to spend the time to research a topic enough to meaningfully add to an article. But I contribute extensively in fighting vandalism and correcting obvious errors. Also, I hate spam with a passion.

Just because you shouldn't bite people doesn't mean you shouldn't have teeth!

I believe Wikipedia policy in regards to vandalism is woefully wishy-washy. I think that blatant vandalism should result in a one hour block on the first offense, whether it's from an IP or an account -- let people cool off and decide if they really want to be a dick. I think that accounts should get an indef ban on the second offense (with a conditional unblock if they ask nicely), and IPs should get a 24hr block on the second offense (with exponentially increasing blocks if the same IP does it again).

Think about it: How many editors have you seen that started with a BV edit, and reformed to useful Wikipedians? Maybe a handful? Let's say we completely lost the contributions of those few useful Wikipedians. Can you tell me with a straight face that the benefit of those contributions exceeds the cost of fighting repeat vandals day-in and day-out??? I don't think so.

• I totally agree with you there. I am glad I found someone who agrees. Look below to what is now the bottom of the page, please. --Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 20:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Inclusionist vs. Exclusionist

When I first started editing Wikipedia, I was staunchly Inclusionist. I am beginning to change my mind.

The problem is one of incentive and deterrence. In theory, I don't have a problem with Wikipedia being a nigh indiscriminate collection of information, sort of an "omnipendium" rather than an encyclopedia, with the caveat that articles be tagged appropriately if they are unreferenced or unencyclopedic or what have you. Just because a particular novel, for example, is not notable, that doesn't mean it isn't useful to have its existence recorded for posterity, along with a little background information, etc. And the Wiki model means that this knowledge can be accumulated and vetted in a stunningly effective way.

But the problem becomes one of the types of folks most likely to add fringe content -- namely, spammers and people who got lost on the way to MySpace. In theory, for example, I have no problem with there being a Wikipedia page about an obscure band that only played a few shows. Hey, who knows when that info might be handy? But I do have a problem with someone using Wikipedia like a MySpace page to promote their band, announce shows, hawk their CDs, etc. And once you open the door to the former, it's hard to keep it closed to the latter.

I often see content getting deleted on Wikipedia that I am sad to see go. But if we weren't so heavy-handed, it would create an incentive for all sorts of spammers and shysters and fanboys (and fangirls) and what have you to run wild. So, the current deletion process, while occasionally frustrating, creates a significant deterrent to these abusers, and I Think I'm Okay With That (TM).

Don't revert me without opening a discussion on the talk page, dick

If this user makes any edit that is not a copy-edit or specifically requested by a tag in the article, he will discuss it first on the Talk page to justify why he is making the edit. Feel free to revert me or erase my content if you think I am wrong, but first read what I have to say on the Talk page, and then justify why you think the change should be reverted.

This is a Barnstar-Free Zone

Here's my beef with barnstars: Because anybody can give one to anybody else at any time for any reason, they are pretty meaningless. Actually, in a way they are less than meaningless... You see, far too often, I see someone who is an extreme pov pusher and (excuse the language) a complete and total asshole -- but because their extreme pov happens to be a popular one, or because they have other pov warrior buddies, they have barnstars all over their user pages. So to me, a barnstar maybe means that you work hard on contributing to the encyclopedia, or maybe it means that you have worked tirelessly to promote the Flat Earth theory or some other bullshit fringe theory on Wikipedia, and all the other nutsos that subscribe to that crap worship you for it. No thanks, not for me. If you like something I did, leave a note on my talk page. But no barnstars, please.

WikiGnome Award

How about this [WikiGnome] instead?

Stars are out, so how about gnomes? :) User:MariahSweet

Random Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 20:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)