Editing my User Page
This is my userpage. Please feel free to add barnstars in the section below if you were planning to add them to the talk page. you may also add them to the talk page, I'll copy/paste them here when I archive the talk page. If something I edit on this page places it in mainspace (a messed up category, etc), don't refrain from tidying it up. This is not an encyclopedia page. All factual inaccuracies, comma splices and spelling errors are the result of fever dreams and laudanum.
I've followed the project for a few years, editing under different IP's since approximately 2004. In 2006 I established a few private wikis using mediawiki so I have some idea of the substantial investment of time the backend of this project represents. I came to be a user because of ED, where I was DETERMINED to throw a wrench into the evil workings of the cabal. I was going to be a mole, getting a username, autoconfirming, making a bunch of good edits. then I was really going to show them what for. In retrospect it was pretty silly. I would have done what before I got banned? Muss up a few math pages? Insert the word "poop" into a few poorly maintained stubs? But when I got here I found out the place wasn't filled (well, not to the brim) with jerks. Articles needed improving. People discussed things passionately. It seemed like a nice place to be.
Those were my userboxes. I felt that Wikipedia was being torn up by forces on the inside. Insidious forces who only wanted things like Napoleon and the Whiskey Rebellion on wikipedia. Didn't they know that information wanted to be free? That paper was dead (p.s. long live paper)? I dived into AfD and basically edited articles (on this account) so I might not be labeled an SPA. I was filled with fire, insisting that the merest mention was significant and deletion was a sign of a process gone awry, not a process itself.
I haven't had a coming to the River Jordan moment, but it seems my pattern has changed. I tend to endorse deletion of an article up for afd about 75% of the time. I still think of myself as an inclusionist (really), but I feel that the battle for inclusion need only sometimes be fought at afd. 99% of wikipedia articles lead their lives unmolested by deletion notices and unimproved by editors outside a small group. If an article is about an uncontroversial subject, makes unambitious claims and provides (relatively) unimpeachable sources, it will never be touched. For most articles with sources, this is the arc they take.
For articles without sources or articles whose sources don't verify the claims the result is much the same. To date, there are 114,259 articles with unsourced statements. This does not include articles which have yet to be tagged. To keep this in perspective, there are 4,429 Good Articles.
I'm not the first person to point this out. People have been bemoaning the crappiness of everything as long as there have been things. This is partially because people like to whinge but also because "Ninety percent of everything is crap". I'm not pointing out this in order to exhort you to action. I'm not doing it in order to justify deleting stuff. I'm also not invoking T. Sturgeon to imply that the current state of things is a state of nature. I mean to say that improvement to the project is incremental and piecemeal by design and by definition. I rescue occasional articles from deletion. This does not mean I need to rescue an article I personally feel is meritless from deletion. I don't say that because I think that my judgment of what does and does not have merit is more important than yours (just for one example). I say it because I wouldn't WANT to rescue an article on something that doesn't interest me. Articles deserve the extra mile. Sources should be understood for context rather than skimmed for mere mentions. Statements should be sourced, proofed and vetted by common sense. If I can't do that, I don't want to save it. Those aren't guidelines for others, those are my feelings.
How does that relate to being what might seem to be a closet deletionist? Easy. I make the trivial assumption that others have preferences, too. Those preferences will manifest themselves in myriad ways. Outside of those sets of preferences, editors will have to be cajoled into contributing in any significant form. Since we can't contact and compel action from all users, the best gauge of editor preference is a poll--in this case, centralized discussion. If a page doesn't violate policy but doesn't find a consensus of editor support even at this centralized location under heavy pressure, it is my opinion that the page will languish. The debate doesn't always come down to this. Sometimes there are angry discussions about sourcing, the 'exact' meaning of "trivial", or individual interpretation of policy. This is unavoidable. None of us has a consensus view. We are all thrust into this world, very much alone. I approach the words "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right" with a different perspective than you.
But what we forget, self-aware as we are of our civility, that these processes are (as are any bureaucratic policies) inherently frightening and disenfranchising for outsiders and newbies. Vested in knowledge of the system are the keys to compulsory power over others. So, in my opinion, the process should represent honest appeal to reason and evidence. It should grant the benefit of the doubt wherever an article's novelty may explain its condition. It should not be the venue for a crusade.
Est omnino difficile iudicare inclusionis meritum cuiusdam rei in encyclopædia cum ratio sciendi quid populi referat incerta sit, sed nihilominus aliquid encyclopædiam dedecet
It is generally difficult to judge the worthiness of a particular topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia considering that there is no certain way to know what interests people, but some topics nevertheless are not fit for an encyclopedia.
This motto reflects the desire of these Wikipedians to be reluctant, but not entirely unwilling, to remove articles from Wikipedia.
Feel free to add barnstars here rather than the talk page
All Around Amazing Barnstar
I hereby present this amazing barnstar to ProtonK for his amazingly well judged advice helping to improve good articles on a wide range of subjects, all done over a short period where he performed plenty of admin actions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
For thoroughly owning an issue I didn't want to clean up, I hereby award you the coveted and thematically appropriate I-couldn't-be-bothered-to-create-a-barnstar-template barnstar. ;-) Melchoir (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor
I, Emily (AKA I dream of horses), noticed this and hereby announce that you have a wonderful sense of humor about something that you apparently a strong opinion about. I dream of horsesIf you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The Ambassador's Barnstar
For your reaching out, both on- and off-wiki, during the fallout from Threshold (online game), I award you the Ambassador's Barnstar! Flatscan (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Peace
You made a gigantic effort to gently reprimand people who were behaving badly, help newbies navigate the rough waters of Wikipedia, and generally got everyone to play nice. You were dealing with some seriously intense personalities, so being able to keep your cool is pretty impressive. (Maybe this should be the barnstar of civility also!) Kallimina (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For tireless devotion toward attaining GA, and maybe even FA status for Warhammer 40,000. Tealwisp (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The Citation Barnstar
For incredible (previously thought impossible) collection of sources for the Warhammer 40k wikiproject. Tealwisp (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
I've seen you around (not sure where first), and I'm not really a barnstar kind of guy, but reading your comments in various places, I find your approach to Wikipedia, its merits, and its detractions, to be both refreshing, honest, and for the most part, spot on. You are not too proud to beg, not too proud to admit you are wrong, and not too bashful to take "to task" someone else who is both proud (and probably) wrong. Keep up the good work! I'm glad you're here, you are necessary to the success of this project. Keeperǀ76 20:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The Hidden Page Barnstar
I award you one for finding User:Trekphiler's page for people who always think that "new message" bar is real. Aren't you glad you checked your mail? TREKphiler 16:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC) (I should check this more often...)
The Special Barnstar
In view of your extraordinary editorial contributions, and in tribute to your successful efforts in creating a harmonious working environment on Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit
For being a straight-forward, accurate reviewer who is also kind and encouraging. Keep up the good work! Eustress (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The Curveball Award
I award this to ProtonK for his hitting-the-nail-on-the-head question at an important juncture here. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
For providing an outstanding assessment for the article USS Iowa (BB-61) I herby award you the WikiChevrons. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 20:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for your recent reversion against vandalism on the skittles page! Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence
The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded in recognition of extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service, especially in regard to article improvement.
Awarded by PhilKnight (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
Dragon kill points Back from the dead!