User:Awickert/Curmudgeonly opinions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Being that I've been around for some time, I've decided to keep a list of opinions, some of which may be curmudgeonly.

The curmudgeonliest[edit]

  1. If you find that you spend all of your time here arguing on talk pages and dredging through wiki-politics, find a new hobby for goodness sake. You're not building an encyclopedia, but you could be tying up people who want to and instead have to deal with you. If I had my way, you would be indef'ed for being an useless drag, but I don't have my way.
  2. If you're trying to communicate with someone, but they keep ignoring what you say, assuming bad faith, and/or bringing up the same old arguments, it's probably time to drop the issue. They're being a dick, and the longer you continue in the conversation, the more likely you are to be a dick back. And who knows: maybe they're just having a bad day, and everything will clear up come morning.
  3. Why are some people such total arrogant jackasses online? Because they can be without fear of punishment for their behavior. It is a litmus test in character. One must proceed with caution around such individuals: they have been known to cause increased heart rates and adrenaline levels and increased risk of early death. And they're just not worth it. Let them rant.
  4. The majority of people who edit global warming-related articles have strong opinions but no clue about the science. I've stopped hanging around these topics because of that. I blame those news agencies and radicals (on either side) who constantly broadcast incorrect things, often with massive spins, and get people to listen to them. Liars with amplifiers suck.
  5. Arbcomm deals mostly with issues that arise because the involved editors don't have the personal maturity to act like decent people towards one another. The fact that so much time is wasted on the few (often ineffective) editors who can't take the initiative and grow up is really frustrating. Awickert (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

On being effective here[edit]

  1. Article space edits matter more than anything else. This is what the Wikipedia reader sees. Don't forget it.
  2. Be nice. This is a for-fun project. If it is fun, you and your fellow Wikipedians can build something great. If it isn't fun... then why not do something that is equally un-fun but you get paid for.
  3. Don't act like you know what you're talking about when you don't. This is an encyclopedia. We don't make things up. If I break this rule, forget the trout, slap me with a sea urchin.
  4. Don't source science to the news. There are many good science writers, but a critical mass of those who screw up. Read the original paper instead. If you don't understand the original paper, then it's probably best to ask someone else to help and not to edit the article alone.

Daisies and butterflies[edit]

  1. Express your appreciation for the work of others loudly and enthusiastically. They volunteer their hours and work hard. Pats on the back are free and greatly appreciated.
  2. If you're in a disagreement with another user, take a deep breath and remember that they're a human being.
  3. You're writing things that will be freely available for posterity! How cool is that?

Featured Article Candidates[edit]

  1. If you bring an article to FAC and five people review it, go and review five other people's FAC's and thank your reviewers. Share the love.
  2. Don't get pissy with your reviewers. They're volunteering their time on a topic that they might not care about. Being pissy is mean and IMO is reason enough to suspect that there are significant problems in the article. Thank your reviewers instead.

Excellent places to waste time and/or raise your heart rate / lower your lifespan[edit]

  1. Arbcomm cases
  2. Global warming brawls
  3. The two of those combined

The letter and spirit of the law[edit]

  1. Follow the spirit of the law, and the letter if it also follows the spirit and seems like it will cause an improvement to Wikipedia or the editing community.
  2. Poor Brews O'Hare just wants to help. Maybe he was obnoxious at the speed of light case, but just let him keep using his retirement and rather extensive knowledge to keep improving articles here. The continued shenanigans on all sides of the argument just serve to alienate him and make matters worse.

On me[edit]

  1. I try to do the right thing here. If you think I screwed up, tell me and I'll do my best to work it out with you. I hold no grudges and would like to encourage everyone to contribute.
  2. Sometimes I may seem blunt in what I say here. That is because I'm running increasingly short on free time for this project, and it's faster (and more effective) to say what I mean directly. If this bothers you, please let me know, and I'll say things in a more roundabout and pleasant way.
  3. I find myself helping with many volcanology articles due to others' interest and requests here. I am not a volcanologist, and have no specific expertise or interest there, but sometimes others' excitement is infectious.


  1. Accounts with sanctimonious usernames are usually up to no good.