Note: Parts of my user page were created in 2007/2008, and I'm either too lazy to drastically redesign that text or have become attached to it in a way.
- 1 Using Wikipedia
- 2 Who is Flyer22?
- 3 Main types of articles interested in creating and or expanding
- 4 Main type of editing style
- 5 To-do list
- 6 Created and WP:Good articles
- 7 DYK articles
- 8 Awards: Barnstar or other
- 9 Vandalism
- 10 If I ever leave Wikipedia for good
- 11 References
Admit it—you use Wikipedia too. Someone comes to you wanting to know how to find some good stuff on quantum physics, so you sneak a peak at the relevant Wikipedia article just so you won’t sound stupid to your patron. Or someone queries, "What year did George Washington die?" and you could look it up in Oxford Reference, but you don’t. I mean, even Wikipedia couldn’t get the date of George Washington’s death date wrong, could it?
Though traditional encyclopedia producers disdain it, Wikipedia has an edge in one area—currency. If I want an article on "folksonomy," I can’t find it in Encyclopaedia Britannica, whereas Wikipedia will instantly tell me that it is "a user-generated taxonomy used to categorize and retrieve web content…using open-ended labels called tags."
If the average university student can safely go to Wikipedia instead of consulting a specialized print reference source, then academia is broken. It is a finger in the eye of the whole academic enterprise. It’s as if our students are saying, "We don’t care if it breaks the rules, deceives us, or is dumber than print reference books. We like Wikipedia, and it rarely lets us down."
They have never been part of the analog generation. Wikipedia is their world, and it has met their needs wonderfully. To tell them to use only the print encyclopedias for reference information is to make them ask, "Why should I when Wikipedia is at my fingertips?"
Moving Beyond the Impasse
Banning Wikipedia from the academic world doesn’t work either. It doesn’t prevent students from using it secretly (or plagiarizing from it), plus it helps further the anti-academic subculture. We need to be aware that academia is primarily analog and that our students are largely digital. Academics have, for the most part, yet to embrace the new reality that much of the information produced today comes from the users of that information.
Embracing the World of Wikipedia
Truth to tell, much of Wikipedia is simply amazing in its detail, currency, and accuracy. Denying this is tantamount to taking ourselves out of the new digital reality. But we need to help our students see that Wikipedia is also an environment for shallow thinking, debates over interpretation, and the settling of scores. Wikipedia itself advises that its users consult other sources to verify the information they are finding. If a key element in information literacy is the ability to evaluate information, what better place to start than with Wikipedia? We can help students to distinguish the trite from the brilliant and encourage them to check their Wikipedia information against other sources.
Who is Flyer22?
Personality, backstory, etc.
I am a vegetarian, but I do not mind if others eat meat. I am female and was born in Florida. I have four siblings, and I'm the oldest; all of my siblings are adults. I have no interest in staying in Florida for too long, and may often venture out to other areas.
I was approached by the Mary Lou Modeling Agency at age 16 to consider becoming a model. I turned it down to focus on my own interests. Furthermore, I am only 5'3"; thus modeling did not sound like the most promising career. Oddly enough, or maybe it's not that odd since it's common for people to look significantly younger than they are, I still look as though I am in my late teens. Well, late teens/early twenties. For some reason, I don't seem to age. Not too visibly on the surface at least. For example, Wikipedia editors who have seen what I look like place me at age 22 at the most. I also find it interesting when people think they know what they can expect from me by looking at me, and then are proven wrong.
What else? Considering that most of my work is computer-related, I am able to access editing Wikipedia quite often. I also "suffer" from insomnia, and I usually exercise for an hour or so when I cannot sleep, or work on other things. Occasionally, I will choose to be lazy and watch television shows and/or read via my computer. Watching television the "normal way" can be a pain when you have so many channels to choose from. So, yes, a person might catch me on Wikipedia at any time of the day; it's the other option. The painful option. But the actual suffering comes from my depression. Sometimes it feels like depressive mood instead of specifically clinical depression; other times it feels like clinical depression, and the tiniest thing can set me off. I've talked about it before on my talk page. And like I stated then, antidepressants do not help me. Even if they did help me, I would consider it the placebo effect.
My parents, and occasionally teachers I've had, bragged about my knowledge of many topics (IQ), and wanted me to use it to pursue career fields they had in mind. While I undertook more than one field, their views could not be imposed on me, and I went on to do my own things. Given the aforementioned ego-stroking and immense pressure I was under regarding academics while growing up, I think that I have remained relatively normal under those circumstances. I'm certainly aware that I don't know everything. No one knows everything.
My Wikipedia personality is different than how I am in real life, except for caring a lot about child abuse and that people educate themselves on sexual matters. The reason for the difference is mainly because that personality hardened over the years while dealing with so many WP:Disruptive editors in a variety of contentious topics. My Wikipedia persona can be intense -- a "take no prisoners" attitude -- when necessary. And given the contentious topics I edit, that attitude is common when it comes to WP:Disruptive editors and similar. Depression also contributes to my grumpiness on Wikipedia when having to interact with WP:Disruptive editors day in and day out. As with any working environment, I get along with some editors better than others, but I barely care if I'm actually liked on Wikipedia; I know that enough editors dislike me and/or are annoyed by me, whether they show it openly or discuss it behind my back, and I could not care less. I went through the popularity thing in high school. This obviously is not high school.
Credentials and contact
I have significant knowledge in the social/scientific/psychological/sexual fields, as well as in popular culture topics such as American soap operas, but I will not edit much scientific or mathematics material due to being tired of it. Additionally, I will not edit much screenwriting material either, despite loving the medium. I've dealt with the latter fields so much that working on them on Wikipedia would likely bore me. I think that my weakest area is grammar; I'm not so terrible with it that it's a hindrance, but I am far from great with it.
Specific detail on my credentials are without mention on Wikipedia. This is Wikipedia, where anyone can edit and their contributions are of more note. If it's not clear from the #Personality, backstory, etc. section above, I see some things as bragging.
To get in contact with me outside of Wikipedia, you may email me if you are a registered user; click on the Toolbox selection to the left of this page, and an "E-mail this user" option will pop up. Select it, and there you go. Keep in mind, however, that, concerning Wikipedia, I only regularly email with a select few (and I do mean a very small group of people from this site). So for others, if you email me, make sure that it is about something that makes my user talk page less than ideal to use for that message. Otherwise, I may very well ignore you, especially since replying back will provide you with my email address (one of them anyway).
I enjoy writing, reading books, and occasionally playing Go. I have several other hobbies as well, though I will not list all of them.
Favorite television shows at the moment
Note: I sometimes read Japanese manga or watch Japanese animes because I generally find the storytelling produced by these mediums better than the storytelling of television shows or films from other countries. Elfen Lied, for example, is one of the best (and saddest) stories I've seen. I think that if Hollywood thought outside of the box more, instead of recycling the same content over and over again about 96% of the time, it would have a lot more quality films. Take Edge of Tomorrow starring Tom Cruise, for instance; it was adapted from the Japanese light novel called All You Need Is Kill, and that adaptation received generally positive reviews from film critics. I also liked the film. There are so many mangas and/or animes that would make great Hollywood films. Book-to-film or anime-to-live-action film adaptations are not easy, but when they are done well, the payoff is often enormous.
Past (anime or otherwise)
- Death Note; it's been years since I watched this and the other animes listed here, but this one is my favorite; for people who will say, "Anime is for kids." or are only willing to watch the 3D animated stories for families (such as Finding Nemo or Happy Feet), this is the anime I would recommend to them. It's a very adult, suspenseful, scary and heartfelt crime mystery, which also proved very controversial. It is the main anime that drew me further in watching animes (far more so than the critically-acclaimed Akira that I first watched as a teenager), and it blew me away with its sophisticated twists and turns. Seriously, the story is brilliant.
- Gantz (would make a great Hollywood film)
- Fate/stay Night (would make a great Hollywood film)
- Kurokami (also known as Black God)
- Hikaru no Go (based on one of the most complex games ever, Go). I usually do not watch animes about characters so young, and prefer them to be mid/late teenagers or adults, but this anime is surprisingly very, very good. The characters even age into mature people, as the series follows three years.
- Additional note: There are others, but I am too lazy to think of them. And, yeah, I would have to think about them. I suppose they aren't that memorable.
Most recent (other types of shows)
- The Walking Dead (excellent show)
- Game of Thrones (excellent show)
- A few science shows and reality shows
- Forensic Files, which is partly covered by "science shows"
- There are other recent shows that I like or sort of like, including Witches of East End and Orphan Black, but I wouldn't call them my favorites. With regard to Orphan Black, I'm glad that I didn't read any plot summary about it (at least not enough) before watching the first episode (including the lead of the Wikipedia article); otherwise, the mystery of the first three episodes concerning why all of the women look alike would have been spoiled for me (yeah, consider that my heads up to anyone considering watching it).
- Black Sails (second season is seemingly better than the first and has caused me to somewhat favor the show).
- Jane the Virgin; kind of a favorite (I'm not sure; I enjoy this more when my youngest sister watches it with me, but she dislikes all of the characters, isn't in sync with the humor, and hasn't been watching it lately).
- Banshee (Yeah, I'm keen on some violent television shows; so sue me.)
- The Flash (2014 series); I'm glad that a couple of editors encouraged me to watch this show.
- Glee; although I'd known of the hype regarding this show, I'd never been interested in watching it (I like a lot of Disney films, but I'm not a big fan of musicals). In late April or early May of 2015, I suddenly thought about what recommended shows I hadn't watched and gave Glee a chance. Yes, a little after the show had ended; I didn't even know it had ended. Anyway, I didn't immediately love Glee, but having just finished the "Funeral" episode, which I enjoyed, I can say that I like this series a lot. In fact, I kind of love it. The Will Schuester and Sue Sylvester antagonistic/love-hate relationship is one of the funniest and most complicated television relationships I've seen.
This section is outdated
- Perrine's Literature : Structure Sound and Sense
- Death in Venice
- To Kill a Mockingbird
- Wuthering Heights
- The Curious Incident of the Dog
- A Clockwork Orange
- The Alchemist
- The battle for Wikipedia's soul
- What to Do With Wikipedia
- NOVA Online | Time Travel
- Human race will 'split into two different species'
Main types of articles interested in creating and or expanding
- Science articles.
- Human nature articles (such as anatomy).
- Science-fiction articles.
- Film articles; that might include any type of film, from bad or silly films that I loved as a child and/or still love today for whatever reason (such as Teen Witch or Encino Man) to excellent films (such as The Silence of the Lambs or Forrest Gump).
- Prime time television articles; ranging from bad to excellent.
Main types of articles working on at the moment:
- Sex-related articles. Ranging from healthy sexual thoughts and behaviors to sexual deviant topics (such as rape or pedophilia).
If you are freaked out by the sex-related article aspect, like this guy apparently was (back when my user page was somewhat different, but still not formatted in a way to cause a rational person to conclude what he concluded), I see that as one of the problems with society now -- people being so squeamish about sexual topics that, for example, a parent who fails to talk with their child about such matters at an appropriate age (whether it's what the actual names for "private parts" are or about safe sex) is significantly vulnerable to that child becoming a sexual assault victim or making a reckless decision about sexual activity. Try not to be so close-minded on such discussions and/or quick to label someone a pervert (or whatever other insult) because they are open to discussing these topics and take them very seriously.
I sometimes like watching KateWishing (talk · contribs) edit; the way she edits (her editing concentration and the articles she targets) reminds me of myself, especially when I used to actively contribute to articles instead of revert a lot of vandalism or other unconstructive edits.
For my opinions on the coverage of anatomy, especially female anatomy, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-09-03/WikiProject report.
Main type of editing style
I am flexible in my Wikipedia editing — usually bouncing from human nature articles (whether it be sexuality topics, etc.) to actor/actress articles, or other articles, to combating vandalism or other problematic edits. I am also stern regarding all four subsections topics below:
Too many people at this site (longtime editors and WP:Newbies alike) think that being WP:Neutral means that all viewpoints, including minority viewpoints/similar such matters, should be represented alongside and/or as prominently as the prevailing view. Well, this section is meant to clear that misguided notion right up.
Like I will repeat as many times as it is needed to be repeated, Wikipedia cannot do much about the "unequal" matters in the world without creating false balance. WP:Due weight makes clear (when scrolling down to the Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity" subsections) that there should not be an attempt to give "equal validity" to things that are not on equal footing with regard to coverage among sources. Wikipedia follows the mainstream; it does not try to create the mainstream. I am all for making an article more neutral, but not to the point where we are attempting to give "equal validity." I will always give more weight to what the significant majority of sources state, so do not be surprised if I reword or revert any changes that go against WP:Undue weight. The only time that the majority should not get more weight is when it is a small majority.
I do not tolerate WP:Advocacy. And if you engage in it, chances are that I do not respect you as a Wikipedia editor, or that I barely do. I do not care what your cause is. For example, I support the LGBT community a great deal and I will readily campaign for that cause in my non-Wikipedia life, but you will not see me giving "equal validity" to LGBT aspects on Wikipedia. Not ever. As much as I am for diversity, as is obvious by my positive involvement in WP:LGBT topics, I am just as much for following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Because I work on Wikipedia sexual topics and follow WP:Due weight on those topics, I am occasionally accused of being gay/lesbian or heterosexist. I do not care what you think I am; I could be LGBT or heterosexual, for all you know. WP:Neutral is about giving appropriate weight to views it should be given to, and WP:Due weight is specifically about the majority vs. the minority; we are supposed to give more weight to the majority. With regard to sexual matters, this is a world that puts most of its sexual attention on heterosexuality (see heteronormativity). It is also a world that is significantly more focused on sexual activity involving the use of a penis than any other type of sexual activity. None of this is surprising if indeed the vast majority of the world is heterosexual. So complaining to me about an article being non-neutral in either regard, when it is what most sources or the vast majority of sources cover on that matter, will get you nowhere.
I will give WP:Due weight where it is needed, but do not expect me to sacrifice the quality of the article to elevate the minority view to the same standing. No, I will not employ WP:Gender-neutral language throughout an article when the vast majority of sources do not use gender-neutral language, not unless doing so is clearly appropriate. If a topic is more of a male topic, do not expect me to give as much weight to the female aspect...or vice versa in the case of a topic that is mostly considered a female matter. I will not. And you will have a difficult time presenting the article in such a way, as long as I am at that article and care about you not doing so. Wikipedia has one too many conservative POV-pushers and one too many LGBT POV-pushers; I am neither. And for the record, I am non-religious (unlike the significant majority of my family).
The WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS essay is right on-target; in part, it states, "Wikipedia is a popular site and appears high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. ... On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. 'Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed.'"
Wikipedia also has one too many exhibitionist type of editors, those who insist on including offensive sexual images at the expense of our readership (meaning that it is all about what the editor wants instead of what our readers are most likely to want). I've stated this before on Wikipedia, and I will state it again here on my user page: WP:NOTCENSORED is not the only thing that should be considered with regard to sexual images. There is WP:GRATUITOUS to consider as well. Many of our readers take more offense to images of real-life sex anatomy or real-life sex acts than of images of these types that have been drawn. And if we can minimize such offense with an alternative image that adequately conveys the same message, we should. Like WP:GRATUITOUS states, "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." A real-life image of the sex act is not needed to illustrate any of the content in an article about that act; people can quite clearly understand the act with drawings, and even without images.
Our readers more readily state or shout "That's porn!" or something about the article not being encyclopedic or detracting from its encyclopedic value more so when it's a real-life sex image being shown instead of a drawn one, though they make a fuss over some of the drawn ones as well (especially the ones by Seedfeeder). And there is a valid point that using a real-life image to illustrate a sex act distracts from the text and makes the article feel pornographic and less encyclopedic; there is no need for that when an equally suitable alternative is available. As for any assertion along the lines of "That article has a photograph but this one doesn't.", Seedfeeder's images have helped clean up matters concerning the many complaints and much WP:Edit warring that have gone on at Wikipedia over images of sex acts, and it's now standard practice to use a drawing of a sex act instead of an image of a real-life sex act.
Besides, there is some suspicion that Seedfeeder's images are of real people; some people consider his images so life-like that they have suggested that he traces lines over porn to create the images, as seen in this accusation. But whatever the case on that, his images on Wikipedia are commonly substituted for images of real-life sex acts, and, like I noted, that factor has substantially improved matters on Wikipedia.
If we call it "puritan nonsense" to not include a real-life sex image over a drawing or painting of such an act, it happens to be vast "puritan nonsense." From what I have studied with regard to sexual topics (and it happens to be a lot), the reaction to sexual imagery as offensive and/or distracting, except in situations deemed appropriate by whatever means, is the prevailing reaction (meaning it prevails over "Oh, I'm fine with that."). Since I've been at this site (which is since 2007), I've witnessed "That's porn!" and "That detracts/distracts from the article." type of arguments from various walks of life, including on Jimbo Wales's Wikipedia user talk page; those arguments exist whether it's a drawing, painting, some form of digital art or a photograph, but they are far more prevalent when it is a photograph (as in a real-life image). Our readers have consistently stated that they cannot enjoy the article as much, or take the article as seriously, with such images. To them, it is simply porn. So we might as well make it less pornographic to them; this approach has been working well, and I see no valid reason to disrupt that. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:GRATUITOUS tell us what to do in the case of an image that is likely to be offensive, whether we should use that one or an "equally suitable alternative." WP:GRATUITOUS is the answer to "prudishness is culture specific and WP should rise above such puritan nonsense," and it is quite valid; it exists partly for that reason. Also see this section, concerning an interview with Gawker, on Seedfeeder's talk page.
If you post anything on Wikipedia about your belief that sex with children is fine and dandy, similar to this guy's post, then watch out; unless you are discussing a complicated age of consent matter involving post-pubescents, then I will instantly have no respect for you and I will instantly want you off Wikipedia. You either follow the WP:Child protection policy, or I will very likely see to it that your presence is removed from this site. Create a new account and spread the same garbage, and I'll get rid of that account as well. Further detail is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology.
Regarding my edits to the Pedophilia article, I do not care about how you personally want to define pedophilia or that you want to go by the imprecise dictionary definitions as opposed to accurate medical definitions. I do not care if you think editors watching and editing the Pedophilia article are pedophiles and/or child sexual abusers because they do not subscribe to your lay (non-specialist) definition of pedophilia. People should put aside their ignorance and learn something; if that means learning what pedophilia actually is and using the terminology accurately, then good. This helps people not be so oblivious as to what type of perpetrators may be sexually abusing a child; in other words, child sexual abuse is far more common than people think. And so is child-on-child sexual abuse; it is not always, or even mostly, the man specifically interested in prepubescents. It is usually a relative or someone otherwise close to the family. Do I sometimes use the term pedophile broadly? Yes, I do (not too broadly). But on Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, I want to get it right; I should get it right.
As for the Wikipedia people who take care of "pedophile talk" and similar, it turns out that the WP:WMF have taken over for WP:ArbCom in handling all future WP:Child protection matters. So the WP:Child protection policy will need updating "once all the new arrangements are finali[z]ed" with regard to the WP:WMF handling WP:Child protection and other matters. From what the WP:WMF have told me of their potential to handle WP:Child protection cases, they are well-equipped and have significant experience in the area. Their investigations can take weeks or months, however, especially if gathering more evidence.
And, yes, I am of great interest to the pedophiles and child sexual abusers who infiltrate, or try to infiltrate, Wikipedia. See this addition to boywiki.org, for example. Why they felt the need to mention Jack-A-Roe, who has been missing in action for years, is beyond me.
Being on the lookout for WP:Sockpuppets is not really a main editing style for me, but I've caught so many WP:Sockpuppets and am on the lookout for them often enough that I've listed this section as a subsection of "Main type of editing style." If you look into the edit history, you can see that this section used to be drastically different, but some Wikipedia editors sought to have it changed, and so this is how it is now. The vast majority of my WP:Sockpuppet reports have been conducted via email, by alerting relevant editors, or by alerting WP:Arbcom in the case of returning/indefinitely blocked pedophiles, but I have opened a few WP:Sockpuppet investigations. When I spot a WP:Sockpuppet, I might ignore him or her, especially if he or she will immediately abuse one or more accounts after being caught and blocked; in some cases, it is better to keep an eye on them and only report them when necessary. I might also accuse first, or imply first, and report later. Sort of like a "guilty until proven innocent" matter. This helps gauge the reaction of the accused, and the reaction is usually very telling. Some might state that this shows a lack of WP:Assume good faith on my part, and that is when I will roll my eyes. Why should I WP:Assume good faith when I know for certain that the editor is a WP:Sockpuppet? Prime examples are this and this recent case. And when I was taken to WP:ANI over that latter case, I was lucky enough to have editors see that common sense is often better than rigidly applying rules, applying rules when they go against reason; to me, that is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work.
Besides knowledge of how WP:Sockpuppets act, two of the main things I use to catch them are psychology and mathematics. With psychology, being very familiar with the literature on real-life character types (whether it's perfectionists, narcissists, people with obsessive–compulsive disorder, compulsive liars, all-around "good guys," or something else) helps gauge how these people may act when I encounter them. I sometimes categorize people as certain types because of how they edit Wikipedia. How they edit Wikipedia might not be how they are in real life. Take, my Wikipedia personality, for example. The anonymity on the Internet can change people. Still, a lot of these WP:Sockpuppets that I identify as having a certain personality will behave in a way that is typical of a person with that personality. And with mathematics, while I noted above that I generally stay away from editing Wikipedia math topics, it is probability that I apply in WP:Sockpuppet cases; I sort of indicated that here and here. Probability works every time in the cases that I am 100% certain about, and generally in the other cases.
What I am about to state next could be argued as helpful to WP:Sockpuppets, but it is also helpful to those who are not as familiar as I am with spotting them and reporting them, or ignoring them until there is a need to report them or enough evidence to report them. And, besides, WP:Signs of sock puppetry and WP:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet could help either side as well. So here it goes...
Despite what the "Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet" essay states, almost all of the signs noted there are reasons that you should be quick to assume that a person is, if not a WP:Sockpuppet, a returning editor (also see WP:Clean start). WP:Sockpuppets almost always think that they are smarter than you are. However, they are not smarter than you are if you know the signs. Some common mistakes they make are listed below (I'll keep some others to myself):
- They create a user page as their first edit or soon after their first edit; this usually means that the account is a WP:Sockpuppet or is being operated by someone otherwise very familiar with Wikipedia. The reason why this is the case is because, unless the editor is a WP:Student editor, it is unlikely that the new Wikipedia editor (WP:Newbie) will immediately create a user page (I'm speaking from years of experience editing this site). It is even more unlikely that the editor will create a user page with a single dot, multiple dots, or something similar. An instant creation of a user page is done by WP:Sockpuppets or other returning editors because they know that a red-linked user page usually signals that they are new or otherwise inexperienced with editing Wikipedia, and that experienced Wikipedia editors therefore often think of such accounts in a less favorable way than an experienced registered Wikipedia account.
- They sign their posts in their first few edits to Wikipedia under their new account; this especially applies to an editor signing the talk page post of the first edit they make to Wikipedia. Truly new Wikipedia editors usually do not think to sign their username for their first post, and they usually have trouble remembering to sign their posts in their early days editing Wikipedia.
- They make edits to get WP:Autoconfirmed; if you see a "new editor" making superficial edits to an article (such as WP:Dummy edits) in a row (meaning at least ten edits), you have likely spotted a WP:Sockpuppet or a different type of returning editor.
- They know Wikipedia ways like they know the back of their hands; it is extremely rare that a new Wikipedia editor will be very familiar with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and WP:Noticeboards, especially to the point that they are citing those policies and guidelines and/or pointing to those noticeboards like they've been around for years. Similar applies to the WP:Requests for adminship (WP:RfA) process and slapping WP:Userboxes onto the user page. True novice Wikipedians usually have no interest in participating in a WP:RfA, unless canvassed there. And they certainly are not familiar with WP:Userboxes. I don't care what anyone tells you about an editor knowing about all of that stuff because the editor read about Wikipedia. Unless it is a site that constantly comments on Wikipedia, it is extremely unlikely that a new editor would be that good at editing Wikipedia.
- They state "I'm new," or some variation of that, with every other post. True WP:Newbies usually do not do that; they do not repeatedly let you know that they are new.
- They somehow know to cite the essays WP:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet and/or WP:NOTCLUELESS.
- They create dormant accounts that suddenly come to life, and possibly go dormant again; see WP:Sleeper.
What to do with all of this information if you are a WP:Sockpuppet? Stop being dumb and stop insulting my intelligence. Or rather, in the case of editors like me, it's going to take you playing dumb to have any chance of sufficiently passing as a new editor...if you care to do so. You can lie until you are blue in the face, as was done in this case, and I will still know who you are. And for the love of whatever, do not cite WP:Clean start to me unless it is one; WP:Clean start is policy, and it means there should not be any sanctions against you editing Wikipedia and that you should avoid editing the same areas you edited before. What to do with all of this information if you are not a WP:Sockpuppet and care if someone is one? Get smarter when it comes to spotting these returning editors. Some returning editors will have appropriately returned via WP:Clean start, while others will have not. And then there are editors who might be sharing accounts (WP:Shared account), or have a WP:Meat puppet. I am not always right about WP:Sockpuppets, and I have been blocked for WP:Sockpuppety; information on that can be seen at User talk:Flyer22/Archive 10/Block cases. Having an actual WP:My little brother did it matter, which includes a sibling who emulated my editing style, is part of what makes my WP:Sockpuppet cases complicated. I only have my word, some WP:CheckUser evidence, and a Skype interaction, to support the contention that I did not WP:Sockpuppet. Did I become more of a WP:Sockpuppet watcher after those cases? Yes. You can call it overcompensating or whatever, but I don't see it that way. And I have more than my word that I can usually spot a WP:Sockpuppet. And if you've never seen an editor copy, or try to copy, another editor's style in a way that could mislead, then click on this link (and, yeah, I know that I've linked to that WP:Sock in the first two paragraphs of this section; he's proudly one of my more problematic stalkers).
One more thing: As for my brother, Halo Jerk1, whose edits taught me more about WP:Sockpuppetry and WP:Meatpuppetry than I already knew about those types of editing, but cost me a clean block log, I don't know if he still edits Wikipedia as much as he used to. His Halo Jerk1 account is stale, and he no longer lives with me, but I don't doubt that he still edits Wikipedia. How he could abandon his Murder of Travis Alexander article, I don't know; I state that because I personally could not abandon a Wikipedia article that I created and still edit Wikipedia. I don't understand how editors do that. Last year, months after making the edit, I realized that I edited the Murder of Travis Alexander article once because of my WP:STiki patrolling. Because it is my brother's creation, I will be avoiding it, as I always have.
Not that I usually need notes, but...
- Human brain article (mainly update sourcing).
- Aileen Wuornos; not much to do with this article, but Wuornos is interesting to me, perhaps more interesting than any of the male serial killers considering that it's extremely rare for a woman to have the type of psychopathy (or sociopathy?) that Wuornos is believed to have had, and I also wonder if any of her killings were in self-defense (it's certainly likely that one or more of them were the result of self-defense, though shooting a person multiple times is usually unneeded to protect oneself and is commonly indicative of panic or rage). I highly suspect that she was raped by Richard Mallory, as claimed.
If you want to know what articles I've gotten to Good article (WP:GA) status, you can check my user page edit history (starting with my "03:12, 20 September 2014" edit) and/or ask me about the articles I did not list on my user page because I felt that I should have contributed to the WP:GA elevation more than I did. At this time, I don't feel like listing these articles to show what WP:GA content I've done. I am likely to relist them once I've gotten more WP:GAs and WP:Featured articles (FAs).
I'm not too interested in creating articles, unless I'm molding existing articles into my creations. But in my early years on Wikipedia, I created:
I have nominated six articles to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? section. All, except one, were a successful nomination process. The five articles are as follows:
Awards: Barnstar or other
|For barnstars, awards, or similar, in general.|
Here is a kitten to take your mind off Talk:Asexuality. Enjoy.
Happy 2013, and glad to see you're still around. I don't want to talk about my personal life too much on here (I see other editors like work colleagues) but the sexuality articles, of which you're a strong contributor, have been very interesting and useful reading for some stuff in my off-wiki life. Thanks.
Ima break my rule of never awarding a second barnstar to a person, 'cause of all you've had to go through. It's tough. I'm glad Alison came through for you, she's a peach. You're really resilient to work through all that, a lot of people would have walked away. A tough gal, you are, it seems. I'm glad you're still here. You're valuable. Herostratus (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
For your work on Human sexuality. I didn't have the patience for it and kudos to you for having more than I.
A cup of coffee for you!
|For WP:STiki barnstars.|
Congratulations on number of edits, especially concerning WP:STiki
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.
|For barnstars, awards, or similar, that I received as a result, or seemingly as a result, of this matter.|
For all the work you do in one of the awkward corners of Wikipedia
Favorite vandalism moments
|This section is from 2007 and is out of date.|
Stating that I have favorite vandalism moments and or favorite vandals does not mean that I support vandalism on Wikipedia. I repeat: It does not mean that I support vandalism on Wikipedia. For those who feel that I should not have a section titled "Favorite vandalism moments" on my user page, well, what I mainly say to that is that I am human. And for someone who does not laugh a lot, it takes a really funny and/or creative vandal to make me laugh...and a few have done so:
2: 220.127.116.11 -- this vandal vandalized an article I created. If you guessed the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article, then you guessed correctly. This vandal, in one visit, made three different edits, all hilarious as heck, to what was then the Maggie's confession section of the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article. This was that article's first vandal. Here are the links to those vandalism moments.... The big ouch about this is that this vandalism was carried out on the same day that this article was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did you know? section. The plus is that those vandalism edits to this article were quickly reverted.
3: 18.104.22.168 -- Got a laugh out of me as well. This edit to the Buffy the Vampire Slayer article was later reverted (of course) by an editor that I work with sometimes (Bignole), and it had to be reverted, but I could not help finding this edit funny that day....
4: Not too long after, another vandal --22.214.171.124-- to the same article managed to get a smirk out of me with this edit.
5: Number 5. Yes, at first...this edit to the Romeo and Juliet article by TonyHarrison4lyf did not hit me with the funny, but after reading that one phrase that was edited in throughout the article, it became funny, really funny for a few moments, then back to being a single laugh. Plus, the enthusiasm of this vandal to type or paste in that one line throughout this entire long article... Wow, see what I mean with this link. Priceless.
Some crass stuff, and it may seem as though my sense of humor is on the dirty side, but I assure you that it is more about what I find funny, not anything about necessarily being dirty and crass.
Least favorite vandalism moments
1: 126.96.36.199 -- My user page (yeah, this user page) was vandalized for the first time and by a person of that IP, and...well...it was not very creative. I laughed once, but all in all, not enough to keep the laughs going for more than a second or two. This link originally showed a picture that the IP presented as me. It was not me, but if this user had used a picture of a penguin, perhaps that might have gotten more laughs out of me.
2:Colaatje5 -- I did not really bother this user much, though I did change some of this user's edits due to wrong formatting. Perhaps this user became frustrated with other editors doing the same and took it out on my user page. However, I do not totally discount that this anger was probably all directed at me. The user just about erased my entire user page.
3: In addition to the above, this page was vandalized several more times. I might list all of that one day.
If I ever leave Wikipedia for good
It is because of one of four things:
- excerpted from Badke, William. "What to Do With Wikipedia". Trinity Western University, 2008; q.v. for full text. Retrieved 2008-03-14.