User:GermanJoe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
deDieser Benutzer spricht Deutsch als Muttersprache.
en-3This user can contribute with an advanced level of the English language.
Wikipedia Template editor icon (1).svgThis user has template editor rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)
Wikipedia Reviewer.svgThis user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)
WikiProject GermanyThis user is a member of
WikiProject Germany.
Waricon.svgThis user is a member of
WikiProject Military History.
No-spam.svgThis user is a member of WikiProject Spam.
Editor of the week barnstar.svgThis user is a recipient of the Editor of the Week award.
IP addressThis user supports mandatory registration.
QThis user has access to Questia through The Wikipedia Library.
AWB logo draft.pngThis user uses AutoWikiBrowser.



Hello visitor, my tool selection has been moved to User:GermanJoe/Tools.


How to write an encyclopedic business-related article in 4 easy steps
  1. Use reliable, independent sources (WP:RS) to include significant encyclopedic information.
  2. Use self-published sources as rarely as possible, and only for common uncontroversial information.
  3. Avoid all qualifiers for knowledge, quality, size and success (WP:NPOV, WP:PEACOCK).
  4. Avoid trivial listings, tedious boring details, and vague PR speak with no tangible facts.

Two cents on the "inclusionists" vs. "deletionists" debate
:Q: Which position has done more harm to Wikipedia and our common encyclopedic goals?
A: Neither, both sides provide some reasonable arguments and have valid concerns worth discussing.
However, the constant battleground mentality (bad faith allegations, labelling fellow editors with stupid clichés, and the desire to be right at all costs)
from a vocal minority in both camps have done more damage than both viewpoints combined, for example by:
  • driving away good faith editors from AfD-related participation.
  • derailing ongoing discussions and hindering the search for practical solutions.
  • preventing necessary improvements for existing flaws (as opposed to imaginary doomsday scenarios).
  • poisoning community discussions and AfD nominations with old grudges and new animosities, thereby widening the rift between both "camps".