Hello!I contribute to this great site under the username Keserman (pronounced kee-sur-men). Welcome to my userpage, encluding various userboxes, and sections on wikipedia-related opinions, beliefs, and activities, perhaps more.
I am a student from and residing on the avalon peninsula of Newfoundland, Canada. My interests include firearms, watercraft, trucks, vans, and SUVs, photography and videography. I posess a videotape video camera and a more frequently used smaller, convienient SD card digital camera with photo and video ability the use of which is one of my hobbies. Another is model building. I build trucks, vans and will build suvs, and less frequently build ships. I have finished models from stores as well.
I hold very low opinion(s) on vandalism,related or unrelated to wikipedia,and similar very low opinion(s) on vandals perpetrating these vandalisms. I think that blanking pages or inserting untrue information on them is a very stupid downgrade of this valuable source of research and information. I think vandalism of wikiipedia is a low-life activity that people with nothing better to do with their time choose for something fun. But it is not fun for another wikipedian who has to clean or replace/restore the page the vandal destroyed. And it is not fun for the researcher who has, for instance, a school project on whatever, and looks for info,finds nothing, or worse yet, untrue information they believe, by itself or mixed with truth. Then they look like they in part or in whole look like they made a lot of gibberish up for it in school when it has to be passed in. Or the curious sort who looks information up to increase knowlege as a whole, or would like to feed an interest in the works of famed author john doe or the horror movie whatever title. Or just for fun or something to do, he researches something or many things on the computer. He does this because he is above the low-life sport of vandalism on wikipedia. Please contribute true information to this great site, not gibberish and destruction. Wikipedia is not a site of winners or losers,well that goes for good-faith edits and such. Vandals are losers by being blocked, and such, and why does vandalism not remain, why does true info remain ultimately? The guy who stares into the grafitti in the one building, the fire it the other, and the broken windows in the other and smiles and laughs at his work is no better than the editor who does the same with his blanked or gibberish-filled page. And may I add that I have eyewitnessed a blanking of a page.
the man or woman who has created an apparently truthful article section, setence or word that seems believeable but is just a lot of lies organized to appear believeable is still no better. Complicated expert-like words that are not common knowlege to most should not be put down with false info, false or unreliable references is still a branch of vandalism, like a subpage, really. Dump the lies onto the other guy at the bus stop who'll forget it in five minutes,and no one is given information they need, or seem to need, which is not true. Catch the route whatever, and wear the right kind of sunglasses.
maturity in wikipedia regards
Anyone, from the time they can edit it in an acceptable manner, to, if they live that long, the time they are a supercenatarian,should be able to contribute to this great site.But you would not expect a 5 year old to do that, but vandals create the impression that one is trying but not suceeding. Anyone editing should do so in good faith. It is mature to go editing in good faith, not mess up this site. vandalism is a low-life activity. Please. If you can learn to edit wikipedia,you can learn to do it in a manner that improves it.
main aims on wikipedia
My current aims on wikipedia are fixing grammar in articles,and minor other edits on articles,but mainly I am kept busy by the article New Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador. I created the article, and have it amongst others on my watchlist.I try to keep an eye out for any edits to the page, so i can verify that they are true information,and fit the page well, and I hope to build the article as much as i can, and maximize it's quality. Due to reasons on my talk page, I am now trying to conserve editing to this.
Editing methods and such and other wikipedia methods and such
I usually try to edit in a way that is hopefully non-offensive, referenced if i can and it's called for, and i try to maximize article quality if it intrests me to do so.in disputes, I try to assume good faith, dispute and object in a calm, civil and reasonable manner. I encourage others to do the same.
I would reccomend joining wikipedia to anyone with the time, willingness, of course internet. exept for those vandals and/or hoaxers. i encourage editors to have a registered account, but those who do not are appreciated though. But I would think it better to have an account, it may make it easier when working on wikipedia.
help and interaction
I would welcome a request for help from another wikipedian, and would be glad to have another wikipedian ask to help me! look on my talk page, there may be something for you to help with! I would be pleased to work with another, and I may want opinions!Keserman (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)