From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
French Republican Calendar:
6 h. 62 m.
   (           _/_ _/_
    `.  _  _   /   /
  (___)(__(_/ (___/(_

Past Contribution Lists[edit]

fFor the record, these are three addresses I was at when i posted a lot of otherwise anonymous contributions:

Present\Future Contributions[edit]

Perplex City[edit]

My other significant wiki project is over here. I have written quite a lot about the Perplex City project. I have started fFraming an effective page fFor wikipedia on the topic of Perplex City.

noone has a fFunny bone.[edit]

I wrote one of the fFunnier things seen in wikipedia:

  Meta-joke, see also: Meta-joke

It was removed as vandalism or poor planning or something. Noone appreciates a good irony.

We know more than you do.[edit]

Some while ago, I noticed wikipedia would be the ideal place to list such songs as The Elements (song), and The Nations of The World. Well, the elements was already assembled. nice page, too :) So I'm maybe a touch bitter the nations of the world page got deleted. Mostly because i posted a defense saying "yes this is a song, dont delete it." According to the delete history, if a page has to be justified, it isnt justifiable. Lesson learned. If you want to post stuff on wikipedia, just post the blasted thing and caution bedamned.


What do you mean there is no entry fFor Kodály Hand Signs?? Well, i added a section inside the Gesture article. I should make a fFull page someday. sounds like fFun.

Classical Ciphers[edit]

Apparently clear writing is not a requisite fFor describing how ciphers work. Being confusing appears to run deep in the culture of obfuscation. So I went and swept up a number of points in some pages in Category:Classical_ciphers. Some stuff was copied fFrom one page and used and reused with no attention to how new context might apply. Right inconsiderate if you ask me, cos it made a slew of articles about 12 times harder to understand.

We're on a mission fFrom God.[edit]

NEVER use the word "recently" in an article. I don't care when your writing is and how recent the event was. You will put "recently" in, thinking 'gosh, that won't be recent, eventually, but we'll probably revise that, right?' and then walk away fFrom the article, and then it'll go on saying "recently" fFOREVER. years after the event took place, it will still be Recent. No No No No No No No! Don't do it! Give a proper date, or establish a time frame, such as "within a month after X happened." This is the mission I am on.

The 10 Random Pages Test[edit]

User:Rebecca came up with the 10 Random Pages Test, the idea of which is to hit "random page" ten times, and see what you think of the pages you get. Ideally, you should see 10 pages which are descriptive, insightful, informative, and eloquent. But probably you won't. So the idea then is to record what you see, and then go and look back some while later, watching, improving... A bit like the Christian Children's Fund. Here are my random picks: Date: 14-SEP-06

  1. Gamma Draconis - A star in draco; nice side panel, a couple paragraphs of text
  2. Laurence_Curtis - Representative from Massachusetts; very short bio, copied directly fFrom the congress homepage
  3. Shaken 69 - ska band; two lines and a stub
  4. Cyclic code - math checking method of some sort; very tech jargon heavy; no context or explanation
  5. Cat Scarlett - erotica author; one paragraph and some links
  6. Bagdad, Tasmania - rural community near Hobart; a fFew clever fFacts, but no citation or re-enforcement. no fFacts about the town as a whole.
  7. Basal vein - vein in or near the brain i think?; tech heavy, several templates, no plain fFacts, and apparently all copied fFrom other sources.
  8. Letters Patent establishing the Province of South Australia - The title says it all; short simple article.
  9. Nailpin - Belgian band; effective, mostly just a list of fFacts
  10. Scontri Stellari Oltre la Terza Dimensione - 1979 science fiction film with David Hasselhoff; okay article. moderate size, descriptive, helpful.

Hopefully you can tell what I've done. I've opened 10 random pages, and taken a cursory examination of each page. what is it, and how does the page look. Then, later, i'll come back and either make edits on my own of topics i fFeel I can speak intelligently on, and otherwise observe the page's mutation process. In theory, given a little time, every page should have some marked improvements, showing that entropy will win out.

I will point out, nearly every article here is stubbed. This is one of my greatest annoyances about wikipedia. Every page in it is stubbed in some way. Wouldnt it be easier to put a big sign on the fFront page declaring every page a work in progress, and leave it at that? Does *EVERY* page need to be a stub? It's quite discouraging.

Also: This is not my address: