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

I pronounce my name /tɪˈzɛr/ ("teh-ZEH-roh"), but you can however you want. In the spirit of summarizing, I'm a college student who likes editing articles on video games (especially Sonic and other cute things with animal characters) and, more recently, languages. I like to think of myself as pretty impartial (though the trout is raring to go if you think otherwise), and while I don't agree with all of Wikipedia's policies and informal consensuses, my enjoyment of editing and not being too much of a jerk outweighs this. Hope to see you around.

Incomplete projects[edit]



History and editing preferences[edit]

My first inclination to join Wikipedia came around the summer of 2007, when I asked my mom if I could get an account to add a mention of the "cloning" cheat to the Pokémon Emerald article. She said no, but in my rebellious ways I did it anyway (only for it to get reverted not long after), and I joined that December; I was 13, in seventh grade, and pretty immature at the time. I mainly edited Linkin Park and Blessid Union of Souls articles, tricked out my userpage, and crafted userboxes. (While I no longer do this, here's a list of them.) I won a brief period of infamy after creating a userbox for people who feel that homosexuality is immoral. (To be clear, I'm not homophobic [or heterophobic, etc.], nor was I at the time. To the extent that I really understand what sexual attraction is, I'm asexual and biromantic.) My reasoning was that it's a viewpoint like any other and should be afforded some space here – to put it nicely, the community disagreed. That pretty much turned me off userboxes for good.

In mid-2008, I got acquainted with Escape Artist Swyer, with whom I worked on No Doubt album articles for a little over a year. She did most of the work; I mainly just found sources for the more obscure ones and reworked a lot of her additions to Tragic Kingdom. This was better, but not quite fulfilling.

I started editing Shadow the Hedgehog (the video game) at the tail-end of 2008. I'm a big fan of the Sonic series, having been introduced to it circa 2003 with Sonic 3, and was one of the few who genuinely enjoyed Shadow's game and thought it took the series in an interesting direction. I was elated when it became my first solo GA and, in May 2009, my first FA. This whisked me into the gaming world on Wikipedia, and video games remain my largest area of contribution – particularly Sonic, as well as Pokémon and quirky indie games.

After a period of dwindling enthusiasm, though, I went on semi-retirement in July 2011. I became involved with a girl that fall; I was under a lot of social pressure to date (her specifically), so I thought that was what I needed. It ended quickly and angrily due to her emotional manipulation of multiple parties and my own awful communication skills, and now we never speak or look at each other when in proximity. As a result, I was seriously depressed for months, expending a lot of time on self-harm and suicidal ideation, and certainly had no motivations to edit. None of my other periods of depression had, or have since, reached that level, and I feel that it helped keep me off Wikipedia for the next couple of years as well. However, I came roaring back into commission in January 2014. I'm not sure what influenced this, but I've been more active than ever. It's been nice seeing familiar faces (well, usernames) and new ones and building up articles about games I enjoy once more. I also took a brief Wikibreak in July 2014 to recollect my thoughts and cool down from some heated arguments; since I've been back, I've taken an interest in language articles, Czech being the first of them.

My piece of work here that I'm most proud of is Sonic X, since in the process of preparing it for GAN and, later, FAC, I spent numerous hours tediously scavenging the Internet for any reliable sources I could find and even located some print sources, and now I feel that the article is the most complete resource available anywhere for the show. The process did not, by any means, "go fast". Also, I turned Green Hill Zone from a redirect to a GAN in two and a half hours – that was invigorating.

Aside from mainspace editing, I sometimes review candidates for GAN, FAC, and peer review. If you'd like me to review an article for you, I can usually make time to do that, so just ask. Keep in mind that I'm better at nitpicking for layout, formatting, and grammar than I am for prose clarity and completeness.

Editing philosophy[edit]

czar (right) and I in person. The leather and (would you have guessed it?) the sunglasses aren't real, but the joys of real-life connection are.

Something I hold intense respect for is Wikipedia's principle of the neutral point of view. To some extent, my preference for neutrality surpasses Wikipedia's: I'm unsatisfied with certain assumptions and biases in numerous discrimination/social justice-related articles—including some ranked as GAs and FAs—but have accepted that they're not changing anytime soon. I can't stand unstated ideological biases in writing, and have inadvertently entered more than my share of real-life arguments by speaking without emotion about controversial topics and playing devil's advocate. While I find TV Tropes a valuable site overall, I dislike its preservation of pages like "So Bad, It's Good", and I value our generally stifling attitude toward assumptions that most people have but that aren't objective or too likely to go unchallenged.

Less widespread here is my feeling that all subjects with even a few third-party sources covering them briefly or tangentially ought to be considered notable for inclusion in independent pages on Wikipedia (provided that they don't overlap too much with individual existing articles). Moreover, I think we should consider reader outcry (such as what JonTron's late article got when it was proposed for deletion) in deciding whether to keep articles, as it shows demand. I'm one of the most inclusionist editors among long-time contributors to the Video games WikiProject. While these are officially just my own ideals, I have also created some articles for video game characters previously not considered notable, with the understanding that official policy on notability would allow these. However, many of them have been re-merged due to Wikipedia's bizarre, changing, and inconsistent apparent attitudes toward notability.

It surprises me that Wikimedia states that immediatism and inclusionism don't usually go hand-in-hand, as I follow both ideologies for much the same reason: In my eyes, readers typically come here to look for as much (accessible) information as is available, not to read polished, concise pieces of work. They may be doing so at any time, so I prefer articles to be available (rather than in my sandbox or one of my tempspaces) when they do.

Most editors with GAs and FAs on their brag lists wouldn't admit this—if indeed they feel it—but I like getting articles to recognized status largely because it helps me feel useful here. A green disc or gold star is a tangible goal, which can turn building a page into a fun project. I do also care about genuinely improving them, and have done decent work on articles I've never intended for recognition, but unlike someone like Sergecross73 (whom I do respect for his selfless attitude toward improvement), I'm more inclined to continue editing when I score a quality emblem once in a while to validate my efforts.

Wikipedia policies toward which I'm neutral or unfavorable towards include those on biographies of living people, external links, dialect-specific language, sitebanning for first-time sockpuppetry, some types of original synthesis, and some finer points of reliable sources and due and undue weight (in particular, the complete silencing of fringe viewpoints). However, my job here is not to enforce my own views, but those established by the community, and so I don't think any of these make me unfit for editing.

While I don't agree with all of his views, Dream Focus's userpage is very much an interesting read, in a countercultural coffee-table way, and I think he especially makes great points about the nature of "merging" and how the vast majority of the time there's no real merge of content whatsoever.

A few pet peeves of mine that I will be strict about during reviews and not hesitate to mark articles up for:

  • When articles have bibliographies but lack inline citations. Just... please, cite specific facts with page numbers. Otherwise, it's horrifically impractical for readers to attempt to verify information, even provided the books referenced.
  • Inconsistency in formatting of dates (e.g. January 2, 2003; 2 January 2003; 2003-01-02) or work/publisher information (e.g. corporation owner as publisher and website/publication as work, website/publication as publisher). Although I do have preferred styles (January 2, 2003 and website/publication as publisher) for my own work, I only really care that it's consistent within an article. Please, if you object to the way a citation is formatted in an article I've worked on, either fix all of them or just leave it alone, or at least TALK about it first.
  • The second person, and the first-person plural.
  • When contentious political or philosophical ideas, even if not ones taking an explicit "should" position, are taken for granted (e.g. that women are/aren't treated as equal to men, that free will does/doesn't exist). No source out there is authoritative enough to support statements like these, so just phrase these ideas as attributed to their advocates rather than objective fact.

Other general traits of my work:

  • I err on the side of adding more categories, WikiProjects (to talk pages), articles listed in "See also" sections, and images, rather than fewer. In my eyes, these tie into the idea that it's better to at least show the reader a page or image they might not be interested in than hide one they would be.
  • Because I value video games and anime as art forms, I take their plot sections seriously and the ones I write are generally on the long side.
  • In "Reception" sections of media articles, I organize by principle (e.g. critics enjoyed a game's music, critics were unimpressed with an anime's character development) rather than by author, since I see this form as easier to read and less arbitrary in organization.

Major contributions[edit]



Former GAs redirected for notability[edit]

Sometimes the mother wolf doesn't give up when her children are eaten by predators. Sometimes she does.

Other worked-on articles[edit]

Other created articles[edit]

Did you know? articles[edit]


References? You want references? This section only exists because I don't like the lingering feeling of a page ending with a level-3 header. Aesthetic taste; there's your reference.