This section is boring. Welcome. As you may notice from my history of uncivil POV pushing vandalism, my main interest one of the increasingly diverse things I'm interested in on wikipedia is the references (or a lack thereof) given in articles. While there is an abundance of thoroughly referenced articles, there are surprisingly many articles (and not nearly all of them are stubs) completely lacking in reliable sources. You may call me pedantic, but I'm one of those conservative guys who does not regard some online interview or biased fan page as a reliable source (As a matter of fact I do, but saying that aloud would irrevocably ruin my chances of ever becoming an admin, which is the only thing I'm here for, after all. And, with the history as my witness, I hereby state that should I ever try the show-jumping course, I want you to nail me down to saying that here. If you however fail to do so, I'll have to assume that you didn't even read my user page before opposing me for a total lack of everything (and rightly so), and I will cry myself to sleep for weeks, because your acknowledgment is all I ever wanted.) and I regard giving such "sources" as references for an article as even worse than naming no sources at all. Paying a visit to Cheating in counterstrike* may give you an idea of what I consider to be particularly bad referencing. (* That "article" has been deleted... and I missed it.)(What do I care about my chitchat from yesterday?) (What do I care about my chitchat from yesterday?)
In addition, I believe tagging an article as unreferenced is an effective way of providing users interested in improving the article with an incentive to do so. That's why I like to place the tag on top of the page, so as to productively annoy the people who feel responsible for the article just as much as a lack of reliable sources annoys me, as a reader. After having read about common usage on Template:unreferenced and witnessing several cases of what I perceive as intentional downgrading of the appearance of an article by prominently tagging it on the top, I changed my mind. I now go with what "most suggest" and put the tag in an empty or inadequate references section.
In case the pattern of articles I'm tagging don't make immediate sense to anybody, here's why: I'm tagging articles wherever it seems appropriate as I'm reading along wikipedia (which remains my primary relation to the encyclopedia I'm not so sure about this anymore, either, but it's an opportunity to remind all fellow editors to stay away from their tools every once a while and really just admire the beauty, greatness and diversity of what has already been accomplished). And I may follow links to related pages, as I often do when reading wikipedia and maybe tag those, too. I.e., if any pattern emerges out of my contributions, it's probably going to be determined by two variables: 1) My reading habits and 2) the tendency of some groups of articles to be better referenced than others.
Another thing: I hate to break it to you, but far too many people, IRL as well as on wikipedia, tend to mistake intrinsic bias for what actually is their own intuitive and genuine reaction towards a rather NPOV presentation of facts. Remember that NPOV does not necessarily mean that some information won't affect you or me or the majority of people in a very emotional way. So, fellow editors, let facts speak for themselves wherever you can and consider your own emotional reaction, because if you don't, you still can't get rid of it and then it may interfere with your ability of fair judgement. Note to myself: The text is outdated, incoherent and boring. Completely revise, maybe add something about editorial standards.
Criticism
Conveniently placed in criticism sections, colorful images may serve to effectively distract even from considerable numbers of skeletons in your company's closet.
This of course is the central section. You're welcome to add your criticism, or you can do so at my talk page.
I think you mean well, but that you should always pause before you commit any act. 04:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe you understand the underlying intent of Wikipedia. I don't believe you understand that it is a comradship, and that everyone here is working for the same goal. I believe that YOU believe what you are doing is good for the project, but it isn't working out that way. I believe that your goal is to get the last word, as made evident on your userpage, but I don't believe you see how detrimental this can be to a community project. I believe you have good intent. I just really hope these things can be worked out. All the best. 19:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
When commenting on talk pages, don't initially try to hold back. Instead, include all those swearwords and capitalised policy shortcuts you really want to throw in the other user's face. Then hit preview, and consider if this is really the most effective way to get your point across. Revise your comment, and take solace in the fact that in some parallel universe, you did send the original version. 07:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Alternatively, you can drink yourself into that parallel universe and hit save page anyway, but be ready to face the consequences once you're back. 13:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I suppose I am leaning towards deletionism, but that mayhaschanged. I discovered my mergist leanings after witnessing several RfAs go down in flames for strong tendencies in either direction (remember: it's my raison d'être on Wikipedia). Let me add that I'm always (desperately) trying to be a perfect tool. If this userpage irritates you: I'm using it to present some of my collected opinions and philosophies in a more or less pragmatic way so that you may understand me better and I don't feel like wearing a mental corset all the time.
I found a new low favourite place on Wikipedia. Of all 6,827,007 articles, all those interesting policy debates and great projects, this gem is beyond any doubt the place to be. It's simple yet irresistible beauty lies in the inexplicably harmonic flow and exchange of groundbreaking new ideas about history, the reasonable and concise arguments, the spirit of comradeship and the dense intellectual atmosphere. I can't help but congratulate the users who understandably never turn anywhere else. Anyhoo, please tell me of your favourite places (i.e. if anyone ever reads this).
People often ask me what "advanced neocons" are. Simple: An advanced neocon wouldn't edit Conservapedia, because s/he knows Wikipedia has a fargreaterimpact. The problem is that they are underminding the whole system, much like in biological exploitation. You're guessing correctly that I am very much opposed to neoconservatism in all forms. My negative conflict of interest forbids me to edit those articles, similar to the way Democrats are losing elections (excluding of course Clinton 1996). End of rand rant.
Some argue that editorial standards are very important with regard to the quality of an encyclopedia. Haven't given it much thought, but those "some" are probably elitist, ivory-tower scientists (ewwww).
To a certain non-RfA-ruining extent I like to think of myself as a gadfly in the spirit of Metapedianism.
I wanted mainspace articles displayed with justified paragraphs, but the setting in the preferences changes all pages and it looks terrible in page histories etc. Here's the solution: put .ns-0 #bodyContent { text-align: justify; } into your monobook.css.
This user despises userboxes, but not necessarily users who employ them.
Isn't it fascinating how eagerly and quickly some categorise themselves?
If you're looking for some fun diffs and are not easily offended, go to EVula's page and enjoy his collection of insults and threats. Parental discretion advised.
This is the only page where I reserve the right to decide upon linearity and consistency of narration. (I changed my opinion. I reverted back to it sometime after that, but that's a whole other story and I do feel a little awkward about it as it involves the truth about how my toilet seat got broken. Don't ask. It was a horrible episode for me and I'm just glad everything's finally back to normal, except for that twitch.)
User:Phaedriel/Today/August 4, 2007 (not sure if this qualifies as a reference, but I'm proud of it anyway and it was one of the nicest surprises I ever had on logging in)
The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for helping me with all the tech problems on this computer. I have disabled the message and can edit just fine now! Thanks again! Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for archiving my talk page. Dillio411 23:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar
here's something for being a sensible person (which could be really hard work) on RfAs. - TwoOars(Rev) 19:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The Excellent Userpage Award
For having one of the most amusing and cleverly laid out user pages I've ever read, I award you this excellent user page award. Thanks to your user page, I will live on with a new philosophy; no matter how much vandalism or conflict occurs within my userspace, it will never be as intense as Talk:World War II. - Zeibura S. Kathau(Info | Talk) 16:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dorftrottel.
