This is my user page. I use it to keep track of things. Please do not leave messages for me here. Leave any messages for me here instead. I will try to respond, but if you are uncivil, rude, or just plain annoying then I may not. Thank you.
Aboutmovies
Bringing dead people to life since 2006
I proclaim Aboutmovies the Wikiproject Oregon Editor of the Year, for his foresight in establishing, and diligence in leading, the Collaboration of the Week project, and other contributions too numerous to mention. Well done, good sir! -Pete (talk)
AFD: Being a Deletionist or Inclusionist is inappropriate. In my opinion being either is a violation of the neutral point of view and an assumption of bad faith. Each editor that thinks about deleting another article or participants in the AFD process needs to enter either with an open heart and an open mind, and then apply the relevant Wikipedia guidelines/policies to the individual articles. Otherwise your bias can get in the way of making a sound decision based on the current policies.
Policies: They are not perfect and never will be. The only proper way to change them is to take any policy argument to that policy’s talk page. And then, if the community decides a policy needs to change, it needs to be brought up much like the Foundation Elections and not be left to the couple hundred people who happen upon the relevant discussion at just the right time.
Consensus: I’ve been told by an admin that consensus can be wrong. I know, but unlike that admin I realize that consensus can be wrong. Yes, that is what I said, but think about the meaning when someone applies previous consensus to a new consensus, which one is wrong? Consensus can be wrong in the current argument, as in everyone says an article should be deleted for failure to meet WP:BIO, but previous consensus says it should not be deleted. Well the previous consensus can be wrong too.
Neither a substitution of the community’s voice (i.e. vote counting in a call for consensus) by an admin nor actual vote counting is truly consensus. Consensus is about trying to get an agreement, and unfortunately vote counting is the only tangible and objective way to measure this. Admins substituting their opinion for the community in a specific area is certainly not consensus. Otherwise, technically since “consensus” can be wrong there could never be a change in policies, since stare decisis would apply and all future shifts in opinion could never be implemented, as excluded from not conforming to the original consensus. Not to mention in the specific case of AFD where unless there is consensus in that discussion then it is supposed to be status quo. At least that’s what it says at Wikipedia:Deletion policy: “...pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept...”
Conflict of Interest: “A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia, and the potential motivations of an individual editor.” It’s really as simple as the first sentence. Some people only think it applies to the mainspace, some people only think it applies when you work for company X and are trying to promote company X by editing the article on company X, or it doesn’t apply if I edit and proclaim the bias. That’s entirely missing the point. When an editor’s potential motivations can lead to the incompatibility of producing a neutral encyclopedia then there is a conflict of interest. Then, as the guideline says, the editor should announce their conflict and can still edit. But, the conflict remains, it does not magically vanish, which is why it is best to refrain from editing articles where that incompatibility exists. Even though an editor may promise to edit in a neutral tone, all I have to say is that Bush I said “no new taxes” and we all know how that turned out. Is it really that important to you to edit those articles? If it is, then again your motivation for editing on Wikipedia is the wrong motivation. Editing is about building the web and writing the best encyclopedia, not about getting your message out, whether that message is promoting your community’s history, letting people know about library or archival resources on a topic at the place where you work, adding information to an article to put the subject in a negative light because you dislike the subject, or for promoting any other personal agenda.
Goals
I am hoping to add to the Oregon history areas during winter break. Maybe spend some time at the archives and put together a few bios, plus I'm thinking the Champoeg meeting needs its own page.
Plus, being at Willamette maybe I'll try to add to the Willamette University College of Law page.
Me
Hilhi graduate (1994), OSU graduate (1997), and now back in school in Salem. Have lived in Hillsboro/Aloha area, Seattle, Sheridan, and now the great metropolis of Wilsonville! Member of Phi Alpha Theta, way back a member of NJHS, earned my Eagle Scout, in HS wrestled; currently enjoy napping, sports, sleeping, running, resting, and the NY Yankees who will rise again.
I really should be doing my homework instead of adding to Wiki.
@ - Articles marked with a @ symbol have completed the AM Wikification Project. This is my effort to clean-up my early articles to better conform with the WP:MOS. Items include standardizing references, expanding references, section management, lead improvements, copy editing, and occasionally additional researching.
Content I've helped get to Featured status: (2) Oregon State Capitol, Portal: Oregon
Featured Article candidates:
