Jump to content

User:Tstormcandy: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Current Pages of Special Interest: adds template for reviewer
stealth inclusion of a diff for me to further discuss later
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{rollback}}
{{rollback}}


== House Rules! ==
== Current Pages of Special Interest ==
Before we begin, let's get some basic rules set. Follow these with all Wikipedia users, and we'll have a nice and healthy community!
''(These are left mostly for my own quick referencing and for visitors with same permissions)''

<big>
*Treat others with [[M:DICK|respect]]. Without exception.
*[[Special:OldReviewedPages|List of edits]] awaiting review under the current [[WP:REVIEW|Wikipedia Review trial]].
*Always [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. Without exception.
*[[Special:StablePages|List of articles]] in the trial.</big>
*Count all as equals. Without exception. We're all just volunteers.
*Please head over to my [[User_talk:Tstormcandy|talk page]] if you feel you'd like to contact me about ''anything''.

And there you have it!


{{userboxtop
{{userboxtop
Line 17: Line 21:
}}
}}
{{User:Gerrit Erasmus/Userboxes/Civil}}
{{User:Gerrit Erasmus/Userboxes/Civil}}
{{Template:User oops}}
{{User wikipedia/WikiElf}}
{{User Rollback}}
{{User_wikipedia/Reviewer}}
{{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}}
{{Template:User NPOV}}
{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Edit Count Usefulness}}
{{User:Basketball110/OWN}}
{{Userbox
{{Userbox
| border-c = black | id =[[image:No drama.svg|35px]]
| border-c = black | id =[[image:No drama.svg|35px]]
Line 26: Line 36:
| info-op = font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;
| info-op = font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;
}}
}}

{{User wikipedia/WikiElf}}
{{User Rollback}}
{{User_wikipedia/Reviewer}}
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Userbox/User Death Note 3}}
{{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}}
{{Template:User NPOV}}
{{User:ZooFari/Userboxes/Music huggle}}
{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Edit Count Usefulness}}
{{User:Basketball110/OWN}}
{{Userbox
|border-c=black
|border-s=1
|id-c=black
|id-s=10
|id-fc=white
|info-c=black
|info-s=10
|info-fc=White
|id-op="text-align: center"
|id= [[Image:With Stars.jpg|40px]]|info= ''This user '''[[WP:TLDR|writes long posts]]'''''.}}
{{Userboxbottom}}
{{Userboxbottom}}


= Hello! / Buenos Días / こんばんは! =
= Hello! =
'''''Welcome!''''' Especially if you find yourself here because of a [[WP:FRIENDLY|welcoming message]], this section is for you! It's informational in a lot of ways (I hope!). My general Wikipedia focus is on the rather non-glamorous underground maintenance of the encyclopedia that is needed to keep things in running order at all times! You know, the stuff that no one really notices that has to happen constantly or Wikipedia would fall into anarchy within hours. Actually, [[WP:DRAMA|drama]] at times can demoralize certain types of editors, and distract from adding good contributors of all types. If possible, I would eat said drama for breakfast. Well then. How about a list of stuff going on behind your back, and some core ideas that will get you through your first few weeks?


* The only "rule" of Wikipedia is that there are no actual "rules", with one of its founding principles to [[WP:IAR|ignore all rules]]. This does ''not'' mean you can do whatever you'd like! This is an open-ended way of saying that if someone thinks they can improve the encyclopedia and there might be some unusual barrier in the way, [[WP:BOLD|go for it]]. I'd stray away from such things for quite some time, though.
'''''Welcome!''''' Especialy if you find yourself here because of a [[WP:FRIENDLY|welcoming message]], this section is for you! It's informational in a lot of ways (I hope!). My general Wikipedia focus is on the rather non-glamorous underground maintenance of the encyclopedia that is needed to keep things in running order at all times! You know, the stuff that no one really notices that has to happen constantly or Wikipedia would fall into anarchy within hours. Actually, [[WP:DRAMA|drama]] at times can demoralize certain types of editors, and distract from adding good contributors of all types. Well then. How about a list of stuff going on behind your back, and some core ideas that will get you through your first few weeks?
* Wikipedia has no actual "rules", with one of its founding principles to [[WP:IAR|ignore all rules]]. This does ''not'' mean you can do whatever you'd like! This is an open-ended way of saying that if someone thinks they can improve the encyclopedia and there might be some unusual barrier in the way, [[WP:BOLD|go for it]]. I'd stray away from such things for quite some time, though.
* Despite a lack of true rules, there are a selection of [[WP:POLICY|policies]] and [[WP:G|guidelines]] that we should try to follow. Any such writing is discussed at length before being added and always involves a lot of community discussion, so never fear of things sticking out at random. On top of these, a lot of editors write ''Wikipedia Essays'' to express a strong opinion they or other editors might share. They are lowest on the pecking order of being able to make a substantive argument, though many have become well respected.
* Despite a lack of true rules, there are a selection of [[WP:POLICY|policies]] and [[WP:G|guidelines]] that we should try to follow. Any such writing is discussed at length before being added and always involves a lot of community discussion, so never fear of things sticking out at random. On top of these, a lot of editors write ''Wikipedia Essays'' to express a strong opinion they or other editors might share. They are lowest on the pecking order of being able to make a substantive argument, though many have become well respected.
* ''[[WP:AGF|ALWAYS ASSUME GOOD FAITH]]'' amongst your fellow editors. I cannot emphasize this enough. Even if something seems rude or overly cruel to you, your first reaction should be that their intention was not to hurt or pain you in any way. This can be ''very'' difficult at times, for any and all editors. Stay calm, think over the situation, and hopefully you'll come to understand that walking away from a certain point for some time has a lot more benefits in the long run than trying to confront someone. It's just. Not. Worth it.
* ''[[WP:AGF|ALWAYS ASSUME GOOD FAITH]]'' amongst your fellow editors. I cannot emphasize this enough. Even if something seems rude or overly cruel to you, your first reaction should be that their intention was not to hurt or pain you in any way. This can be ''very'' difficult at times, for any and all editors. Stay calm, think over the situation, and hopefully you'll come to understand that walking away from a certain point for some time has a lot more benefits in the long run than trying to confront someone. It's just. Not. Worth it.
* Most ''all'' new articles and ''all'' edits are watched and inspected by at least one person! Patrols do their very best , and most "large" [[WP:VANDAL|vandalism]] is gone within a minute or two. See [[WP:RCP]] for some easy actions anyone can take up pretty easily and are honestly a huge help as a whole.
* Most ''all'' new articles and ''all'' edits are watched and inspected by at least one person! Patrols do their very best , and most "large" [[WP:VANDAL|vandalism]] is gone within a minute or two. See [[WP:RCP]] for some easy actions anyone can take up pretty easily and are honestly a huge help as a whole.
* Contrary to public opinion, in order for an article to be deleted it either has to 1) be [[WP:CSD|terribly flawed in a very specific way]], or lengthy discussions are opened and left for some time (for most items, it's 7 days) take place before such [[WP:AFD|a decision]] is made. Even then, most every article can be part of a [[WP:DRV|deletion review]], and even after ''that'' some time in the future (months+), requests can be made to restore an article if an editor shows they're on the ball and ready to improve it ASAP to avoid the same problem.
* Troubles? There's a rather massive [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] process for article content and certain editor miscondust.All may edit, but controversial topics have a narrow balance a lot of the time and I'd rather no one have to put up with that so quickly! Really, there's a surprising amount that goes on "behind the scenes". I use the term in quotations because on Wikipedia everything is open to public view and there's no secret treehouse that needs a special password to go in and observe or participate in these sorts of things. Just remember to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and read up on some of the more general policies held like those you hopefully saw in your welcome message, and you'll be fine with practice.<br />


== Are your edits being reverted or deleted? ==


* First of all, ''it's nothing personal''! I'm not targeting you nor am I trying to start an argument. Please check out [[WP:VANDAL|Wikipedia's guide to vandalism]] for more info.
Worries in general? Take your time! That article you want to write can wait another week while you learn how to start it with good quality, and you'll know some of the phrases or common terms people might use. Feel free to edit as much as you'd like, of course! Just start slow and get settled in.
* Contrary to the view of pop culture toward Wikipedia, in order for an article to be deleted it either has to 1) be [[WP:CSD|terribly flawed in very specific ways]], or 2) lengthy discussions are opened and left for some time (for most items, it's 5+ days) take place before such [[WP:AFD|a decision]] is made. Even then, most every article can be part of a [[WP:DRV|deletion review]], and even then, some time in the future requests can be made to restore an article if an editor shows they're on the ball and ready to improve it to avoid the same problem.
* Troubles? There's a rather massive [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] process for article content and certain editor misconduct. All may edit, but controversial topics have a narrow balance a lot of the time and I'd rather no one have to put up with that so quickly! Really, there's a surprising amount that goes on "behind the scenes". I use the term in quotations because on Wikipedia everything is open to public view and there's no secret treehouse that needs a special password to go in and observe or participate in these sorts of things. Every edit on Wikipedia, ever, on every page, is open for viewing. Total transparency.


Just remember to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and read up on some of the more general policies held like those you hopefully saw in your welcome message, and you'll be fine with practice.<br />


Worries in general? Take your time! That article you want to write can wait another week while you learn how to start it with good quality, and you'll know some of the phrases or common terms people might use. Feel free to edit as much as you'd like, of course! Just start slow and get settled in.
Since I'm generally self-conscious-- or at least entirely lacking creativity-- I can't handle researched new article work, so the maintenance is where I most always am. In total, my contributions seem to average out to 1/3rd edits of whatever types of existing articles, 1/3rd on the type of more janitorial matters, and the final 1/3rd on talk and user talk pages going over what happened in the first two groups. Feel free to look at my total contributions [[Special:Contributions/Datheisen|here]]. No matter your preference, there are countless ways users can help the community here and it would be quite hard to ever say there was "nothing to do". I'll say again how important it can be to take things slow at first. You may well find the lifestyle of a Wiki "[[WP:GNOME|gnome]]" or "[[WP:ELF|elf]]" to be enjoyable. I generally consider myself a WikiElf.


=== Question!: Why don't I edit or write any new articles? ===


Since I'm generally self-conscious-- or at least lacking in artistic creativity-- I rarely handle researched new article work, so the maintenance is where I most always am. Having recently returned in earnest I can't site any particular editing stats, though in the past my contributions seem to average out to 1/3rd edits of existing articles, 1/3rd on the type of more janitorial matters, and the final 1/3rd on talk and user talk pages going over what happened in the first two groups. Feel free to look at my total contributions [[Special:Contributions/Tstormcandy|here]]. No matter ''your'' preference in what you'd like to edit, there are countless ways users can help the community here and it would be quite hard to ever say there was "nothing to do". I'll say again how important it can be to take things slow at first. You may well find the lifestyle of a Wiki "[[WP:GNOME|gnome]]" or "[[WP:ELF|elf]]" to be enjoyable. I generally consider myself a WikiElf.
I do! I so totally do. It's important to never get too attached to a particular article or restrict yourself to just one narrow topic, so seek out some extremely varied topics to keep you thinking. For example, I've added a lot of sources and other improvements at [[US F1]], and [[Hello Kitty]]. Hard to get any more contrary than that. Gnome and Elf work like vandalism clean-up, [[copyedit]]s, grammar fixes or adding the occasional references, will also keep your mind shifting around and hopefully get to thinking about how what we all do is help the community as a whole.


==My Simple WikiPhilosophy==
I've recently helped and discussed much about a few new policy proposals and have Essays in mind to write. It's kind of my twisted way to keep my mind off single issues with the grinding gears driving the encyclopedia the same way as diverging and non-controversial article edits can keep you fresh.


I will always [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. Even under unusual or suspicious circumstances it's always best for keeping tempers down as much as possible. No one ''actually'' wants to argue or misbehave at risk of being blocked... right? Of course not. Common sense!
''Note, from here down I've not significantly re-written yet. You may well want to stop! PLEASE go ahead and leave a message on my talk page (listed in the upper-left of this page) or even email me (over on the left side) if you have any more specific questions or concerns.'' Have fun!
<br />


I'll try to expand on this page in the future. Once again, you can contact me on my talk page via the little tab at the top of this screen or [[User_talk:Tstormcandy|here]].
=== Milestones and significant incidents ===
'''9 November 2009''':[[WP:ROLLBACK|Rollback rights]] requested and granted by administrator! This will significantly improve what I can get done in patrol time. Thanks to the community for trust enough to give me the ability. It has been a GREAT help for certain activities, though manual edits and other "lighter" website semi-automated edit helpers are still better for a lot of things.<br />


'''17 November 2009''': My first talk page vandal... it was soooo cute, especially when they edited their own personal attacks at me for spelling, apparently forgetting there's a preview button. It started here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Datheisen&diff=326332046&oldid=326190579] and was pretty much continuous to here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Datheisen&diff=326341892&oldid=326341407]<br />


<!--
'''19 November 2009''': 1000th edit. This[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:174.50.39.146&offset=20091180123&action=history] isn't a very honorable ride off into the sunset for your time on Wikipedia. Quite frustrating. That is, unless the user was deliberately trying to make me laugh... If so, they totally win.<br />


=== Question!: Why don't I edit or write any new articles? ===
'''25 November 2009''': Ironically, in the middle of typing up the 17 November portion, the same user decided to go for another around because I reverted factually unsupported information on an article that he had been highly encourage by admins to be careful on after many warnings were ignored and a 1-day block issued to prevent further damage. Today I went stubborn and didn't want to put up with it... and my statement to anyone who continues harassment/vandalism after I ask them to stop is that they're free to report me to an admin board. I never have nothing to hide and I know policies around edits extremely well; Not that this was a hard call. Proclaiming 'edit war' after 1 edit is rather... um... not correct. Comedic late-morning chatter for me started here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Datheisen&diff=327881177&oldid=327880720] and covers literally every single post until here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Datheisen&diff=327891973&oldid=327891503]. I don't know whether to be upset at the attacks or instead just sad that these frivolous reports to admins can happen in a place where people are supposed to be a community and are even ''encouraged'' to disagree. Disagreeing yes. Harassment and canvassing? No. This report to admins ended in silence as no one seemed to think it was even worth responding to, and user was encouraged by admin to leave both me and a particular article alone.
:
'''22 January 2010''': '''BLPD2010: The Armageddon'''™ begins. ...Trademark application pending... being written. The actual matter stems from an [[WP:ANI|incident report]] that forced a fast motion passed by [[WP:ARBCOM|our arbitration committee]], jump-starting a centralized discussion at '''[[WP:BLPRFC]]'''.
:


I do! I so totally do. It's important to never get too attached to a particular article or restrict yourself to just one narrow topic, but I really never want to see where that boundary is. There are some random things I edit. For example, I've added sources and other improvements to [[Hello Kitty]]. Yes, a shameful hobby. Is it a fantastic article? No, but it's slow, subtle, and over time the article improves bit by bit. Perfect example of how the project as a whole is meant to be.
For now I am hesitant about adding any large amount of content ot Wikipedia such as new articles. For reasons (seriously) out of my control, my brain can't really handle or end up with a neutral perspective on any work of non-fiction I might have to write. So... I go where writing anything is a-okay so long as it's productive; XfDs! My best lengths of writing are for matters of opinion or justice/policy, and I can turn even a 5-word explanation into a small article like this into is turning into. I enjoy the ideals of logic and common sense that Wikipedia holds over trying to set any strict regulations, so I focus on article deletion discussions, spotting and reverting vandalism, and random [[WP:RFC|requests for comment]]. Naturally, some debate can get somewhat heated, but I generally go to great lengths to avoid. In the past this has meant a self-imposed [[WP:TRUCE|truce]] before saying anything extreme, or at least removing myself from article or article talk edits and speaking directly with other editors about disagreements. <br />

I am hesitant about adding any large amount of content to Wikipedia such as new articles. For reasons (literally, and seriously) out of my control, my brain can't really handle or end up with a neutral perspective on topics/articles I know a lot about or are involved in. My best lengths of writing are for matters of opinion or justice/policy, and I can turn even a 5-word explanation into a small article like this into the extreme run-on sentence it's turning into. I enjoy the ideals of logic and common sense that Wikipedia holds over trying to set any strict regulations. Naturally, some debate in those fields gets heated, too, but at all times this has meant a self-imposed [[WP:TRUCE|truce]] before saying anything extreme, or at least removing myself from article or article talk edits and speaking directly with other editors. <br />


I'll always talk things through with someone who objects to my tagging of articles or comments for suggestions, so long as they are civil. Pleeeease don't think it's ever personal if I mark your article for deletion or open a discussion for it... I just have to treat any article I run into equally and I'm sorry if it was yours. My talk page is open! There are plenty of alternatives to deletion we can work out, and plenty of ways to fix some common article troubles.
I'll always talk things through with someone who objects to my tagging of articles or comments for suggestions, so long as they are civil. Pleeeease don't think it's ever personal if I mark your article for deletion or open a discussion for it... I just have to treat any article I run into equally and I'm sorry if it was yours. My talk page is open! There are plenty of alternatives to deletion we can work out, and plenty of ways to fix some common article troubles.




===My (extremely unofficial) WikiPhilosophy===



It's simple and boils down to this overall: I will always [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]... even under unusual or suspicious circumstances it's always best for keeping tempers down as much as possible. No one ''actually'' wants to argue at risk of being blocked... right?
<br />


====Some extensions of existing policies and guidelines that can offer more insight in tight spots====
====Some extensions of existing policies and guidelines that can offer more insight in tight spots====
Line 125: Line 113:
'''4 November 2009''': I can no longer say that civility policy has managed to deflect all unnecessary conflict on Wikipedia for me, after one person has proven to be in violation to nearly a legal standard. An extremely dangerous editor has made a deliberate effort to locate me away from Wikipedia, being "concerned" that I had "concerns" about a heavily promotional article for his company he had added to Wikipedia. A talk page message to talk it over? Yes, that's normal, and often can save a page that could well be subject to deletion for being promotional without the help. The "email" link to the left of user page screens? Okay, but there are logs for that, too. Why bother with civility when you could spend hours canvassing persons of similar user names listed in online directories just in "hopes" (the user's word for this, not mine) of finding someone you just want to talk things over with? Disgusting.
'''4 November 2009''': I can no longer say that civility policy has managed to deflect all unnecessary conflict on Wikipedia for me, after one person has proven to be in violation to nearly a legal standard. An extremely dangerous editor has made a deliberate effort to locate me away from Wikipedia, being "concerned" that I had "concerns" about a heavily promotional article for his company he had added to Wikipedia. A talk page message to talk it over? Yes, that's normal, and often can save a page that could well be subject to deletion for being promotional without the help. The "email" link to the left of user page screens? Okay, but there are logs for that, too. Why bother with civility when you could spend hours canvassing persons of similar user names listed in online directories just in "hopes" (the user's word for this, not mine) of finding someone you just want to talk things over with? Disgusting.
Thankfully, besides prior common sense but lack of anything for use to fall back on, the substantial [[WP:ARBCOM|ArbCom]] [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Final_decision|Eastern European mailing list]] case final decision includes a basic clause that off-Wikipedia actions can be considered on Wikipedia directly if considered "serious misconduct". Vague word? Yes, but if you ever have to ask if something you did counts as that, it's probably far too late. As such, if this were to happen again today, I could report it as I desired. It ''could'' have been done last time, but just really wanted it over with.
Thankfully, besides prior common sense but lack of anything for use to fall back on, the substantial [[WP:ARBCOM|ArbCom]] [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Final_decision|Eastern European mailing list]] case final decision includes a basic clause that off-Wikipedia actions can be considered on Wikipedia directly if considered "serious misconduct". Vague word? Yes, but if you ever have to ask if something you did counts as that, it's probably far too late. As such, if this were to happen again today, I could report it as I desired. It ''could'' have been done last time, but just really wanted it over with.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=635564723&oldid=635564311]

--!>



<br></br>
<br></br>
Last edit, signed merely for record: ~~~~
Last edit, signed merely for record: <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Datheisen|daTheisen]][[User talk:Datheisen|(talk)]]</span> 08:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
[[Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping]]
[[Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping]]
[[Category:Wikipedians in the Welcoming Committee]]
[[Category:Wikipedians in the Welcoming Committee]]

Latest revision as of 01:38, 27 November 2014

House Rules!

[edit]

Before we begin, let's get some basic rules set. Follow these with all Wikipedia users, and we'll have a nice and healthy community!

  • Treat others with respect. Without exception.
  • Always assume good faith. Without exception.
  • Count all as equals. Without exception. We're all just volunteers.
  • Please head over to my talk page if you feel you'd like to contact me about anything.

And there you have it!

Hello!

[edit]

Welcome! Especially if you find yourself here because of a welcoming message, this section is for you! It's informational in a lot of ways (I hope!). My general Wikipedia focus is on the rather non-glamorous underground maintenance of the encyclopedia that is needed to keep things in running order at all times! You know, the stuff that no one really notices that has to happen constantly or Wikipedia would fall into anarchy within hours. Actually, drama at times can demoralize certain types of editors, and distract from adding good contributors of all types. If possible, I would eat said drama for breakfast. Well then. How about a list of stuff going on behind your back, and some core ideas that will get you through your first few weeks?

  • The only "rule" of Wikipedia is that there are no actual "rules", with one of its founding principles to ignore all rules. This does not mean you can do whatever you'd like! This is an open-ended way of saying that if someone thinks they can improve the encyclopedia and there might be some unusual barrier in the way, go for it. I'd stray away from such things for quite some time, though.
  • Despite a lack of true rules, there are a selection of policies and guidelines that we should try to follow. Any such writing is discussed at length before being added and always involves a lot of community discussion, so never fear of things sticking out at random. On top of these, a lot of editors write Wikipedia Essays to express a strong opinion they or other editors might share. They are lowest on the pecking order of being able to make a substantive argument, though many have become well respected.
  • ALWAYS ASSUME GOOD FAITH amongst your fellow editors. I cannot emphasize this enough. Even if something seems rude or overly cruel to you, your first reaction should be that their intention was not to hurt or pain you in any way. This can be very difficult at times, for any and all editors. Stay calm, think over the situation, and hopefully you'll come to understand that walking away from a certain point for some time has a lot more benefits in the long run than trying to confront someone. It's just. Not. Worth it.
  • Most all new articles and all edits are watched and inspected by at least one person! Patrols do their very best , and most "large" vandalism is gone within a minute or two. See WP:RCP for some easy actions anyone can take up pretty easily and are honestly a huge help as a whole.

Are your edits being reverted or deleted?

[edit]
  • First of all, it's nothing personal! I'm not targeting you nor am I trying to start an argument. Please check out Wikipedia's guide to vandalism for more info.
  • Contrary to the view of pop culture toward Wikipedia, in order for an article to be deleted it either has to 1) be terribly flawed in very specific ways, or 2) lengthy discussions are opened and left for some time (for most items, it's 5+ days) take place before such a decision is made. Even then, most every article can be part of a deletion review, and even then, some time in the future requests can be made to restore an article if an editor shows they're on the ball and ready to improve it to avoid the same problem.
  • Troubles? There's a rather massive dispute resolution process for article content and certain editor misconduct. All may edit, but controversial topics have a narrow balance a lot of the time and I'd rather no one have to put up with that so quickly! Really, there's a surprising amount that goes on "behind the scenes". I use the term in quotations because on Wikipedia everything is open to public view and there's no secret treehouse that needs a special password to go in and observe or participate in these sorts of things. Every edit on Wikipedia, ever, on every page, is open for viewing. Total transparency.

Just remember to assume good faith and read up on some of the more general policies held like those you hopefully saw in your welcome message, and you'll be fine with practice.

Worries in general? Take your time! That article you want to write can wait another week while you learn how to start it with good quality, and you'll know some of the phrases or common terms people might use. Feel free to edit as much as you'd like, of course! Just start slow and get settled in.


Since I'm generally self-conscious-- or at least lacking in artistic creativity-- I rarely handle researched new article work, so the maintenance is where I most always am. Having recently returned in earnest I can't site any particular editing stats, though in the past my contributions seem to average out to 1/3rd edits of existing articles, 1/3rd on the type of more janitorial matters, and the final 1/3rd on talk and user talk pages going over what happened in the first two groups. Feel free to look at my total contributions here. No matter your preference in what you'd like to edit, there are countless ways users can help the community here and it would be quite hard to ever say there was "nothing to do". I'll say again how important it can be to take things slow at first. You may well find the lifestyle of a Wiki "gnome" or "elf" to be enjoyable. I generally consider myself a WikiElf.

My Simple WikiPhilosophy

[edit]

I will always assume good faith. Even under unusual or suspicious circumstances it's always best for keeping tempers down as much as possible. No one actually wants to argue or misbehave at risk of being blocked... right? Of course not. Common sense!

I'll try to expand on this page in the future. Once again, you can contact me on my talk page via the little tab at the top of this screen or here.