| userpage | talk | dashboard | misc |
Some useful stuff
edit
Some thoughtful stuff
editRandom snippets of wiki-wisdom, no particular order.
| “ | If wikipedia is really going to insist that it will write about living people against their will, then it must ensure its editors do so in a courteous and respectful way, even if the subject doesn't respond in kind. Remember we trod on their toe, and insist that we can because we are simply recording facts. ... Is wikipedia to be trusted with writing about people who don't want written about? If it claims it is, then vendettas, trolling, responding in kind, must be deemed absolutely unacceptable. | ” |
| — Scott MacDonald, April 24, 2010 | ||
| “ | ...I sure as hell don't look to administrators as leaders. Rather the reverse. 'Editor' is by far the best, highest title on this project. EVERY other classification of rights here results in the people having those rights doing work in support of editors and/or the project. They are not leaders. They do not formulate policy, editors do. They do not chart strategy, editors (and/or Foundation) do. Editors rule this project. Everything else is a voluntary demotion into more work in support of editors. And if we are to face something, let's face the reality that administrators get things wrong so many times it makes Washington look like a well oiled, efficient machine. It's not that being an administrator makes you screw up, but that administrators are just as human as the rest of us, and they sure as hell haven't been given the extra bits to 'lead' anything. | ” |
| — Hammersoft, January 6, 2010 | ||
| “ | The machinations and unfairness of "the game" don't matter to you unless you play and they matter only to Wikipedia in the collateral success and damage that is created by it. When the game players (whoever you imagine them to be) churn out articles, good administrative work, successful mediation, or what not for whatever bonus points, let them have their hollow pat on the back, and smile. Just because they're operating for some sort of extrinsic pursuit doesn't mean we don't collectively gain benefit from it. When the game players start goofing off, it is perhaps irritating, but it isn't really a big deal. When the game players start causing actual damage, then we worry, and hopefully we manage to act. Complaining about the game playing only makes the game stronger. It moves your focus and the focus of your audience. Accusations of gameplaying are just another move, and its not worth it. Try to do whatever on you can on Wikipedia that genuinely satisfies you, and you'll usually find yourself happier. | ” |
| — Tznkai, December 1, 2009 | ||
| “ | ...please remember that we're all volunteers here. With real-life obligations. 99% of the work done here is done by everyday joes taking a few minutes off from their job, or their families, or their free time, to try to make this a better encyclopedia. Not all problems are handled correctly, unfortunately. When you have an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", mistakes like this happen when your workforce is unpaid volunteers who can come and go as they please, do any job they feel like doing, and don't always necessarily feel like wading through a quagmire of evidence, diffs, and claims. ... | ” |
| — Tanthalas39, October 8, 2009 | ||
| “ | ... Ideally, everyone would speak as an independent voice, but in practice that tends not to happen as people gravitate to one side or other of a dispute (funnily enough [note sarcasm], disputes tend to get resolved when that doesn't happen, and someone tries to be objective and to see the valid points made on both sides, if any). Disputes that may have started small will gather more and more people on either side as the dispute rumbles on, eventually arriving at arbitration if it is not resolved. Because of this, it is hardly surprising that at each stage of the dispute, the "usual suspects" turn up on both sides. This can give the appearance of a cabal, but it is not. It is rather an artifact of the dispute resolution process where the same disputes get rehashed and reheated until (if not resolved) someone takes it to arbitration. | ” |
| — Carcharoth, August 22, 2009 | ||
| “ | ... Don't get wound up. Don't say what you really think if that is only going to get you into more trouble. Don't get frustrated. Do relax. Do think about what you want to achieve on WP. Consider what you are prepared to give up or do differently. Think about what other stuff you can do on Wikipedia which will keep you away from old trouble spots. Do honestly consider whether you want to edit under those self imposed conditions. Do be prepared to be disappointed, but don't give up until you are certain you cannot do any more. ... | ” |
| — LessHeard vanU, May 29, 2009 | ||
Some funny stuff
editSelected lulz for your viewing pleasure.
- Thingg's list of things that make him laugh, especially this one
- these other funny lists: Kafziel's, J.delanoy's, 21655's, Floaterfluss', KnowledgeOfSelf's
- The comments by the closing admin on this IFD
- Keeper 76's list of funny (on-wiki) quotes and his barnchive of completely off-the-wall barnstars
- Keeper exacted his revenge nearly a year later, initiating a similar display at my talk page. I was particularly fond of my Yoghurt of Undeserved Praise
- This version of wet floor sign, and the fact that the article survived an AFD
- This message left by a 'crat for a new admin letting him know about his new powers
- This thread at WP:RFR
- User:Malleus Fatuorum/WikiSpeak shockingly accurate at times. my humble contribution
- April Fools' day (2008) tomfoolery, and the poems that follow
- the fact that "pooping back and forth" made it into a Wikipedia article for 53 days
- A dangerously accurate satirization wrt the gauntlet that is RFA:
- 57. Reluctant support I'm tempted to oppose as there's a distinct lack of excitement and drama for this RfA so far. I would like to see [the candidate] forged into an admin through a real trial by fire. There's still time so hope remains... [1]
- From RFD:
- Keep I suppose. Unless there is a more notable fuck man out there.
- This poignant deconstruction of a popular gangster rap track
Interwiki Matrix
edit- Only projects with edits are shown; other-language wikipediae with fewer than ten edits are not shown; those shown are sorted roughly by number of edits.
- For a fuller matrix see meta:user:xeno. Last updated: May 4, 2015 (partial).
