This user believes that anyone who thinks Wikipedia is an unreliable source should continue their quest to find a better website.
This user is irked by vandals and their inherent evil.
This user does not recognize the independence of pseudostates broken off of their homelands by superpowers trying to bully their smaller neighbors.
This user does not recognize the independence of pseudostates broken off of their homelands by superpowers trying to weaken them in order to exploit their mineral wealth.
Japan
Any Japanese Wikipedian is always welcome to write me, I would be most honored to hear from you!
About me
1) I am inordinately interested in all things related to Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and Central Asia, having lived there two years, and Japan, having lived there ten.
2) I am a serious scholar of the rebirth of Scouting and Guiding in these countries, and have actively assisted in the creation of some of these movements. I am not a "company man", I do not believe membership in the World Organization of the Scout Movement defines who is a Scout, and I can look critically at the shortcomings where they appear. I am one of the founders of Scouting WikiProject.
3) I question the motivations of _all_ politicians, including ones I favor. The same applies to faith and television and reporting a car accident. As we are in the neverending process of building an encyclopedia, please remember nobody has a monopoly on truth or fact, it's all just a matter of where you're standing at the time. That victors write the history doesn't necessarily make it so. What would the world look like if the Carthaginians had won? Wikipedia is kind of a microcosm of civilization itself, built on contributions of those that came earlier.
4) I am a Japanophile, a Germanophile, and an Australophile, and a big fan of the Rhodies and Afrikaners. I had relatives who lived in Venezuela during the good times, so am anti-chavista. My moniker is a now-extinct Japanese baseball team, I believe Americans should examine fights before we pick them, and I think the present success of the countries we fought and 'beat' are the best measures of their own strengths of national character. I take issue with editors who insist on the overriding importance of the happenstance that Culture A got attributes from Culture B by way of Culture C. Is the waiter who brought you your meal (Culture C) really as important as the talented cook (Culture B) who made the delicious dish?
5) I believe that removing _any_ valid word from the language in the purported interest of Neutral Point of View is the worst form of bias and is in reality thought control. The reasons words like 'dictator', 'never', 'rarely' are in the language is because there was a need for them. If you target civilians, you are a "terrorist", not a "freedom fighter". Terms like "street-oriented youth" are useless, whereas "gang member" illustrates the situation entirely. Oversanitizing does not add to an article's value or interest. Orwell, anyone?
6) I am a good listener, and I am big enough to concede valid points well-made. My biggest hatred (yes, I can say that, see point 5) is reserved for those who cannot do likewise. I have seen several of my articles tanked by tiny minds who could not understand what the purpose of the article was and ruined it with their own agenda. Such is the price of an open forum uncontrolled by any overseers (and I don't mean the good folk at Wikipedia's Ideological Echo Chamber, in either sense), sometimes the inmates run the asylum. Better than not having such a forum.
6a) ps-and I loathe busybodies with too much time on their hands, who spend more time being critical of the postings of others than they do posting their own knowledge. I am the natural enemy of the protocol deletionist; I hate those who intentionally won't seek a creative way to save something potentially useful. If you've been here long enough, you will be involved in deletion discussions. I have had to nominate several, but it is nothing to cheer about; no matter how trivial it may seem to you, it mattered enough to some volunteer editor. Those who take joy in deleting the work of others are sociopaths.
6b) pps-and those who delete factual or useful contributions to an article, that are not vandalism, because it does not fit their own narrow view of what the article should be. If someone puts something on there that might not belong where it is, find a home for it, don't delete it outright. :)
7) I start articles on topics I don't know enough about and would like to know more. My philosophy is like stone soup, if I bring the stone, curious others will bring the carrots, onions, water, salt and kettle, and soon we'll all have a good meal.
Wikipedia values all contributors equally (especially those with special needs such as a complete lack of judgement or writing abilities).
Elitism is against the core principles of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; consequently those who abuse their abilities by writing substantially more than their fair share of featured articles must be made to understand that they are suffered, not supported, by the community.
Anyone who uses humour in Wikipedia (and especially in project space) exhibits a severe lack of respect for those of their fellow editors who have no sense for it.
Prolific writing of content that cannot be improved is a dangerous, systemic, problem because it will eventually lead to the death of this project. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to finish it.
— Statement by User:Hans Adler from one of Giano's many Arbitration Committee hearings.
The bulk of folks in Central Asia and Belarus still live under controlled governments, and have misplaced the promise they had with the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. I want to help them regain that, and freely disseminate information to them for their benefit. I have now found articles about three of my friends from the old neighbor-yurt on here, Roza Otunbayeva, Kongar-ool Ondar, and Edil Baisalov!
I just really don't get worked up if I hit one button or the other to keep my talkpage whine-free. I don't mind if somebody has something valuable or interesting to say, or wants to ask a question, but I feel the same about rules-only commies as I do about copyright-paranoiacs and those who come into a WikiProject, change everything because they think you're an idiot, then move onto someone else's Project. Those who have to be right at the expense of others earn my contempt, and I do remove the "you put this in the wrong place" and the "you shouldn't have done this" diatribes. My talkpage now turns orange several times more than I like recently. I revert just because I don't have to look at someone's verbal refuse every time I go to my page.
I don't want to be an admin and I'm not everybody's buddy. I work well with those actually working, note I don't count self-important bureaucracy as working. I revert vandals, and I check edits by anonymous users just on general principle. I'm right more often than I am not, and I am a positive force on Wikipedia. I am proud of what I do here, I have learned much along the way, and it's one of the things that have kept me sane.
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung
