User:Kraftlos: Difference between revisions
timezone |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
</imagemap> |
</imagemap> |
||
</div> |
</div> |
||
Seven Sound is now Heart form 23rd of march you idiot stop changing it back NOW |
|||
{{{category|__NOEDITSECTION__}}} |
{{{category|__NOEDITSECTION__}}} |
||
Revision as of 09:28, 23 March 2009
Seven Sound is now Heart form 23rd of march you idiot stop changing it back NOW
Status: Unknown 
Kraftlos
| ||||||||||||||||||||
On Wikipedia
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Off Wikipedia
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|
| Wikipedia:Babel | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Search user languages |
| Vandalizing my page will only get you another warning from me or another vandalism patroller. Please, please stop vandalizing and start contributing! There's so much work to do on Wikipedia! If you believe I have reverted your edits in error, please try again with a detailed edit summary and a reference for verification. |
Kraftlos is a graduate of University of Washington and is building a career in Journalism. He edits Wikipedia in both English and Spanish ([[1]]) and especially enjoys articles on controversial subjects and enjoys the practice it gives him to edit and write from a Neutral Point of View.
Topics of interest include: Japanese Animation and Manga, Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Nostalgia, Video Games, Spanish/Latin American topics, and Technology. He is currently focusing on articles within the Anime and Manga Wikiproject but obviously has other interests as well.
My Edit Philosophy
- See also: Kraftlos' Pet Peeves
1. Verifiable sources: everything must be sourced. I will be merciless in questioning sources and requesting references; removing clearly wrong information. However, if something is said that seems correct and could easily be sourced, I let it stay there until sources were found unless it sticks out like a sore thumb (i.e. a recently added unsourced claim to an otherwise good article). Often leaving unsourced information on a start page gives editors an organizational framework which would be lost if all unsourced claims were removed from said article.
- Exclusionism. Though I might lean toward deletion or inclusion at times, what I'm really interested in is building an encyclopedia that is built according to policy, that is precise and looks professional. Sometimes this involves deleting articles or removing WP:FANCRUFT other times this means fighting to keep an article and of course writing well-sourced content. A lot of times what helps the encyclopedia the most is keeping junk content off the encyclopedia.
2. Consensus: in WP decisions, consensus rules. This is a key value of Wikipedia's philosophy. My point of view is just that: mine. Policies do not speak for themselves. They are only say anything when they are interpreted. People don't have the right to be dogmatic; all rules and policies should be enforced through consensus. Consensus is also important to deciding what will be included in an article.
- Voting is evil - Wikipedia isn't a democracy, people should stop being lazy and actually sit down and do the hard work of coming up with a real consensus.
3. Time: Not everyone has it. First, I refuse to live on Wikipedia. I write for a living, so as soon as WP becomes work and not a hobby, I'm done. No one should expect instantaneous responses. A week is a reasonable time-frame if planning major changes to an article. Second, everyone values their time. Don't tell other people to make edits, if you aren't willing to do it yourself. Don't demand more of others than you demand of yourself.
4. Civility: No matter what transpires, keep in mind WP:Good Faith and don't presume bias or malicious intent. Don't talk down to people, simply because someone spends more or less time on Wikipedia, or has more or less experience, doesn't give you the right to act arrogant. If you need to explain something, try to explain the concept without throwing a bunch of links in someone's face. Use links as references, not as explanations. Two people can read the same policy or guideline and get completely different ideas from it. Explanation through clear reasoning is the key to better understanding.
5. Communication: Open and clear communication equals progress, sloppy or no communication equals conflict. I will never do anything without first explaining in an edit summary, and discussion if necessary. Everyone should be prepared to explain the reasoning behind their edits.
Current Pet Articles
- Elfen Lied - Working on making this into a half-decent article. I want to get this to GA status; it's not there yet.
- List of GetBackers characters - Better manga and anime series, same problem. I might be more helpful here because I've actually read the first
four volumes of the manga and watched about half the anime.
- List of One Piece characters - Got involved in a massive merge discussion here. I like the manga, it should have good articles on wikipedia!
- Popolocrois - A horrid series of articles that needs some serious help from someone who's played the japanese games.
- Septuagint - Actually took out books from the library and started checking up on the sources. I think the wording of the Christian and Jewish sections needs to be tweaked a bit.
- Sgt. Frog - Never seen the anime, but someone seems to think that EVERY character in the series deserved their own page. Currently working out a merge. See Wikipedia:Pokémon test.
- Shadow Skill - A sad article that I have adopted. Unfortunately it hasn't recieved very much coverage and I doubt it will get much above a C-Class.
- Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Washington
- Wikipedians with BA degrees
- Wikipedians in Seattle
- American Wikipedians
- Exclusionist Wikipedians
- Wikipedians who use Huggle
- WikiProject Anime and manga participants
- Wikipedians interested in anime and manga
- WikiProject Fishes participants
- User en-N
- User es-3
- User ja-1
- Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions