User:FalconXVI

I strongly support rigorous debate as a method of judging an articles quality. Simply because one does not understand why an article is a quality article does not mean that it is not. Conversely, that one believes an article to be a quality article does not make it one. The only reasonable way to resolve such differences in ideas is through rigorous debate in which all viewpoints are aired and have an equal say in the outcome.

There is no reason to disregard any argument. Regardless of who makes an argument it is valid until it is refuted. This refutation may be easy (if the argument is absurd), and may be done for any number of reasons, or it may be extremely complex and paradoxical.

I suppose these are somewhat relevant.

This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one.

1RRThis user prefers discussing changes on the talk page rather than engaging in an edit war.

This user assumes good faith.

This user reserves the right to completely screw up their own edits.

FlexibleThis user deals with edits, deletion, and creation of pages individually instead of unilaterally and encourages others to do so.

inclThis user is an inclusionist.

This user feels that deletions subject to a popularity contest rather than a verifiability test damage Wikipedia more than any userbox ever could.

And possibly most important-

This user believes that a user's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions to Wikipedia.