No edit summary |
more details about me |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Hello. I am a wiki addict, and the founder and principle contributor of [http://fx.wikia.com The Special FX Wiki] |
Hello. I am a wiki addict, and the founder and principle contributor of [http://fx.wikia.com The Special FX Wiki] |
||
I am |
I am a [[Software engineer]] by trade, and to that effect, I am the administrator of a private [[XWiki]]. |
||
I generally don't create articles, but I'm quick to edit to uphold style. I'm usually reluctant to add content without citing a reference. |
I generally don't create articles, but I'm quick to edit to uphold style. I'm usually reluctant to add content without citing a reference. |
||
I am a firm subscriber of the [[Falability Principle]]. |
|||
I really hate the term "[[WP:CRUFT|cruft]]" It's needlessly agressive and needlessly insults the contributors. In my experience, I'd estimate that half of the time the term in invoked as a reason for removal, it is content that I agree should be removed. But not because it is cruft, but because it fails [[WP:V]] [[WP:N]] and [[WP:NOR]]. It also gives the impression that the invoker is on a quest to remove all detail related to various fandoms. This forces the dissenting arguer into an aggressively defensive position which hinders communication and impedes [[WP:Civil]] discussion. |
|||
I'm also not (yet) big on burdening my user page with template descriptors. If I want you to know something, I can type it out. If you want to learn something, you can take the time to read it :) |
Revision as of 01:36, 6 December 2007
Hello. I am a wiki addict, and the founder and principle contributor of The Special FX Wiki
I am a Software engineer by trade, and to that effect, I am the administrator of a private XWiki.
I generally don't create articles, but I'm quick to edit to uphold style. I'm usually reluctant to add content without citing a reference.
I am a firm subscriber of the Falability Principle.
I really hate the term "cruft" It's needlessly agressive and needlessly insults the contributors. In my experience, I'd estimate that half of the time the term in invoked as a reason for removal, it is content that I agree should be removed. But not because it is cruft, but because it fails WP:V WP:N and WP:NOR. It also gives the impression that the invoker is on a quest to remove all detail related to various fandoms. This forces the dissenting arguer into an aggressively defensive position which hinders communication and impedes WP:Civil discussion.
I'm also not (yet) big on burdening my user page with template descriptors. If I want you to know something, I can type it out. If you want to learn something, you can take the time to read it :)