User:JoshuaZ: Difference between revisions

(This is the only editing I made to your profile. Write me and tell me exactly what you think is wrong with the photo. I have an indgo coloured aura. THe photo belongs there. mikian007@yahoo.com)

I am an administrator on Wikipedia. If you would like to contact me about admin business please use my talk page. If you are blocked and wish to contact me, please send me an email. Thanks.

Pages I have made:

1. TalkOrigins Archive (although was almost completely a draft from Wesley R. Elsberry)

2. William W. Hoppin. Still a stub- help out and expand it.

3. Spell-caster (real-time strategy). Still a stub- help out and expand it.

My Wikipedia philosophy:

On talk pages: Talk page discussions should be about the article. Arguments about truth or falsity of cited claims should not go on talk pages because they are by defintion OR and in any case rarely convince anyone of anything. This applies particularly to articles related to pseudosciences and politics. However, I have on occasion massively violated this.

On conflicts: Leaving a page because of a contentious editor is not a good thing to do. If people do that on a regular basis the contentious POV editors will have the run of Wikipedia.

On edit warring: Edit warring is bad. However, I have done it on occasion. I am not perfect. Edit warring when the consensus is against an editor is very bad, and edit warring about a topic one is personally involved in is reprehensible.

On userpages: Userpages should not have much on them that does not assist Wikipedia, however, I do not strongly mind other users who have well-developed user pages. In at least one RfA someone voted to oppose since a user had a blank userpage. That is ridiculous.

On userboxes: I do not use them but I do not mind people who do.

On deletion: I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist. I'll let my AfD record speak for itself. Everyone should keep in mind that AfDs are not votes, although I am sometimes myself guilty of using the term "vote" in this context. If an AfD is unanimous or nearly unanimous with a high number of editors signed on and one agrees with the displayed consensus then one should not add ones own remark unless adds new information in some form. I am also sometimes guilty of this.

On adverbs in articles, formal essays, etc.: Most adverbs should be shot on sight.

On RfAs: I'd prefer at least 1500 edits but am willing to hear why the edit count is misleading in either direction. I also think that users should have a wide variety of experience before becoming admins. I will often ask a few (slightly personalized) questions to a candidate before casting a vote. Emphasis on edit summary percentage is bad since many edit summaries are not useful anyways(such as comment in a talk section). For more details on my attitude towards RfAs, see Here. Due to the Pegasus affair my thoughts on RfAs are in a state of flux. When my thoughts settle down, I will adjust this section and the associated page accordingly.

On policy formulation: Will Beback has succinctly summarized the right attitude: "Better articles are our goal, not better policies." [1]

I think that covers all the major issues. I will add more per requests, procrastination and/or genuine need.

Currently targeted adverbs: Quite. Interestingly

Number of times this page has been vandalized: 17.

Number of times this page has been edited in a way that is arguably vandalism: 2.

Barnstars and similar stuff (2)