From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade.
|
|
[edit] User page: Seraphimblade
|
Seraphimblade
| Ub |
This user contributes using Ubuntu. |
 |
This user reserves the right to completely screw up his or her edits. |
| C |
This user can program in C. |
| C++ |
This user can program in C++. |
|
[edit] General information about me
- Name: Todd
- Current occupation: Student, full-time for now
- Working on: My degrees of various types
- Interests: History, physical sciences (especially chemistry and physics), computer science, politics.
- Originally from Denver, Colorado, currently living near Seattle, Washington.
[edit] Licensing notes
All images and text which are my original work and which have been contributed to Wikipedia are released to the public domain, or if for any reason this is not possible, I irrevocably and perpetually relinquish all rights to control the content granted under the copyright law, and grant license to anyone to use, copy, modify, distribute, and otherwise utilize the content in any way and for any purpose whatsoever.
[edit] Miscellaneous
User:Seraphimblade/sandbox Temporary space for stuff in process.
User:Seraphimblade/sandbox2 Second temp sandbox
[edit] Deletionist
Yes, I'm a deletionist. That's landed me in more then one conflict with other editors. Some of them, granted, are out to place nothing more then a silly vanity page or a spamvertisement, and while I'm very willing to help them to contribute better content, I'm not at all sorry they didn't get to contribute that type of thing. On the other hand, some other editors are well-reasoned, thought-out people, and have disagreed. A recent discussion I had with one such user caused me to consider this position-and ultimately, to decide to continue it, though his arguments were well-reasoned and I believe his intentions are the very best.
WP:V and WP:OR are core policies. For Wikipedia to continue to have any credibility whatsoever, these policies must be enforced and enforced strictly. The very reason we don't want a vanity bio or article from a band (with no more "sources" than a self-created page) are that no assertions about the subject can be verified. The reader has no way to check out if what they're reading is true, or if the writer of the article (who frequently, for such non-notable subjects, is the person the article is about or a member of the band) has inflated or distorted things.
Without deletion of unverifiable content, there is really no need for administrators whatsoever. We might as well call it Myspace II and be done with it. Of course, any intelligent reader knows that anything they read on Myspace may be inflated or totally fabricated-it has no credibility. To fail to remove unverified facts here would place Wikipedia in that same situation.
I believe, as the user I discussed this with, that Wikipedia should be the sum of all human knowledge. What I disagree with is what that entails. The name of my dog is not "human knowledge"-it's unverifiable and no one cares anyway. For that matter, my own biography doesn't fit that criterion, for the same reason. Technically, someone "knows" what I had for dinner (namely me) but no one can verify that and no one cares.
The theory of relativity. World War II. The Roman Empire. Hell, even Britney Spears. These things are human knowledge in that they are important (or at least notable) to humanity as a whole, or at least to a significantly large fraction thereof. The things I mentioned above are not, they are personal knowledge-and such things don't belong here, paper or not aside.
[edit] Barnstar!
 |
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| I've been tracking with Seraphimblade for a while now, and though we differ in our wikiphilosophies I wanted to recognize his strong contributions to Wikipedia. Notably he has spend a good deal of time prodding and speedying articles that don't fit Wikipedia, to the tune of around 500 articles in the past two months. He has a keen eye for non-notable, commercial, and vanity submissions, and has been a strong force in pushing other editors (myself included) to make their new article submissions better, sooner rather than later. Through his pace, his judgement, and his firm but cordial dialog with other editors he does a great service toward keeping Wikipedia relevant and clean of bad stubs. Keep up the good work! Erielhonan 07:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC) |
