From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. That editor won't actually make any effort to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag.
Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about. |
Hardcore Deletionism = Wikilawyering + Vandalism
 |
This user opposes DIMEism on Wikipedia and believes the encyclopedia can best be improved through thoughtful, inclusive, and patient editing. |
Avoid DIME |
|
This user lives in Maryland, but is not a native Marylander. |
|
| Dragon Gate |
This user is a fan of Dragon Gate Pro Wrestling |
| WCW |
This user was a fan of
WCW
|
WWE |
This user thinks WWE is boring. |
|
[edit] About me
I'm currently a student at ITT Tech, working in computer multimedia. As a student, I find myself with lots of sporadic free time, but rarely large chunks of it. Therefore, I'm mainly limiting my contributions to articles which do not require much research. Raise your hand if you've been procrastinating writing an assignment, stepped onto wikipedia, and ended up doing enough work on some random article that you could've finished your schoolwork twice over.
[edit] What I do
The majority of my time on Wikipedia is spent in the backwoods - those small, specific interest articles that will never and can never become featured. See, the way I see it, George W. Bush is one of the most heavily edited articles on wikipedia. What am I going to add to it that someone else won't? Meanwhile there's an infinitude of small, specific-area articles that need cleanup, formatting and sources that can be improved to at least start class, possibly even B class, with a bit of effort.
See Super Shisa (a fairly obscure Japanese pro wrestler) for an example of what I do.
A lot of the articles I've put work into have later been merged or deleted, which contributes to my personal philosophy of inclusionism.
I do not think that secondary sources are that big a deal when dealing with obscure, non-controversial subjects, and that the lack of secondary sources should not be criteria for deletion. This is a particular issue when dealing with articles relating to Dungeons & Dragons - D&D is a self-contained universe, and a lack of secondary sources does not change the fact that certain concepts within the game require articles for the casual browser's understanding.
Although I can't call myself a wikignome, I do engage in wikignome-like behavior from time to time. If I see a typo, grammatical error or formatting problem on an article I come across while browsing randomly, I will fix it.
