User:Avignonesi

This user has been on Wikipedia for 9 years, 6 months and 30 days.

This user rescues articles for the Article Rescue Squadron.

Tip of the day... How to create a category Let us say you have thought of a new category you want to place some articles in. To create this new category, go to one of the pages that you wish to put there, and add a category tag naming the new category to the end of the article, like this: [[Category:Category name]] ...where in place of category name you type the actual name of the category. When you save the page, the category should appear on the bottom line of the page. If it is indeed a new category, it will turn up in red. But this does not mean there is no such category: it might exist but with a slight difference in naming. Before you create a new category, make sure it does not already exist. In a new browser window, click on Special pages in the toolbox menu on the left side of your screen. Then click on All pages. Pick Category from the Namespace dropdown menu, and then enter the name of the category. Look over the index for synonymous categories. Once you are sure your new name is good to go: Click on the redlink, and then click on the article creation link provided in the instructions that appear on your screen. You will need to put a parent category on the new page, and then save the page. Going forward you can put your newly named category at the bottom of pages that you wish to add your new category to. Categories with too few pages in them are usually nominated for deletion. Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip Read more: Wikipedia:Categorization   Meta:MediaWiki User's Guide: Using Categories   Become a Wikipedia tipster To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd3}}

There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed.

— Ernest Hemmingway

I am writing for other ages. If this could read me, they would burn my books, the work of my whole life. On the other hand, the generation which interprets these writings will be an educated generation; they will understand me and say: 'Not all were asleep in the nighttime of our grandparents. '.

— José Rizal

I would advise anyone who aspires to a writing career that before developing his talent he would be wise to develop a thick hide..

— Harper Lee

---

Stuff I've done, interspersed, perhaps, with scurrilous POV commentary which I can't put anywhere else.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, (11 January 2016) I decided to write stubs for Wikipedia. I've written over 2000 articles off of Wikipedia, so I though that "qualified" me in some small way to consider myself worthy of editing. Then I realised what a giant undertaking that was, and travelling and living in fourteen different countries in less than a decade, I found less and less time to contribute.

But recently I have started again.

From 2016 to 2024 the landscape in Wikipedia-land had drastically changed. Acronyms used by editors had become de rigueur, and felt like a needed a codex to understand all the terms flying about, not to mention I had to learn everything all over again including how to cite, how much to cite, and what to cite all over again.

Starting back, I felt once again, like a child running with scissors, so I am taking it easy, editing only minor things, or contributing to subjects I am quite familiar with that don't bring me heartburn.

I prefer to identify as both a WikiGnome and an inclusionist, working to save or improve articles rather than discard. By editing to fix pages before they end up listed as Articles for Deletion I hopefully spare a few authors from the inevitable deletion wars.

Hoping that I would get my sea legs quickly, by dusting off my somewhat rusty "live" editing skills, in the spirit of collective good, I also hoped that in exploring and learning the new lay of Wikipedialand from others, they would be as friendly as the old world editors of yester year, gently guiding and giving helpful suggestions to fix any mistakes I might make as I try to become a better editor.

What I've seen instead is a vast sea of disillusions.

Humans creating multiple editor accounts to criticise and control article editing, more often than not starting from the bottom of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. Too often I come across editors who are not taking the time to welcome or mentor newcomer editors, and even some editors who intentionally attack new editors or break things because they see Wikipedia as a whole, or Wikipedia articles they are invested in, as their own independent fiefdoms. I've also seen editors who excel at "winning" an editing debate as if it was their singular superpower.

Despite all that, my engagement motto will always be to be civil. And to treat everyone with consideration and respect, much in the way I would want to be treated by them. Sometimes it is hard, but I try to assume that everyone here, editors I jive with and editors I don't, are each their own unique and funky goat, despite when their behaviour tests my patience and is impolite, aggressive, or troll-like.

My editing ethic is to treat each article I work on as important, no matter how heavy or light, or big or small. For now, I will be focusing on editing what I enjoy, what I am sufficiently knowledgable about, and the random flotsam I have the time to sift through and document verifiable facts to improve upon the original article.

I like articles on individual humans, those I respect who often don't get enough attention and those who have had brushes with the law and who I want to try to understand better. I like articles on Italian wine (hence my editor profile name) and winemaking, poets and poetry, art, artists, history, crime, organised crime, money laundering, criminals, and food.

I don't like to edit articles which are controversial, unless I see that those who have come before me have not been neutral in tone. When I elect to work on such, I try to suss out if my corrections will create drama or editing wars. If the answer to that is yes, I pass them by as I'd rather fix 5 articles than argue the merits of one just for the sake of editorial disagreements.

Avignonesi (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)