User:Coretheapple

About me

Icon This user has been on Wikipedia for 16 years, 9 months and 28 days.
This user is a recipient of the Editor of the Week award.
This editor is a Senior Editor II and is entitled to display this Rhodium Editor Star.
This user has helped promote 4 good articles on Wikipedia.
This user has written or expanded 26 articles featured in the Did You Know section on the Main Page.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)
Wikipedia:HuggleThis user uses Huggle to revert vandalism.
QThis user used to have access to Questia through The Wikipedia Library.
NEWSThis user has access to Newspapers.com through The Wikipedia Library.
?This user believes
that common sense is
an uncommon commodity.


This user beats vandals with the STiki anti-vandal tool.
Because of real life, this user will be editing on and off.
This user disapproves of mindless PR firm sockpuppets spreading paid POV around Wikipedia.
This user is a member of the Paid Advocacy Watch Project (WP:PAIDWATCH)
This user is signed up for the Feedback Request Service.
This user is a WikiJanitor.
This user is a member of
the Guild of Copy Editors.
This user simplifies Wikipedia referencing with ProveIt.
:(This user makes multiple typographical errors and has to keep going back to fix them, so please be patient with him or her.
This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one.
This user is a member of WikiProject Espionage.
This editor is strongly opposed to paid editing, but believes it is a Wikimedia Foundation issue and not his problem.
:(This editor is becoming increasingly frustrated with Wikipedia.

Gentle suggestion for new accounts interested in I/P articles

[edit]

If you want to edit I/P articles and don't meet the standards set by the Arbitration Committee for that subject area (30-day account age + 500 edits), go to the article talk page and do an edit request. There is an Edit Request Wizard that you can use (link is to the button "The page is protected")

Don't email to ask me to do the edit for you. I won't reply, and I won't comply with your request. I will refer you to the Arbitration Committee. I don't know who you are, and for all I know, you may be trying to get me in trouble.

Note to myself. These are the templates used for I/P welcomes for IP users not acquainted with the rules:

{{subst:welcome-arbpia}} ~~~~
{{subst:alert/first|a-i}} ~~~~

Articles I've created or substantially revised

[edit]

Not an article, but I wrote it and I rather like it:

I am also active in suggesting articles for deletion and, when my eyes can stand it, vandal-fighting. I think that de-crapifying Wikipedia is at least as important as adding content. Wikipedia is a hotbed of fancruft, self-written articles by employees of third-rate companies, and overemphasis on subjects plucked off the Internet. It greatly underemphasizes subjects of great importance that don't have a fan base or following.

To-do list

[edit]

Why I am cynical about Wikipedia

[edit]

Once upon a time there was an article about a "crime family." I don't generally edit on that subject matter, thank God, but one of the members of this "crime family" was involved in a Hollywood scandal, which was in my wheelhouse.

Reading the sources indicated that this "crime family" did not actually exist. The sources did not say it existed. I couldn't find any that said it did.[1]

I nominated the article for deletion. There was consensus that the article should not exist. Despite that, the article almost was kept as is. That's because there was no consensus about whether the article should have been deleted or merged, and typically "no consensus" is functionally equivalent to "keep." Fortunately the closer, recognizing that possibility, decided on merging it despite the lack of consensus.

But a different closer might have abided rigidly by the AfD rules, and kept an article about something that a crime family that did not actually exist.

That is what makes me cynical about Wikipedia. You can abide by all the rules, dot every I and cross every T, and be flat-out, embarrassingly wrong.

I have other reasons to be cynical, but this is the one suitable for family viewing.

EDIT: Here's one other reason that's worthy of mentioning. An anti-Semitic slur remained unnoticed in an article on a U.S. Army division for 14 years, even though it was unsupported by the sources provided. I only stumbled upon it because a notable actor (Frank Sutton) had served in the division, and I was curious to read about his service. Very discouraging.

How many other articles have misinformation in them that has gone unnoticed for over a decade?

  1. ^ I am sure the article was created in good faith. But like a lot of articles in that subject area, it was a product of original research,

Don't sell IP editors short

[edit]

Editors who discount IP contributions, especially when they are not phrased properly, may be tempted to discount them. Bad move. They can find stuff registered editors haven't noticed in literally years or decades. In this post in Talk:Paul Newman, an editor found a whole paragraph that didn't belong there. It had been overlooked for years.

Awards and recognition, DYKs, etc.

[edit]