User:DreamGuy

Userboxes

This editor is a Senior Editor II and is entitled to display this Rhodium Editor Star.

This user has published a book.

This user respects copyright and other intellectual property rights.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Spam.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Images and Media

This user is a participant in WikiProject Skepticism.

About DreamGuy

Usually what I end up doing is undoing really bad edits by other people: spam, hoaxes, trying to put their own opinion into an article as if anyone else cares, and so forth.

The good thing about Wikipedia is anyone who spots something wrong can change it. The bad thing about Wikipedia is all the people who want things to be wrong (either from bias or cluelessness) outnumber the rest, and the worst editors (lack of real world credentials, strongest bias, dedicated spammers, here for the social aspects and not to have solid information online) devote the most time to it.

The eternal struggle

The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.

—Lore Sjöberg, from "The Wikipedia FAQK"

Useful templates

Two I made:

• fictionlist - for nonfiction articles overrun by lists of fiction/music/popular culture making reference to the topic
• fictioncruft - for fiction articles that just has way too many nonnotable examples listed

Tagging articles/sections:

• advert - article reading like ad
• plot - plot summary overly long
• cleanup-laundry - overly long lists
• examplefarm - listcruft
• external links - for just too many
• cleanup-spam - for the hardcore bad links
• trivia - for section named trivia
• unencyclopedic - whole section/article needs to go away
• disputed & disputed-section - factual problems
• POV & POV-section - for the pushers
• importance - article not encyclopedic
• importance-s - section

Tagging specific lines:

• fact - cite source here, please
• who - who says this?
• POV-statement - this part here is biased
• or - somebody is just pontificating here on their own, aren't they?

Warning users:

• Wikipedia:UTM has templates for warning editors that what they are doing is not allowed