User:Adraeus

Contributions

Biographies

• created Allan Wilson, Daniel Alspach, Godfrey Higgins, Frank Hohimer, Freida J. Riley, John W. Seybold, Kersey Graves, Larry Blumberg, Maynard Jack Ramsay, John Menteith, Jonathan M. Roberts, Morcar of Northumbria, Raymond Rubicam

Companies

• created Lockheed Martin Orincon, OneRace Films, Sevin Rosen Funds, Young & Rubicam

Subjects

• created agnostic atheism, betrayal, brand architecture, Clan Ramsay, Clan Ramsay (Dalhousie), Gamma-Ray Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, Orthogonal Defect Classification, religiocentrism, religiopoiesis

Works-in-progress

• created betrayal, maritime piracy

Templates

• created Template:Biography, Template:Infobox Biography Royalty, Template:Infobox Celebrity, Template:Infobox Company, Template:Scottish Clan

Thoughts

• Consensus. Human consensus does not generate reality. Were it able to do so, the sun would have taken to orbiting the earth some time ago. Adraeus 19:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Esoteric knowledge. Esoteric subjects are inherently noteworthy for encyclopedic inclusion. The appearance of a deficiency of information about a subject should prompt further inquiry about the subject instead of blunt opposition to the subject's inclusion. Adraeus 11:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• Lists and trivia. After my unfortunate encounter with this ridiculously stupid list, I am now completely "anti-lists" except where lists are utilized for encyclopedic, informational, and/or managerial and administrative reasons. Trivia is neither encyclopedic nor informational. Trivia is often unorganized ambiguous data that often bears little or no relevance to an informational article concerning a noteworthy subject. The proponents of trivia defend its inclusion in Wikipedia with the simple-minded defense: "it's interesting". What is "interesting" is subjective and entirely dependent on an individual's perception of the "interesting" subject. What is "useful" is objective — that is, there is rationally comprehensible and generally applicable criteria — concerning the valid inclusion of subjects in Wikipedia. Trivia is useless unless the trivia is firmly connected to the encyclopedic and informational nature of an article of Wikipedia. If "trivia" located in a list under a ==Trivia== heading is encyclopedic and informational, then its inclusion in an article without separation from the primary body of work should pose no difficulty to the intelligent Wikipedian. Adraeus 11:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• Notability. Wikipedia is not an FAQs archive for all data and information available to prying fingers and seeking minds. Stop collecting trash and publishing that trash to Wikipedia. There are standards here. Respect those standards, and I might respect you. Non-notable subjects include essentially every topic that either has a) a recent insignificant history, and/or b) an insignificant history, or c) no history at all. Real trivia, for example, is not encyclopedic. Upcoming films and games are not notable. Simply because a parent subject is notable does not make its subtopics valid for inclusion in Wikipedia. I'm tired of seeing lots of trash on Wikipedia. I'm tired of idiotic policies and incompetent administrators that/who do not encourage active participation in the removal of non-encyclopedic material. If this continues over the next year, Wikipedia will be — in fact — screwed and worthless and useless. Adraeus 06:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Ordinals. The usage of ordinals where there has been more than a single holder of a specific monarchical name in a state is correct and appropriate in Wikipedia. Whether the holder of a name was attributed an ordinal during their lifetime has no bearing on whether names are attributed ordinals in Wikipedia; however, if the holder of a name was not attributed an ordinal during their lifetime and that same holder of a name was the only person to hold that name, monarchically, in a state, then the ordinal should not be attributed in Wikipedia. Adraeus 06:19, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Personal attacks. Don't be a victim. Our decisions define us. We must be responsible for our behavior in order to co-exist with those who share this world with us. Our behavior, our actions, is our responsibility; thus, if you are offended by a comment and you seek an apology, then perhaps you should ask yourself, "Why do I seek apology from those I can forgive for the trespasses I perceive?" To perceive something as offensive is emotionally irresponsible, and to describe something as offensive is objectively inconsiderate. Have you thought critically on the context in which the perceived offensive comment was written? Have you considered that you are capable of err and may have misperceived the intent of the so-called offender? Before you question the integrity of another, I dare you to question your own. Adraeus 07:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Deletionists. Deletionists are the plague that corrupts the utility of Wikipedia. Delete the deletionists. Adraeus 12:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

License

• I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my userpage, as described below: