User:Pmanderson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pmanderson.

[1][2]

I have found the following long list links useful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Wikipedia:Tutorial
Wikipedia:Help desk
M:Foundation issues
Wikipedia:Policy Library
Wikipedia:Utilities
Wikipedia:Cite your sources
Wikipedia:Verifiability
Wikipedia:Wikiquette
Wikipedia:Civility
Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
Wikipedia:Use English
Wikipedia:Featured articles
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate.
Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
Wikipedia:Peer review
Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
Wikipedia:Village pump
Wikipedia:Boilerplate text
Wikipedia:IRC channel
Wikipedia:Mailing lists
Wikipedia:Current surveys
Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion
WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox
Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point especially the recognition that WP is inconsistent.
wannabe_kate

kate's tool

Feel free to contact me here.

(A word of advice; it makes no sense, but you will get more respect if you create your user page).

1 Prejudices (First Series)
2 Articles in need of attention
3 Res agendae
4 Useful and amusing links
5 Name

[edit] Prejudices (First Series)

[edit] Wikipedia is inconsistent

I am opposed to all efforts to impose uniformity on Wikipedia; imposition of national or political PoV are the worst, and most common of these; but the AD/CE edit war is another and clearer example. The wiki solution to the problem would be for anyone who was editing a sentence anyway to change the style if he objected to it, and otherwise to leave it alone. It is an elementary theorem of probability theory that the proportion of AD to CE would then reflect the proportion of people who prefer one to the other, and WP would achieve uniformity when the world does - and not before.

The same logic applies to the doubtless well-intentioned effort to format Wikipedia identically in every article, and to the recurring spats over Anglo-American usage. Both of these are also contrary to express policy, and I approve those policies.

[edit] Eventualism

Eventually Wikipedia will get it right. [3]

[edit] Delete, but don't Speedy

A few words quoted from Jimbo which have not gotten enough attention in all this:

*g* Funny isn't it? I keep stumbling across pages ranting against my irrational vendetta and ban of userboxes when basically I'm just saying Everyone please relax a notch or two.--Jimbo Wales 02:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be an understanding that you have given the OK for mass userbox deletion. I think it would be helpful if you could make it fully clear that this is not the case. Everyking 04:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how I could be any more clear about it.--Jimbo Wales 14:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that divisive and inflammatory userboxes should be deleted. I am convinced by the events of the last few months that they should not be speedied. The reform proposal linked to a few sections above makes abundantly clear the amount of judgment involved in the application of T1; other speedy criteria can be verified trivially, and usually all reasonable editors will agree when they have been met.

TfD will also usually get rid of something faster, since speedies will often be listed on WP:UBD; and Undeletion will be seriously discussed and often approved. (Of course TfD's can be nominated for undeletion too; but if there has been visible consensus, the deletion reviewers will ignore it.) Septentrionalis 15:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)