User:Scumbag

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello. I'm The Scumbag.

[edit] What's In A Name?

My real name is Chris, but my friends have called me Scumbag for the better part of 2 years. So much so, in fact, that most of my friends can't really remember just what my real name is. It's a long and boring story, and I ain't going to really write it all. Well, I did, long ago, but it's long and boring. Feel free to check the history if you're that bored.

[edit] Articles I Tend To Edit

I tend to learn towards computer and video game articles, mainly because I know a lot about them. Well, okay, not a ton, but more than most.

[edit] My beliefs about Wikipedia and editing

These are the beliefs that power my edits on Wikipedia. If something you're saying goes against one of these, I tend to dismiss your argument.

• Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia, but rather a generalized font of knowledge. I use (and edit) Wikipedia articles under the assumption that a person is searching for knowledge about something for themselves, not searching for things to pad a research paper. I reject any argument from a Wikipedian who says something is wrong because it is unencyclopedic, or supposedly hurts the professionalism of Wikipedia. From Tiberium to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Wikipedia's job is to be a source of personal knowledge, not an encyclopedia. Hell, The founder of Wikipedia even admits that people shouldn't cite Wikipedia.

• Die-hard Wikipedians need to stop editing articles they have no knowledge about. Recently, I've had quite a few issues with die-hard Wikipedians vandalising articles. Either they are dumb enough to think Rampancy is written poorly, or they need 'proof' that A rocket spaceship was named after a rocket scientist, and other articles. I've seen many of these vandals edit articles, then freely admit they don't know anything about the topic in question!. To me, this is unacceptable. If you dont know about an article, you leave it to those who do. Don't add a "this fictional material is fictional and does not exist except in a fictional world" tag to the article, people can figure it out. Don't whine when someone removes a citation tag from an obvious fact, because it's been there for years without anyone batting an eye.

• Most of an editor's time on Wikipedia should be spent reading, not editing. Wikipedia ain't your job. You aren't a professional editor. Don't be like Counter-Strike players who try and claim to be 'professional' C-Strike players.

• If the basis for your argument is a Wikipedia Policy Page, you don't have an argument. Take my reasoning for requesting the removal of Mingebag. Did I request it because it violated some rule, or because it was 'unencyclopedic'? No. I requested it because an article that whined about online players who use the default name. It's pointless.

• Original research has improved countless articles. Whenever there's a vast source of good information on Wikipedia, you know someone is inevitably going to complain about original research. Each time I see an article that is crippled by removing it, it's another headshot into Wikipedia's policies.

..more to come..

User:Scumbag/ravboxes

User:Scumbag/INAE