User:Shimdidly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi. I am from Southern Utah. The earth has revolved around the sun 17 times since I've been here. I became interested in Wikipedia when I was curiously browsing Wikipedia for interesting articles. When I found 'Zezima' to be delete-protected, it lit a flame inside that caused me to create this account a few months ago, and contend for the inclusion of the article on Wikipedia.

Since joining, I've always held the philosophy, "greatest good for the greatest number of people." I thought that it was unfair that the people that wanted an article couldn't have it, when the people that didn't want it should not even be bothered with it.

I am, of course, an inclusionist. I believe that we, as editors, should focus more on content and reliability, rather than so much stipulation on notability. I mean, I know where someone is coming from when they're against an article that says, "Bob plays golf on Sundays" or articles written about a person's own self. I do not have a problem with a semi-decent article explaining a less-known book author, for instance. I consider that as long as a person is well known enough to have a few editors collaborating on his/her article, then it should be left alone. Deletion seems now mostly as a vain endeavor to make Wikipedia more like any other encyclopedia that only bases itself on core content, and widely published, notable material.

[edit] Contributions

I am a terrible editor, when it comes to including content and expansion. It's not that I'm against any of these things... I'm either too lazy or don't have enough faith in it. As for actual contributions, I might revert vandalism if I happen to catch it 1/10ths of a second before someone else does.

Most of the constructive edits you'll ever see me do are usually simple punctuation errors (i.e. "i" to "I". Easy stuff. Right now in my life, I'm not at a point where I'm going to add energy calculations to nuclear explosions. I'm a bagger at a grocery store, not a university student.

I have been thinking about taking it up a notch, as creating useful content and improving some aspect of Wikipedia would prove very rewarding.

[edit] Wikipedia Policy

Rules and guidlines for any organization are important and essential for stability. I sometimes feel that some contributers serve as obstacles for improvement, although all they're doing is "enforcing rules." Users should improve an article, instead of placing a large, intrusive "Delete if not improved/This does not cite sources/Needs better wording" box on top. Case in point: I created an article on Antoine Silverman a few months ago. Now, if you'd read his website, it's obvious that he is notable and worthy of recognition. But the minute I created the article, the first thing I got was "

" One question that arose, "Why didn't this person just improve the article himself? Instead of wasting his time with a deletion stamp?

Of any phrase used on Wikipedia, "Non-Notable" has got to be the most cliché. People focus too much on it. It is one thing to have reliable content, it is another thing to delete an article because it currently does not supply enough of it. I focus more on whether or not an article is factual. If I find it to be to particularly vague or undersourced, then it is my responsibility to include the proper citations and improvements myself. Not harass other users that are already trying to create a decent article.

[edit] More About Me

Don't hold it against me, but yes, I have played RuneScape. It was only after a certain girl in my school made me realize how pointless it really was. She didn't talk to me about it, but you get the idea. I quit for three months, and since then, have logged into the game sparingly (maybe once or twice every season). The account that I played under for about 3-4 years was Bion2. I joined and posted frequently in a forum, this one. Anyone that would take the time to identify the feedback on this site would know that I was a pretty big retard (some may still justify that today).

Another thing that I'm unsure about disclosing, since I don't feel that I have adequately represented what someone in this church ought to be, is that I am LDS. Hopefully I don't reflect a negative image on the church because of a stereotype on my particualar behavior (not everyone in the church is a nerd, uses Wikipedia, played RuneScape, looks funny, etc). I have to admit that I should be a lot more civil and kind, and I still have every intention of doing so. One particular incident was a verbal battle between myself and a Wikipedian, Cloakdeath, of which I had taken the opportunity to apologize.

I can play the violin and piano. The latter seems more enjoyable, since it is easier to play and sound good. I have recieved several compliments on expression and feeling. I have played the piano since 8th grade, or about four years. I've played the violin since 7th grade. Although I do enjoy playing, it is a lot more difficult, and often takes around 20 mins-1 hr to completely warm up and play what I would consider well. My favorite music to play on the piano is anything Jon Schmidt, particularly "All of Me", "Tribute", and "Ridin' West". I also love Pachelbel's Canon, and it is one reason that I've decided that sticking with the violin is worth it.