User talk:71.192.116.13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, 71.192.116.13, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Very interesting edits you offer. I hope you get a regular sign-in name. --Blue Tie 05:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I used to have one.

I have serious issues with the way Wikipedia was run, for which I left for about a year.

I then started making minor edits to pages when something was clearly wrong, then started adding information again.

I stopped contributing directly to pages (except to revert vandalism or fix formatting) after I had some people get really offended about edits I made, so now I make my points on talk pages.

And this is the fourth IP I've been through since I left, which I admit is confusing for those trying to look at my history, I'm sure I could find the others (except the very first one) if somebody really needed to know.

I still refuse to contribute regularly and officially, as long as Wikipedia continues to obsessively delete pages (often well written and detailed, which nevertheless fail in rather bizarre and subjective notability criterion) in pretending that it's a real encyclopedia. Wikipedia is only really useful for the internet and minor current events, precisely the things that it loves to delete.

Okay, my other issue is that I also really dislike the GPDL, (even Creative Commons is out there for me) but it doesn't stop me from commenting, and I like having comments under it even less than contributions. Well, and I don't like stupidity, but that's everywhere.

Any rate, not having a username has helped quash the urge, since usually when I get the impulse to contribute directly it's by starting a new page, which of course I can't do. It's still hard not to at least point things out though.

Luke --71.192.116.13 06:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I suspect you and I would not be in agreement on many things but I admire your style and way of expression. I kinda hoped you would contribute more, but I understand having grief with wikipedia. There's a lot here that is really messed up. --Blue Tie 06:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry my sentences were so long, rambling, and nonsensical last night. They always are until I edit them, and when I'm tired, I can't revise properly. Last night I was, of course really tired
But yeah my point is really that frequently, I come to Wikipedia thinking "I've seen a lot of references to this site/concept on the internet, it must be on Wikipedia."
All too often, the page will have been deleted for failing Wikipedia's really awful notability criterion. Ignoring, of course, the whole "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" thing. And other times, I'll find that the page will have been put up for deletion, and failed. Often, as with the Impeach Bush page, because people disagree with the content.
The frustrating thing is, many of these deletions don't even occur for VFD, and the discussion pages are never preserved. Two good examples of pages I'd figured would have to be on Wikipedia, and deleted are Comixpedia and North American Union (which is at least back, but it isn't on what the original article seemed to be on). Though I eventually found the information elsewhere (Wikipedia is just a lazy shortcut), it's annoying to find that somebody had actually provided the information, and somebody else had deleted it because it's not notable.
Another big issue is that if I claim something on a random webpage, and cite it, it's a source, if I claim it from personal experience, it isn't. Wikipedia should either set a reasonable standard for sources, or not bother at all.
The final issue that I had is that I always ran into these people who did almost nothing but propose articles for deletion, complain, and make new rules. At the time I was going through great effort to research a bunch of articles I planned to write. I found out that most of them were suddenly not notable, so I decided to focus on Amerindian languages, Latin America and translation of articles from Spanish instead.
I had some computer troubles, and was without computer for three weeks. When I was able to get back on I asked myself "Why the heck am I going through all this trouble for something this messed up?" So I left, and most of those articles I was going to write are still stubs. But I really don't care, since I already know enough from my research anyways.
And people don't care, witness that Fala directs to an article on a dog, rather than the language. What a sorry state we are in. --71.192.116.13 18:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)