User:Andrew Hampe

About me

Hi, my name is Andrew Hampe, and I live in White Lake, Wisconsin. (In other words, the middle of nowhere.)

Life

My edits

WikiProjects

I have started one WikiProject, WikiProject User Help, which is a project to help users find and get help easily and quickly. The project also has the goal to help users edit wikipedia articles without having to put so much effort into getting their user pages the way they like it and making tedious edits to improve the articles by making the appearance clean. It has been deleted due to a MfD, and the templates that got created (all created by me to my knowledge) got moved into my userspace.

Quotes

These are some quotes that I found and I thought I would put them on my page

I'm worried about wikipedia...

This is clearly very OT here... this is the same SDSS guy who wrote the comments about the highest-redshift objects. I checked back to see how the quasar entry had evolved. I want to say that I'm a bit shocked at the incoherence and inaccuracy of the article's content, it certainly has not improved. For example, who cares who thought which quasar was the most luminous if they later turned out to be less luminous? And besides, SDSS has found (or re-found) several quasars that are more luminous than 3C273. If every wikipedia entry has the same ratio between "what's in the article" and "what an average person who has happened to study the subject matter knows" as the quasar entry, I'm very troubled about how useful the whole thing is. In other words, wikipedia is *a* source of information, but it can never be considered as an authoritative source, because I'll never know whether the latest edit made the entry more accurate, or less. Of course, I could write a completely new entry that would represent what I think is important about quasars, but if someone else can just edit it back to what it is now, why bother? Hence, I personally feel it's a waste of my time to contribute anything about quasars to wikipedia because I'd either have to risk that my contribution disappears completely, or have to check back once a week to make sure that nobody has added (obvious or subtle) nonsense. There are more efficient ways to educate the public about your specialty than allowing the public to alter your description of what you know. And there are better ways for the public to learn about quasars than going to Wikipedia and hoping that some benevolent person in the know has removed the latest addition of nonsense. So, please blast me for being off-topic, and off-spirit, but as far as I'm concerned, wikipedia is much ado about nonsense. Sebastian Jester

Drupal content

I had heard about Drupal and decided to check the web page to see what it was about. it's a 'content management system', several well known sites use it. A magazine rack is a content management system, so is a refrigerator. I could have written most of the Wiki entry myself from that page and still be no wiser. this needs a rewrite, it should explain what it really is. cheers harry 203.49.192.42 05:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

IRC

Here are some quotes from IRC: (Please note, I DID get permission to quote these people.)

#Wikipedia

<uberpenguin> believe it or not, penguins existed for several years before Linux did

<Eagle_101> uberpenguin: actually for much longer then that :)

<uberpenguin> that a fact?

<Eagle_101> I think so...

#Wikipedia-EN

<Trolldude> Hey guys.

<Trolldude> I'm a troll

* Trolldude rawrs.

<Trolldude> No, srsly.

<Trolldude> I'm a troll.

<Trolldude> RARW!

<Trolldude> Damnit.