From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to the Wikipedia user page of FT2.
Enjoy exploring :)
|
| Planned absences - none. |
- March: (none yet)
- April: (none yet)
|
| Contact details and sub-pages. |
| |
Contact details: |
|
|
| |
Sub-pages |
|
|
| |
On related projects |
|
|
|
| What is NPOV? |
| (Posted at Wikipedia_talk:Neutrality Project, responding to a question, what NPOV is and whether one should always present an opposing view.)
Wikipedia articles are not required to invent or embellish an opposing point of view if there isn't one. We are reporting upon a subject, whatever the article topic may be. Within that, some facts (or their interpretations) will be contested, others will be mostly accepted, others again will be almost universally accepted. We are obligated to ensure that when the article is complete, it mirrors and characterises, without re-enacting, the subject to which it refers. The presence of opposing views in the article is purely a function of whether there were significant opposing views in the subject itself.
The acid test if NPOV is achieved, is the map-territory relation -- the extent to which the article can be used as a "map" to guide a lay-person through the "territory" of the subject, including its relevant detours, conflicts and highways. Like a map, no article perfectly mirrors a subject, nor is this expected; if it did it would have to re-enact and be as large as the subject itself. There is a "cutoff" of detail, called "notability" (or sometimes, "salience") in Wikipedia, and a good map must have enough detail, but not too much as to be unwieldy and unhelpful in navigating ones way.
-
-
- -- [1]
|
| What's expected of editors? |
- No personal attacks - do not disparage, insult, or attack others in any form.
- Be civil - even if not an attack, talk nicely, respectfully. Being nice does not contradict being effective (if they cause a problem)
- Assume good faith - ask if there seems to be a problem, don't assume.
- Seek dispute resolution -- if you can't reason with them, and their actions need intervention, don't do it all yourself. Stay calm, and allow time for dispute resolution. It's a lot easier for others to sort out one person acting up than two.
- Don't be a fanatic - extremes help nobody. This is a collaborative project, it is never wrong to ask another uninvolved person to handle it, or check it, or tell you what they think. It's by far the most trouble-free option.
- Ask an admin rather than get into trouble yourself - they're there to help. Any experienced user can act like an administrator though, so again, ask anyone who sounds like they are able to help.
- Make mistakes gracefully - we all do. When it happens to you, learn from it, understand it, and let it go. The reasons people have trouble is they can't learn, or can't let go.
|
| Writing for Wikipedia |
| Writing for an encyclopedia is not the same as writing for a newspaper, or even an academic paper. In a way, it's more like writing the bibliography for an academic paper. In a way, we aren't even trying to decide (as experts would) what is "true" and what isn't, because that's not what this is. We are summarizing a field, creating a balanced collation of multiple perspectives and views. Theres few decisions to make, few opinions to form, other than to observe which views seem to be more or less relevant views of note, and to understand each (and its sources) well enough to document.
We care that we document each view carefully and with understanding. That is the "truth" we work to here. That, and that alone. Our truth is the truth of the bibliography, and the measure is, have we represented collectively in summary the multiple verifiable sources of note. Drawing editorial conclusions from all of them is the end-use of an encyclopedia, not the work of encyclopedists.
|
| And last... |
- There are thousands of people having fun editing!
And their message to you is --
Have fun! :)
Catch you on the Wiki!
If you need anything, just shout!
FT2
|
|
[edit] What I do on Wikipedia
|
Quick guide
| 20 000 |
This user has over 20,000 edits on around 2800 pages on the English Wikipedia. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a Wikipedia administrator and Arbitration Committee ("Arbcom") member, so if you need help, I'm one of the people to ask.
As an administrator and editor, I'm a compulsive fixer of mess, so whatever I might be doing, if I see a project page that's not well laid out, a dispute that's getting heated because people aren't talking civilly and thinking about policy instead of personality, or an article that's a bit of a disorganized heap of text, I can't help it... it's a case of "let's go see if we can't offer a hand, get the stress down." In general, I'm involved in three main areas of Wikipedia:
- I do a lot of dispute handling and regular second opinions for other administrators and users, including a variety of informal mediations, dispute smoothings and other decisions. This includes the more difficult AFDs, and cases where possible unfair treatment or misconduct is alleged. I've also taken a number of persistent virulent warriors and sockpuppeteers through dispute resolution, to Arbcom when needed. I take care to make myself available to anyone who has a need for wiki-help or advice, and I get taken up on that offer regularly.
-
If advice on a policy, dispute, or other editorial matter is needed, please let me know or email me.
- I have a penchant for cleanup of controversial and messy articles, especially where sourcing, balancing, encyclopedic coverage, and cleanup is at issue. I particularly like cleanup of intro's, "overviews" and section structure, and disambiguation, and I've done that on many articles. I enjoy controversial subjects because it usually isn't that difficult to create a good balance, and it's good to reduce others' stress levels.
-
Articles I've worked on are listed here.
- Last, as part of the community, I stop off to help on the reference desk, the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, the OTRS ticketing system, some peer review and RFC's, and Arbcom. I'm also a regular editor and improver of policy pages and other reference information that need to be exceptionally well designed and worded, due to the reliance placed on them.
-
Wikipedia project and other pages I've worked on are listed here.
- And if there's any time left over after all that, I write articles :) I've written about a hundred so far.
[edit] Feedback: Life in the hot seat
- "FT2, you're always there to bring us back to the business at hand ;)"
- This was when I added a comment to the effect that it's lucky we don't have to talk about these speculative matters to actually sort out an article. And it's mutual, Talk:2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities is an article I'm quite enjoying watching grow :)
- - kizzle 00:47, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC) [2]
- "I consider FT2 to be a better more neutral person to guide the discussion, and choose the quetions to answer first than either you or I since we are parties to the edit war that brought this page protection."
-
- - CheeseDreams 19:42, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) Ahhh, that nice warm feeling. [3]
- Yes, you are doing some good work there.Pedant [4]
- "I did not have a chance to see what you were doing yesterday (nor have I taken a look yet today) but I was very impressed with the effort you were putting into this. Your process of collecting the consensus votes and working through the complete article, while at the same time posting to the talk page your progress to keep the antsy members of the contributing group abreast of your progress, seems to me to be a particularly appropriate form of agressive mediation; something I believe this article/dispute has been in need of. While I cannot offer an appropriate reward, please know that your efforts have been noticed and strongly appreciated!"
-
- - Amgine 17:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) Cultural and historical background of Jesus [5]
-
- "I would like to second this, reviewing the summary I constructed for the text, it seems like you spent a great deal of effort over this."
-
- - CheeseDreams 22:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) [6]
- "I am new here so please let me know if I am posting inappropriately. I would like to comment upon the work that FT2 has done regarding the neutrality of the zoophilia article. I have come to expect Wikipedia to be a RELIABLE source of information with VERIFIABLE content. I would still like to see the appearance of references and links to peer-reviewed psychological and zoological references. However the wildly POV aspect of the original article has been well toned down and FT2 is close to a neutral discussion. Personally I find the whole subject distasteful but have had to study it from a psychoanlytic POV and therefore appreciate the efforts of FT2. Thank you."
-
- --kaijura 21:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) [7]
- "I think several of your recent edits have really improved the article, and I want you to know that I acknowledge that"
-
- - Slrubenstein | Talk 10:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC) Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus [8]
- "Thanks for your help in the article about Gral. Shahnawaz Tanai. I really appreciate it, since in order to achieve a good article, language is also an important factor on it. Cheers !"
-
- - Messhermit 21:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC) [9] (Response to non-English speaker's request for review of one of his new articles)
- "Nice work FT2 - the article is stronger for your efforts."
-
- - StephenHildrey 20:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC) [10] after sorting out a stable intro on trusted Computing that both sides in the edit war were happy with.
- "Just to say that I think the work you do on here is interesting..."
-
- - Saudade7 20:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC) [11]
- "Gender Differences: Loved your response at the Science Helpdesk on a thread that was moving in a troubling direction. That is all."
-
- - Ginkgo100 03:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC) [12] Original reference desk response here
-
- - Sonjaaa 04:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC) [13]
- "I think along with me you probably put the most work into this article. If I am right that we had achieved (after a lot of struggle) a very stable consensus, you were part of that, and should comment. I appreciate your help"
-
- - Slrubenstein 14:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Cultural and historical background of Jesus [14]
- "I came across FT2 only a few weeks ago, while collaborating on a policy page. It was one of these cases in which you find a Wikipedian that cares about the project, does not mince words, is proactive in finding common ground with others, does not hesitate to give credit to his fellow editors when due, and you wish you could came across more like him"
-
- - Jossi 16:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC) RFA nomination, [15]
- "a very thoughtful, constructive collaborator who takes our core policies (e.g. NPOV and NOR) very seriously and is committed to adding relevant content to articles ... well-intentioned, accommodating, hard-working, and principled..."
-
- - Slrubenstein 17:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC), RFA [16]
- "One thing that stuck out for me about him was his overwhelming degree of sanity and levelheadedness. I have seen users level the most rude and crude personal attacks against him, and FT2 has never lost his cool..."
-
- - Premeditated Chaos 20:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC), RFA [17]
- "I really respect your decision to withdraw ... Though I hadn't met you before today, it would be my honor to renominate you when you feel your edit summary usage has improved enough."
-
- - Audacity 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC) (on withdrawal of RfA at 80% approval) [18]
- "Thanks! Thank you FT2 for merging the reindeer pages and adding a smoother apperance. I was struggling with how to make each individual article unique, but they are better merged. I am glad to see what I started has now been perfected."
-
- - Merond e 12:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Santa Claus' reindeer [19]
- "I'm getting a good feeling about this page ... This page may save lives, may help people avoid sickness and trauma. We can be proud."
- "This is a unique page on the web. If I'm not mistaken, this is the only page on the entire web that covers this topic ... exclusively and in such depth. [...] That is surely an achievement."
-
- - Skoppensboer 01:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC) and 18:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC) on the co-authoring of Zoophilia and health, which at one point went towards mediation before working out well. [20] [21]
- "Global Warming Thanks -- I love Wikipedia! Thanks for the thorough response. I am an English teacher at an inner city high school (Dorsey) in L.A. and I take immense comfort in recommending Wikipedia as a resource for my students to conduct research. I was alarmed at the nonsense Arnold 19 posted, but the processes you described are as much as one could hope for in this information age. I have ridden the Wiki-Wiki bus many times in Honolulu and have just now discovered the connection to Wikipedia; one more reason to feel good about this online encyclopedia. Again, thanks so much for the rapid and excellent discourse over my concerns."
-
- - user:Ccgleason 00:52, January 8, 2007 (UTC) [22] (original question/concern and reply)
- "You're awesome.
That's it:)."
-
- - Nina Odell 14:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC) on User_talk:FT2 Still not sure what this is for. General editorship, I think. [23]
- "Seriously... thank you for protecting the Labrador retriever section and for your additions. I've been fighting vandalism on that page for months. -Erikeltic."
-
- - 24.115.231.66 19:34, January 8 2007 (UTC) [24]
-
- - WAS 4.250 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC) on adding administrative COI to the coverage of WP:COI [25]
[edit] And last... some quotes :)
"If people only realised that the only choice they EVER have is how to react in this instant to what’s already happening....."
"More people die from not being able to talk about what’s happened to them, than ever die from the event itself"
"Nobody will ever walk your path with you. Some will walk an inch along with you...some cross at right angles, coming and going in the same instant, some will walk a distance...but nobody will walk the whole way with you. But that doesn’t matter, because in every instant, there will always be people round you to walk this instant with you.......if you can learn to see them"
'Not quite, but fairly close' definition: "Love is seeing reality and recognising that you and 'other' are one."
-
- Not "love is a mushy feeling" or "love is about wanting to be symbiotic to someone".
Love is recognising, simple and free from illusion, that you and 'other' (whatever 'other' may be), are in truth, one.
[edit] FT2: I Appreciate Your Message
 |
|
The Special Barnstar is given to you for some much needed help today. |
FT2, I have had a difficult time here lately being accepted. I had typed it out already to them. At first, I had thought Wikipedia was most welcoming for all intelligent Wiki practitioners. But I have read the most childish things wrote to me these past days. One even had himself boasting to me that I was a newbie and laughed at me. This is pretty close to reaching defamatory comments. I think anyone writing such material should be permanently banned. I have spent time on Wikipedia writing out details that I thought would benefit the readers who come to this excellent encyclopedia site. I keep busy where I am, but I spend time reading lots of things on Wikipedia too. So, you could say that I'm really enthusiastic about this encyclopedia site, no big surprise! I have a pure fresh spirit that goes with my writing on Wikipedia. Late nights, I can sometimes be behind my computer keyboard fixing text and adding it as well. Wanting to participate is all I felt like doing. I have never taken away text, all I did was embrace it with additional words. Coming back to Wikipedia is what should be noted for because there is a lot of information to take in all at once here online. Wikipedia is top-notch for adding knowledge to the reader. I admit, I was really put off with all the negativity vibes I was getting. Wikipedia wasn't welcoming at all. I have felt of jaded negativity, especially the added distrust of the integrity or professed motives of Wikipedians who come on board to add something relevant. I don't think Wikipedia wants to be known for cynicism. I am a believer in Wikipedia, this is why I have spent hours on here adding text and neccessary citations. Documenting a relevant person on Wikipedia is a passion of mine.I am thinking that it gives Wikipedia much more validity with genuine thoughtful contributors. I have seen them on Wikipedia. I just can't understand why I am being the target of the month? All I see are harsh evolving differences in my writing. This turned into the Wikipedia dilemma this past week. I saw little co-operation in this matter til you and a few others spotted the presence of prolonged edits on my text. Issues turn into road blocks on Wikipedia over text that is up-to-date and relevant. Thank you for accepting me here on Wikipedia. I have felt tremendously isolated this past week. Thank you for looking into a few delquents who seem to relish in the redundant opportunity of vandalism. I appreciate your help, Electric Japan (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] If you have any illusions that IRC is a fair process...
then read User:Videmus Omnia/IRC Log. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
