User:Lucyintheskywithdada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is in a name?	Spiritualism
I have been editing on the Wikipedia since at least summer 2005. With a quick look, I have actually started over 25 pages and only had two deleted, both within the context of a POV dispute over another page. I have edited over a fairly broad selection of fringe or sub-cultural topics and invest time and energy in boring maintenance work relating to formatting references and citations. Previously I edited without a user name, merely accepting whatever IP address was doled out to me. I have had a couple of names disallowed because they were apparently too similar to real people and a whole heap of shit from proponents of a well known new religious movement. What is the name all about? This page used to link to the best anti-narcotic advertisement I have ever seen; a childhood hero, William Shatner, singing the Beatles hit, "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. One perhaps only surpassed by his rendition of Rocketman. I have never used nor do I condone using LSD. The name is a warning to lasting brain damage it can do. One that leads to quite surreal behaviour, especially on the Wikipedia. Its all about the dangers of living in an unreal world for too long without accepting valid external reference points. How one addiction to an unreality can lead to others and one's integrity be lost.	CSB This user is a member of the Wikiproject Countering Systemic Bias Just a short note to underline, especially it seems for American readers. My current edits specifically refer to the broadly used term spiritualism and NOT the Anglo-American religious movement known as Modern Spiritualism. I apologise for bursting your patriotic bubbles but I contribute from a non-nationalist point of view and support valid minority voices not generally heard on the Wikipedia or even the internet. References and citations given on the topic pages. Thank you. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Master Po's hard learnt lessons in Wiki Fu 1.1 As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all 1.2 An admin in your hand is worth a more than bushfull of well reasoned argument or consensus 1.3 The use of mass deletion as a dispiriting disincentive to other editors 1.4 Learn to cook up an acronym stew (aka "always project elitism") 1.5 If you have a sense of humour, don't try and use it 1.6 If in doubt, talk it out 1.7 People learn easy bad habits quicker than difficult good ones 1.8 The lady doth protest too much, methinks 2 A most important missing template

[edit] Master Po's hard learnt lessons in Wiki Fu

[edit] As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all

"Shall I then treat each man the same?" -- Grasshopper "As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all." -- Master Po "Yet, the flower beneath the water knows not the sun. Other men, not knowing me, will find me hard to understand." -- Grasshopper "Accept the ways of others. Respect first your own (... and don't mess with SlimVirgin if you can help it)." -- Master Po

David Carradine fans, or those to young to know Master Po and Grasshopper; see the image here, [1]

[edit] An admin in your hand is worth a more than bushfull of well reasoned argument or consensus

Drop all pretenses that the Wikipedia is a just or objective resources and sweeten up an admin or two. When push comes to shove, and it will, an admin in your hand is worth a more than bushfull of well reasoned argument or consensus.

[edit] The use of mass deletion as a dispiriting disincentive to other editors

Work in progress I have notice a similar tendency or practice now by a number of editors to use mass deletion or reversion as what can only be considered a dispiriting disincentive towards other editors that bear no relationship to the actual content involved. It is a powerful tool to win edit-wars or put others in their place. A gamble worth playing as the attentions of beleaguered administrators are limited to cursory inspections ... and they are fated to "always make the wrong decision".

Typically, such complete revisions of what may be hours of work by another individual takes place with;

• a) a false or misleading summary note, we presume to glide it past the eyes of any cursory inspection by an admin
• b) a complete ignorance and disrespect towards all and any objectively good and basic formatting corrections to references, copy or typography improvements etc. Indeed, why not? Why not rub salt in an open wound when the chance present itself?

In the latter case, such actions are beyond simple laziness. Although they are also the lazy thing to do. It is far easier to just hit the undo button than to unpick what is objectively good from any genuine errors.

Such an action can only be designed to dispirit another from making such improvements. It is one of the sociopathic tendencies exhibited widely on the Wikipedia. Not an action based on logic nor respect for either the content nor the investment another has made into the collective commonwealth of knowledge, it is designed to hurt and it hurts the Wikipedia as a whole. Another tool in the armory of those individuals that appear to treat the Wikipedia as a combative computer game.

The Wikipedia is dependent on individual's goodwill. Without it there would be no Wikipedia. The Wikipedia is built by human beings out of their own paid for time and at the sacrifice of other activities and human interaction. Yet it is very largely devoid of any of the necessary sentiments or feedback that we otherwise need to survive in society as a whole. A lack of sentiment, a psychopathy, that would be quickly evident and self-defeating in any genuine personal or professional environment. Even academia. Indeed, is the Wikipedia a refuge for such behaviour? An ADHD wet dream.

There are further issues arising. Deviance, especially skillful done with a good understanding of policies and procedures, is more often rewarded than punished whereas a lack of guile leaves the individual vulnerable to a slack abuse. Being honesty can a serious liability. When "something has to be done about something", it is more than often the quickest and easier thing to do be done rather than the right thing. And how difficult to decide what "the right thing" is, when it increasingly requires expertise to make decisions about detailed subjects?

[edit] Learn to cook up an acronym stew (aka "always project elitism")

If all else fails ... invest in acronyms. Wikipedia policy short cuts, the spinning shuriken of a black hat wiki-ninja.

Don't know your subject? Got caught out by some sneaky academic references? Dealing with an informed newbie? ... Never mind! Throw around half a dozen acronyms in a devious manner designed to reflect the light of official policy into your enemy's eyes and the chances are you will momentarily confuse him enough *and* intimidate any of other contributor from entering into the discussion.

But, remember Grasshopper, one is not enough. Shortcuts are all best used in a vicious combination so broad in its attack that it will leave your opponent spinning and by you time to slip in another reversion. Try WP:DISAMBIG, WP:OR, WP:OWN, WP:WEIGHT, WP:3RR, WP:AGF, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:LEAD, WP:RS ... hidden from all but the true masters of Wiki Fu. Go seek them out in the distant WT:WP pages of the [WikiWikiPo] and save them all up.

"Does it matter if they actually apply, master?"

Hell no, that is only WP:POV anyway! The whole point is creating FUD ... if you can get your opponent discussing just one of them, they cant be making edits at the same time! So best thrown them right after you have just reverted all their work.

"And what do I do if I am attacked my such a one Master Wiki Po?"

Ah, Grasshopper ... you are obviously not ready to leave yet ... WP:OMGWTFBBQ.

"But will that make me victorious?"

If it is victory you seek, see WP:UTM but be warned. Such strategies are like hot coals, pick one up to throw and it will burn you just as well.

[edit] If you have a sense of humour, don't try and use it

Beware, if you think you have a sense of humour, don't try and use it on the Wikipedia. Everything you write can and will be used against you.

[edit] If in doubt, talk it out

Violet Elizabeth Bott is a little girl aged about 6 who adores Just William and wants to be with him at every available opportunity. Although William despises girls, he is forced to put up with Violet Elizabeth because of her ability to cry or scream (I’ll thcweam and thcweam and thcweam until I’ll sick!) until William gives in to her demands.

As in politics, if all else fails, you can always try and talk the issue out. I mean, how long is anyone going to invest their time for nothing. If you have a lot to bury, try discussing issues one point at a time and use it to sustain your version.

No, I don't mean talk things out ... I mean talk things 'out of time'. A term used for avoiding a final vote on a debate in government. Also known as "I’ll thcweam and thcweam and thcweam until I’ll sick!"

[edit] People learn easy bad habits quicker than difficult good ones

Just like kids, people learn easy bad habits quicker than difficult good ones; and learn by seeing other's example rather being told.

So don't. Don't be smart, don't be dirty, tricky or "clever" ... because as sure as hell it will come back to haunt you and often from the same person you tried it on. Just be honest, accurate and stick to good references.

Also, try avoiding being drawn into arguments on an admin's lap or using exaggerated accusations. Sure, it might intimidate weaker editors but really they just need helped forward.

[edit] The lady doth protest too much, methinks

An oft misquote bit of Shakespeare [2]. If you get caught out, or found out, take it like a man and not a bitch.

[edit] A most important missing template

We all need a little honesty and lightheartedness from time to time. The missing template from Template messages.