User:OnBeyondZebrax
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi, thanks for visiting my user page. It explains my approach to editing ("Be Bold!") and lists my "pet peeves", such as "weasel wording" and "puffery".
Contents |
[edit] Be Bold!
If you are concerned about an edit that I did, I want to let you know that I follow Wikipedia's "Be Bold" editing guideline. If I come to an article, and find statements that I believe contain Original Research, misleading or biased points of view, incorrect information, or dubious and unsourced claims, I do not put a "needs source" tag or start a discussion on the talk page. Instead, I remove, reword, or rephrase the content.
[edit] Reverting is for vandalism
Sometimes, my edits have been wrong, either because I didn't have the facts right, or because I misunderstood what the article was trying to say. If this is the case, I appreciate your corrections to any edits that I made. However, please do not revert edits simply because you do not agree with the edits. Wikipedia policy on reverting states that reverting is a serious act which is mainly to be used for combatting vandalism. To fully revert an edit, and remove all changes, you should have evidence that the previous version is correct (and not just an opinion or belief).
[edit] Collegial spirit
I would like to work together with other editors so that we can make Wikipedia into an online encylopedia that is both a reliable and useful reference source and an enjoyable read. Please send a note if you disagree with any edits. Never once (to my knowledge) have I been uncivil in Wikipedia correspondence.
- OK, I will admit that once I was sarcastic in an edit summary, after my content sourced from an encyclopedia was immediately reverted on the grounds it "didn't fit" the section. As I discuss in the section on the Wikipedia rules on reverting, above, the proper grounds for reverting would be having proof that the encyclodia article that I sourced the content from was incorrect.
I want to try to work out any disputes or disagreements in a calm and friendly manner, based on the rules that guide our editing on Wikipedia (e.g., the Five Pillars guidelines and the Wikipedia Manual of Style).
[edit] Pet peeves
Some of my editorial "pet peeves" include:
- Weasel wording: "It is widely agreed that ZitRemedy was one of the most important and influential rock bands of the 1980s."
- Peacock wording: "Jane Doe was a legendary and world-famous ocarina player from Rockland, Maryland"
- Show it with sourced facts, don't just make vague claims. If she was so "legendary" and "world-famous", she should have achievements, awards, and excellent published reviews in the Ocarina Player Magazine to show for it.
- Puffery: "In the 1990s, the rock band ZitRemedy shared the stage with the Rolling Stones and the Who, and worked with Sting and Diana Ross."
- More research sometimes reveals that ZitRemedy in fact played as an unpaid warm-up act at 1 PM at a festival stage, where the Rolling Stones and the Who played at 10 PM, nine hours later. And the "worked with Sting and Diana Ross" was in fact when they were jamming onstage at a charity telethon where there were 100s of musicians and singers, and Sting and Diana Ross did a 3-minute walk-on at the end of the night!
- Fluff: "ZitRemedy's tireless touring through midwestern hotspots and their legendary stage shows have made them the go-to group for the hottie-hipster set."
- While I find fluff slightly less objectionable than puffery, since it is not attempting to deceive the reader, it is still a problem. Why? Because it doesn't really say anything useful, meaningful, or verifiable. It is the type of light, breezy writing used in promotional press kits, album cover "blurbs", or poorly-written music reviews, the opposite of the factual, neutral writing style expected in an encyclopedia.
- Self-promotion: "John Doe is one of the top 3-string banjo repairers in North America. Leading international banjo stars have praised the quality and beauty of his repair work. More information on how to ship your banjo to this legendary repairman, on pricing, or on services is available at John_Doe_Legendary_Banjo_Repair.czm, or at my phone number BAN-JO4U."...
- Wikipedia is not an advertising service!
- Excessively detailed plot summaries: In some articles about action movies, some editors provide a detailed account of every scene, rather than giving an overview of the plot. Instead of getting the "big picture" (e.g., Rambo overpowers the sentries and makes his way to the fortress), we hear reams of detail about every weapon that is used, every shot that is fired, and about the gory demise of every anonymous ski-masked villain.
[edit] Barnstar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
