From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
–Jimmy Wales [1]
Hi, I'm a graduate of Manchester Polytechnic & University of York who is interested in lots of things, which makes me useful for pub quizzes but not very employable. I've been editing here since 8th August 2007, clocking up 17,000 edits[2]. But luckily I don't suffer from vanity or guilt in this. These are just numbers and I'd rather be judged by the quality of what I do here rather than its quantity; since I was fortunate to have been appointed as Admin, or Sysop here, this count is somewhat skewed by the reversions of unworthy and unnecessary edits attributed to me. I don't apologise for that, because I am not here to puff myself into something I'm not; I will provide sources for anything I put into an article, and it's reasonable to expect the same from others. At present, I believe that the article "cunt" is an acid test of what we are trying to achieve here, and if I can take that to Good Article status, I will be happy.
Miscellaneous
Once I had her, now I have an encyclopedia
Things I do
|
|
This user has been an admin for
4 months and 13 days. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This user gets on with it |
|
|
|
|
Current RfA's. |
Last updated 12:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC) by Tangobot
|
|
Articles I've started or improved
Pending
- Somewhat optimistic these days. Quizas, Quizas, Quizas....
Stats
Templates
Shortcuts
Policy
Utils
#wikipedia-en · #wikipedia-en-admins · #wikipedia-en-unblock
Misc
Notes