An editor says that something's wrong with this page. That editor can't be troubled to fix it, but can sleep easy knowing that they stuck on a tag.
Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly why it's there.
I am not the same person as User:Giggy. I had this account before he came up with his (and Gigs is what everyone calls me in person anyway).
So, I was the guy that created the WP:FAKEARTICLE shortcut. This was intended to supplement the other shortcut, WP:UP#COPIES, and refer to one very specific thing, a user page that is intended to look like an article, function like an article, and mislead the reader into thinking it's an article, even though the subject matter is not something that could ever realistically be in main article space. This shortcut was created after we had a spate of resume-like userpages that were formatted with infoboxes and clearly designed to look like encyclopedia articles come up at MfD.
This shortcut, along with the other one I created, WP:STALEDRAFT, have been subject to a little bit of misuse, and have created a some ire among people who see them misused and overused. Clearly they are useful shortcuts considering the number of times they have been cited (over 2500 times for FAKEARTICLE), but it does go to show the power shortcuts have in shaping the application of policy. Shortcuts turn into vocabulary, and any connotations they carry might become de-facto policy, regardless of the text the shortcut points to.
- Mainly working on real-life projects right now. My editing activity may be low for while.
nrk and RFCsEdit
- Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Reliablity of sources and spam blacklist
- Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Blatant Promotion RfC
- WP:NEO split into WP:NOTDIC and out of the MoS
- Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Inactive admin email
- Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/InactivityEmailBot
- WP:Conflict of interest/draft draft rewrite of the COI guideline
- WP:Pending changes facilitating the final leg of pending changes policy development
Useful stuff I didn't make, but that I do useEdit
Things people have called me on WikipediaEdit
- A WP:DUCK
- A Cybernetic dragon sent from the future to ignite a war on religion to prevent the coming apocalypse
- A sockpuppeteer
Micro-essays and one-linersEdit
- Any notability standard that allows a subject to be notable regardless of secondary source coverage is fundamentally flawed.
- Some of our BLP policies (quite rightfully) make it hard to write actual biographies (as opposed to "rap sheets") for lower profile individuals, and our loose notability guidelines won't let us delete their articles. We do these people a disservice by keeping their articles.
- Editorial discretion is not original research. We make decisions all the time about what to cover inside an article, how much space to give to a topic, how a topic should be framed, etc. This isn't original research. We are "editing an encyclopedia", not "compiling facts mechanically". There seems to be a desire over the last few years to move Wikipedia more and more toward some mechanical, bright-line, and robotic criteria for editing, this was never the practice, and never the intent of our policies, or the mission here, which is "writing an encyclopedia".
- "Verifiability in reliable sources is absolutely critical. But elevating that to a religion which rejects truth is a huge mistake." - Jimbo
- As long as we conflate problematic biased editing with the concept of conflict of interest, we aren't going to be able to have very good conversations or policies on the topic.
I used to have a hash here for my committed identity. I keep forgetting the password for it, however. In lieu of a committed identity, I will say that my identity can be confirmed through demonstration of ownership of the domain that associated with the email of this account.
Awards and other similar stuff
(To borrow a line from Clerks)