Open main menu

Committed identity: bbbdef8ea733c700ed222b47dc003e9c4a9994d422a2f0fd56af8aede661bcc4d397e7d894b9b29ee6c835df732173d5869f8f5d20488ca11d15db70afa0b214 is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.
Lower Manhattan from Jersey City November 2014 panorama 3.jpg

Winged Blades of Godric

Ignorance is infinite, while patience is not.

Ultimately, you will lose patience with the unchecked flow of ignorance, at which point you'll be blocked for incivility.

The goal is to accomplish as much as possible before that inevitability comes to pass.

Winged Blades of Godric
Winged Blades of Godric
Volunteer editor, Wikipedia
"Adults can change their circumstances; children cannot. Children are powerless, and in difficult situations they are the victims of every sorrow and mischance and rage around them, for children feel all of these things but without any of the ability that adults have to change them. Whatever can take a child beyond such circumstances, therefore, is an alleviation and a blessing."Mary Oliver

Quote farmEdit

Extended content

The primary task of a writer is to write well. (And to go on writing well. Neither to burn out nor to sell out.) … Let the dedicated activist never overshadow the dedicated servant of literature — the matchless storyteller.

— Susan Sontag

Any article edited by a promotional editor should always be deleted. This is the only way to discourage people from using the WP for advertising. If the subject is actually important, someone else will create an article. Rescuing it sends the message that if your write an unacceptable article about yourself, someone will very possibly fix it for you, and therefore you might as well try to advertise here. It furthermore sends the message that if you you hire someone to write an article and they take money for doing this, and they write the usual unacceptable article such people write, then someone will fix it for you free, while the guy who wrote the bad article gets the money. DGG


Wikipedia may be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but that is a misleading slogan. Yes anyone may edit it, but there is a learning curve before you get to the point where you can edit it. John from Idegon


The big issue is that RfA is more a "completely spotless behavior record" test. It's easy to find one example of an editor making a mistake among a general pattern of thoughtful, useful, and civil contributions. Everyone has at least one diff they aren't proud of, perhaps on a bad day or when they rose to the bait. All it takes is that one diff to oppose an RfA, and then it gets picked up and magnified by others who don't bother even looking at the record to see all the good a candidate has done. BU Rob13


Since when do we create an article about a random name we've read somewhere & then throw sources at it until something sticks? It's mind-boggling. Exemplo347

Library AccessEdit

HThis user had access to HighBeam through The Wikipedia Library.
GaleThis user has access to Gale through The Wikipedia Library.
NEWSThis user has access to through The Wikipedia Library
RSUKThis user has access to
Royal Society UK through
The Wikipedia Library
MUSEThis user has access to Project MUSE through The Wikipedia Library.


bnবাংলা এই ব্যবহারকারীর মাতৃভাষা
bn-5এই ব্যবহারকারী বাংলা ভাষায় অভিজ্ঞ
en-4This user can contribute with a near-native level of English.
hi-2इस सदस्य को हिन्दी भाषा का मध्यम स्तर का ज्ञान है।
es-1Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel básico de español.
de-2Dieser Benutzer hat fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse.
Search user languages
I update this list once a month.
Last updated 16th June 2018
See current
  Article (21.6%)
  Talk (7.8%)
  User (7.7%)
  User talk (29.7%)
  Wikipedia (28.5%)
  Draft (1.6%)
  Wikipedia talk (1.8%)

भारतीय विकिपीडियन
Indian Wikipedian


Emblem of India.svg


भारत गणराज्य
Republic of India

My policies and rationale
Cartella verde.jpg
Nuvola apps personal.png
MedCom laurel.pngThis user believes in civility and assuming good faith.
  1. I generally quietly revert good faith editing errors and sometimes put friendly, helpful comments on talk pages.
  2. I often make bursts of genuine attempts to clean up the crap of lazy editors and fly-by-nights deleting and inserting random info from the less-viewed pages,and it does indeed give me a heavenly pleasure.
  3. I stay reasonably(??) civil at most times, although less so with blatant and obvious vandals and spammers.
  4. I don't believe that editcountitis, self-righteousness, and arrogance, are automatic qualifications for barnstars or adminship.
  5. Gaming the system is sick, I don't take the bait, but I get sick of the deceit and fake self-righteousness.
  6. I actively close WP:RFC discussions and tend to give more weight to solid rationale and reasons behind the opinions rather than go by a mere vote count.
Nominations for Deletions
  1. My interpretation of deletion is in this essay.
  2. Why do every sports person who has played one professional game , every street musician who barely made it to Indian Idol, every bit part actor, and every small town hack and painter merit an article on the flimsiest of sources, while life-long academics have to jump through a whole page of hoops?
  3. I show no mercy whatsoever with people, bands, and organisations (even 'non-profit' ones), who are looking for free publicity at the cost of the tireless volunteers.
What I would like to see
  1. A splash page for new editors, one that preferably replaces our traditions 'welcome' system, that explains without walls of text, some of the basic principles of editing and expected behaviour.
  2. A more inter-active and more (young and graphic-intensive) user friendly landing page to replace the Page Creation Wizard.
  3. A 'soft block' system forcing good faith, but disruptive or incompetent editors to be picked under the purview an adoption scheme.
  4. A list of disallowed sources for WP:BLPPROD.
  5. A greater effort to recruit potential mature-minded young users to Wikipedia and its maintenance tasks.
  6. An effort to gently dissuade univolved inexperienced users from hat-collecting and clerking or commenting in areas that are strictly meant for experienced editors/admin.
  7. Less pandering at PROD and AfD for obvious inappropriate pages and more CSD criteria.