Open main menu


Joined 5 April 2012

This user helped promote the article Billy the Kid to Good Article status.

Sometimes, the things that appear from a distance prickly and unpleasant on the surface actually aren't when you get up close
*** It's true that not everything appearing prickly and unpleasant actually is prickly and unpleasant ***

"We need another Trump-focused editor like we need a hole in the head." -- Posted in Wikipedia by a long-time Wikipedia editor, October 29, 2018 Bias? Nah. There's no us-versus-them bias in Wikipedia designed to cull politically Conservative editors - don't be ridiculous! (yes, that was sarcasm)

"The reality is that Wikipedia is not a grassroots collaborative crafted through the shared effort of People Like Us. Its rules are applied selectively and secretively. It is common to find articles on living persons written up as smear jobs, replete in some cases with outright libel but more often disguised as “neutral” assessments in which undue weight is given to negative evaluations and mischaracterizations of a person’s work while their defining achievements are minimalized or left out. Victims of these hit pieces have no opportunity to address the attacks on their reputation by anonymous editors whose qualifications are frequently nonexistent. Despite Wikipedia’s stated protections against character assassination – drawn up in the aftermath of a scandal which saw a journalist smeared as an accessory to the Kennedy assassination – the rules are selectively enforced and there is a clear bias toward individuals whose work supports the status quo, whatever their field...a cabal of ideologically-motivated editors control what can and cannot be uttered by the modern Oracle of Delphi with a Kafkaesque thicket of rules that morph to suit their purposes, locking outspoken anti-establishment voices in reputational cages from which there is no conceivable escape." -- From "Wikipedia: the Modern Delphic Oracle" by Helen Buyniski, on the Gary Null Show - 25 September 2018 [1]

The Facts stood in front of a crowd of Angry Agenda-Driven Finger Pointers and said: "Hey, I'm The Facts, did you want me?"

The Angry Agenda-Driven Finger Pointers replied, "We only want the part of you that supports our opinion!"
The Facts replied naively, "Ha-ha, you can't just take a part of me, silly!"
After having a bite taken out of it by The Angry Agenda-Driven Finger Pointers, The Facts sadly and with tears dejectedly said, "But...they could. And did."

True story. Just look at the politically-based articles in Wikipedia and their related talk pages for evidence.

"It’s now very common to hear people say, “I’m rather offended by that,” as if that gives them certain rights. It’s no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I’m offended by that!' Well, so fucking what?" --Stephen Fry

"Trust no one here or anywhere on the internet unless they are a personal friend or family member. People love to screw with others online, usually because they have empty, meaningless lives and want to take their personal misery out on others from their computer keyboards." -- Me

Some wise words...

" mindful the opposition will stalk and target your articles, try to get you involved in an edit war, and make up a rationale for blocking you. Don't be fooled by this game. To avoid falling for this trap...Understand that some editors have antisocial attitudes, others are drunk or on drugs, and still others have psychological problems that we can't address. Above all, remain true to yourself and stay above the fray..." -- written by a wise Wikipedian (who shall remain anonymous)
"You are a sloppy editor with little knowledge of either editing policy, sourcing or writing." -- A assessment of me offered by a former administrator that gives a perfect example of non-AGF behavior and totally violates Wikipedia's policy on "no personal attacks". This is the kind of thanks volunteer editors have to put up with all too frequently, and yet, we trod on.
"It's dressed up a little nicer, definitely has appeal to those with education and a desire to help others, but all-in-all, Wikipedia is still just the internet. Never forget that the internet can be a cruel, heartless place where even the most educated and seemingly decent of humans can act like total assholes and treat their fellow humans like shit. And they do it because they're just a bunch of nameless, faceless anonymous individuals online who use this medium to take out their hidden anger and inner ugliness on the world. In real life, they're probably well-liked and respected. If their friends only knew." -- written by another wise Wikipedian (who shall also remain anonymous)

This editor is a
Veteran Editor IV
and is entitled to display this Gold Editor Star.
I've been here a while, and there are plenty who have been here longer. I don't always get it right, but I always try to be right. The service award you see here is just indicative of how many edits I have made, not how good I am at making them or whether I feel "more important" than those who have fewer edits. We all can contribute - hopefully we do it in a constructive manner - after all, that's (supposed to be) the point of being here.

If you've had any kind of issue or misunderstanding in your dealings with me, there is an excellent article/essay on Wikipedia editors with Asperger Syndrome found here that might help.

Autism Awareness Ribbon.pngThis user has

If you're here because of an editing issue or a revert I've made to one or more of your edits and you feel I've made an error, please leave me a civil message on my talk page.

Because being on the Autism Spectrum uffects everything I do (typo intentional), think, and say, whether it be in real life or on the internet, and since the reason why most people come to an editor's user space is to find out more about 'em, (typo intentional) I ask that you read the "The Autie Pact". Written beautifully by long-time editor User:ThatPeskyCommoner, the pact should be read by all neuro-typical Wikipedia editors in order to better understand how to work well and peacefully with non-neurotypical editors (such as myself). The pact is very complete, however, there are a couple of things I would add to them thar words frum Pesky (typos and grammatical errors intentional):

  • Because those of us on the Spectrum are unfailingly "rule-followers", we are also honest to a fault. When we are accused of lying or intentionally being disruptive or not acting in good faith, it's quite hurtful.
  • Because many of us on the spectrum have considerably higher-than-normal IQs and our brains often times run at break-neck speed, we can become "over-loaded" with data-input and information.
    • When that happens, we can either "snap" due to the stress and say or do something our normally logical brains wouldn't allow us to do;
    • or, we may implement coping strategies, one of which could be disengaging for a time from what is overloading and stressing us. This gives us time to analyze and work out what to do/say/think next.
When both the latter and former are employed, we appreciate it when those "around" us demonstrate patience while we may regroup. If we have only employed the former and have forgotten to be socially gracious, a gentle reminder to apologize to those we may have lashed out at is not a bad idea - if that apology is warranted. In the meantime, please don't pressure us while we are taking that time out. It only adds to our data overload.

Those of us on the spectrum who enjoy editing Wikipedia want pretty much the same thing the neurotypical editors want: to add to Wikipedia and have fun doing it. And to edit in peace. Because unwanted drama and the stress that goes with it sucks.

-- Winkelvi

Don't be this type of Wikipedian
Don't be this type of Wikipedian, either
I subscribe very strongly to the premise and points stated in the Wikipedia essay WikiBullying. Those who bully others as a way to assert article ownership, POV and agenda pushing are behaving in a despicable manner, period. Another detestable behavior in Wikipedia is that which is akin to circling sharks, looking for weakness, readying to pounce on the too-trusting, naive editor who is here believing everyone wants just to build an encyclopedia. Such shark-like behavior occurs at noticeboards where some editors go to wait for the kill and then tear editors to shreds. You can also see it at article talk pages. The behavior of each type (bullies and sharks) is at the heart of what is wrong with Wikipedia. Then again, some editors are just assholes and enjoy exhibiting their assholery because: it's easy to do when you're anonymous via a screen name and because this is the internet, where such behavior has become all too commonplace.

I'm noticing more and more a very disturbing and encroaching trend among editors -- mostly newer editors and young editors: no one seems to understand what an encyclopedia is, what encyclopedic tone is, what makes for encyclopedic content and what doesn't. It seems to me that with most reading outside of school being done on the internet these days, people under 30-or-so have no concept of the difference between tabloid content and true encyclopedic content is. More and more, new and/or younger editors think because it's sourced, it should be included in Wikipedia. Some believe (and this includes editors who have been here a while and know better) because it's news, it's article- or inclusion-worthy. Anything in the news belongs in Wikipedia. Anything that is quoted from an online source or a celebrity is reliable. They think anything found in a reliable source is automatically trustworthy and inclusive. This is what will continue more and more to be a real problem with Wikipedia and keep its reliability factor in the toilet. And all because some folks just don't know the difference between a true encyclopedia article and People Magazine.

An almost robotic recitation of "We only go by what the reliable sources say" when the reliable sources are really, really wrong. This, in part, is due to "news" being available anywhere on the internet and each news group vying to scoop the other. In the rush to post that news scoop, investigation for completeness and truth is lacking. That's on the news agency, of course, but it is also up to the Wikipedia editor to realize that just because a source is deemed reliable for Wikipedia purposes, they aren't infallible. This indicates not only a lack of common sense but a lack of honesty in editing. One would hope that with talk page discussion a compromise could be reached with the common sense solution prevailing. That is happening less and less in Wikipedia from what I can tell. Political agendas, personal agendas that are about opposing editors at any cost... the integrity of content in Wikipedia is forgotten or intentionally set aside for these purposes. It's disturbing, to say the least. Especially when, in the course of doing so, the importance of BLP guidelines are completely set aside.

This is always a great essay for a good laugh -- especially after you see a user try to employ it! [2] The takeaway? "Blaming disruptive edits made from your account on your little brother or anyone else may seem like a good idea, but it isn't. It's a very common excuse, and we have no way of verifying it, and won't bother to try. You are responsible for all edits made from your account."

Found this at the userspace of an editor who had just accused me of something I wasn't doing (no good faith there), called me a jerk (civility and maturity?) and threatened me after repeated repostings of content I deleted off my own talk page. Funny stuff. :-)

Regarding Wikipedia's Good Article and Featured Article status': Before feeling all giddy that you have nominated an article for GA or FA status and such status was granted, remember it's a "distinction" that is contained solely within Wikipedia. In other words, no one's getting a Pulitzer or other journalistic prize with a GA/FA stamp of approval. GA and FA only mean that a Wikipedia editor who likely has no writing, journalistic, or editorial training had an article they have created/contributed to gone over, judged, and evaluated by another Wikipedia editor who likely has no writing, journalistic, or editorial training. Further, it's important to remember GA/FA is a within-Wikipedia "award". Which, in the real world means...

...nothing whatsoever.

Remember that next time you think you're all that because you have a (or another) GA or FA notch on your Wikipedia belt.

The following is taken from a talk page message left by a wise administrator following an editor block for continued and escalating personal attacks as well as incivility and battleground behavior. I find what he has to say to be the best explanation yet of why remaining civil and cooperative in Wikipedia is the imperative gold standard:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia created not by any one individual, but by a cooperative community. It is mandatory that you cooperate with the community in editing Wikipedia. Attacking people and insulting them incessantly, as you have done, serves no good purpose. It disrupts the community, it drives people away from the discussions, and in the long term degrades the value of your own contributions."

Another administrator quote that contains more truism and sage advice:

"...administrators don't care about your content dispute. Administrative tools are intended to prevent disruption."

Not an administrator who wrote this, but it's some of the best and most completely accurate analysis of how difficult Wikipedia can be and what one can do to survive it:

"It's time to start building bridges and coalitions composed of editors who will no longer stand idle while others are being attacked and denigrated. Just be mindful the opposition will stalk and target your articles, try to get you involved in an edit war, and make up a rationale for blocking you. Don't be fooled by this game. To avoid falling for this trap, don't make any reverts and use the talk page to engage in calm talk. If you must revert, do so only once a day, if at all. Don't respond to incivility with incivility, respond with kindness and a polite reminder about the civility policy. Understand that some editors have antisocial attitudes, others are drunk or on drugs, and still others have psychological problems that we can't address. Above all, remain true to yourself and stay above the fray. If you can't avoid conflict, reach out to likeminded editors and admins for support. Find allies and make friends, and stay positive."

And finally, more great advice that I will refer back to from time to time, no doubt:

" not respond here or elsewhere to accusations about behavior; keep playing the ball, not the man. It's all about the bass--the rest is just so much treble."

(Yeah - damn that signal-to-noise ratio, anyway!)

Regarding edit warring: Not always so cut-and-dried. For example, if you are repeatedly reverting someone you point a finger at and accuse of being an edit warrior - guess what? You're being an edit warrior, too. Duh.

Wikipedia is all about teamwork. It's not about winning or delivering a "Checkmate!". Editors must work together to build a reliable encyclopedia, not try to prove themselves to be "better" than others, not to show off grammar and writing skills and knowledge of language. Just to improve the encyclopedia with others who are here to do the same.

In the spirit of teamwork and Wikipedia working as much like a well-maintained engine as possible, I believe administrators should be a good example and here to help -- sadly, this isn't always what happens. I've seen some administrators who are kind, patient, and bend over backward to retain good editors. I've also seen some administrators who behave disruptively and treat Wikipedia's volunteer editors with unbridled disrespect and animosity, even when undeserved. That's not how cooperation is modeled or encouraged.

Prevention, not punishment. Working together, not winning. Respect, not revilement. Resolution taken into your own hands rather than running to noticeboards and talk pages whining and posting a laundry list of reversion diffs or record of past infractions, errors, and perceived wrongs. Keep the long-term goal in mind. Do your part to make things better and the rest will fall into place. Divas and chronic victims need not apply.

Editor - rhodium star II.jpgThis editor is a Senior Editor II
and is entitled to display this
Rhodium Editor Star.
Noia 64 apps karm.svg This user has been on Wikipedia for 7 years, 8 months and 5 days.
Seal of the United States Department of the Navy.svgThis user is retired from the
United States Navy
AircrewBadge.jpgThis user is/was
a Military Aviator.
2010 Veterans Disabled for Life Proof Obv.jpg
This user is a member of the Disabled American Veterans .
Air Medal front.jpgThis user was awarded the
United States Air Medal for meritorious achievement while in aerial flight.
Air Medal front.jpgThis user was awarded the
United States Air Medal for Valor
while participating in aerial flight.
Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svgThis user is one of the 37,827,481 most active English Wikipedians of all time.
P culture.svgThis user has no patience for Wikipedia Divas and their temper-tantrum goodbyes
Wikipedia Reviewer.svgThis user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)
Wikipedia Rollbacker.svgThis user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)
CVU.svgThis user is a member of the
Counter-Vandalism Unit.
Wikipedia:TwinkleThis user reverts vandalism in the blink of an eye with Twinkle!
Writing Magnifying.PNGThis user is a member of
the Guild of Copy Editors.
Autism Awareness Ribbon.pngThis user has
Seal of the President of the United States.svgThis user is a member of
WikiProject U.S. Presidents
Project editor retention logo 1.svgThis user is a member of WikiProject Editor Retention
@This user can be reached by email.

Barnstars and stuff

  The Barnstar of Diligence
For keeping up with and reporting countless Monterrosa socks, I award you The Barnstar of Dilegence! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I know that tracking sockpuppets and filing the appropriate reports is time consuming so your efforts with the socks of Monterossa are much appreciated. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 17:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For the good work you're doing on Jack Dempsey right now. LHMask me a question 20:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  The Original Barnstar
Good job fixing peacock language and other minor fixes on Helen Hooven Santmyer. Choor monster (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thanks for helping keep Wikipedia free of tabloid junk and remaining civil through it all! Keep it up EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  California Star
For having the gumption to create a solution talked about at an AfD, by creating a sub-article for the Golden Gate Bridge about suicides which occur there. Doing so is bold and creates a new consensus which retains verified content that would have otherwise been deleted. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For being the first to stand up for the values of Wikipedia in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 16#Template:Maintained\what was ultimately a losing battle, and sticking with them in the face of great opposition. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  The Special Barnstar
I'm sorry for poking my nose in yesterday! (Despite my good intentions I perhaps shouldn't have got involved!)

It all makes so much sense now!
Anyway wanted to say Thank you for contributing here and keep up the great work :), –Davey2010Talk 17:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  The Resilient Barnstar
The Resilient Barnstar is awarded to any editor who learns and improves from criticisms, never letting mistakes impede their growth as an editor. You are one of them! Thanks for your hard work in getting issues resolved! CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  The Special Barnstar
Thanks also for being a kind and helpful editor. That cannot go by unnoticed! :-) Ches (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  The Surreal Barnstar
Can I just say that even after the mess that is that review page, and given our history, you are still giving the article a fair review. I really hope this is a turning point in our wiki relationshipp. Thanks so much. MaranoFan (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  Sockpuppet reporting barnstar
Dear Winkelvi, thank you for reporting me as a sockpuppet. I have waited for months, and am now using my new privileges to make wonderful edits and new articles. Thank you for reporting me, even if I did not understand at the time. I have learned my lesson, not to sock puppet and will never sockpuppet again. Thank you, Cheers! CookieMonster755 📞 04:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  The Barnstar of Diligence
AKA the baloney-fighting barnstar! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for helping protect Wikipedia against fraudulent content, undisclosed paid editing, and COI. These things represent one of the largest threats to the integrity of the project and would surely have long since destroyed Wikipedia if were not for individuals such as yourself maintaining the front line. Mkdwtalk 20:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  The Original Barnstar
Winkelvi, it has now been over a year since you were last blocked and since an ANI thread was begun to determine possible supplemental action. I remember being the first person to call for you to be indefinitely blocked. Many others soon joined me. In the time since you were unblocked, you have kept out of major trouble and made good contributions to Wikipedia. I must say now that I am glad that the attempt that I helped lead to have you indefinitely blocked did not succeed. Hopefully, though, it did wake you up, and you will continue to edit as productively as you have in the past year or more so. Regards, Display name 99 (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  The Barnstar of Integrity
Thank you for all your efforts at Liberty University and other articles, remaining civil and ensuring that content is encyclopedic and NPOV. Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  The Civility Barnstar
I've been noticing your contributions to discussions on some of the talk pages I frequent, and I'm consistently impressed by your civil approach and conduct, sometimes as the lone voice in a crowded room of opposition. Well Done! Bennycat (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

For your nomination for deletion of clearly mergable content at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transition of Caitlyn Jenner, you are awarded this delicious trout. Enjoy! VQuakr (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles I've created/edited significantly