User:Consequentially

This page serves a friendly depository for all things Wikipedia-related that bounce through my brain. I live in California, thanks to the U.S. Air Force and their relocation whims. I'm a 21-year old language student who became addicted to Wikipedia after I anonymously edited an article on parliamentary debate. That article has since been rewritten a good dozen times, but my unshakeable desire for all things Wiki has yet to subside. Thus, this username was born.

Consequentially is the adverb form of consequential. Its most commonly used definition means "following as an effect, result, or conclusion," but I chose it for its secondary meaning: "having important consequences; significant." Humorously, the word consequential can also mean "pompous; self important." Given time, I'm sure that word will apply as well, but I'll do my best to keep myself in check.

I am currently ashamed of my addiction to userboxes.

Wikistances
The quality of the encyclopedia is something that I take very seriously. Quality breeds credibility, and an encyclopedia without credibility is no encyclopedia at all. To that end, there are a few things you should know about me and my contributions.

First, I will remove unverifiable information without prejudice. If I find a claim in an article that I think is fishy, I'll do my best to find a reliable source for it. That excludes most blogs, forums, self-published sites, and e-zines. If no resource presents itself, then the information is gone. Most Wikipedia policy agrees with me, as does Jimbo Wales:

"Is that true? Is it not true?  As a reader of Wikipedia, I have no easy way to know. If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed.

I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar."

Second, I believe that new articles that reference existing topics should only be created if it cannot be included in an article on said topic. A character in a notable television show should receive an article only if the amount of verifiable and enyclopedic knowledge is too large to fit within the article on the show. With that in mind, I will usually merge stubs and smaller articles into their larger parent categories whenever I can. One large list or article is better than twelve stubs.

Third, I am bothered by cruft. I agree with WP:NOT and WP:FICTION, especially in regard to articles filled with plot summary and speculation. While I understand that certain works of fiction have made significant impacts on the world, I don't believe that Kingdom Hearts or Yugioh are on that list. To that end, I will frequently remove original research from articles and advocate the merger or deletion of articles that do not keep Wikipedia policy in mind. Specifically, I will use this Wikipedia policy as a litmus test:

"'Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article.'"

These three guidelines can be used to successfully predict my opinion on a certain article or action in most scenarios. However, I respect the validity of WP:IAR as a founding principle of Wikipedia, and if an editor can make a convincing argument for dodging policy, I'll be more than willing to go along.

Current Project of Note
I was surprised to find a rather unimpressive article on such an imporant evolution in computer gaming. In a world where Final Fantasy games are being upgraded to WP:FA quality one by one, the idea that the community had neglected an equally -- if not more-important -- venture into computer entertainment was absolutely baffling. I've devoted myself to rectifying this situation, supplying references and prose to an otherwise-lacking article.
 * Deus Ex

So far, I've authored the entire plot summary and made comprehensive edits and additions to the section on gameplay, accounting for roughly two-fifths of the article's total content. If the other editors find this work satisfactory, I'll likely begin to tackle the increasing number of articles to be merged into existing information about the setting. I'm beginning to think a page on Enemies in Deus Ex would be useful, as it would give us somewhere to consolidate the various stubby sections on non-player foes.

Images Uploaded
When deletion debates get too hot or editing turns into a drag, I like to scour the government's collections of public domain photography in search of images that might help illustrate the encyclopedia. All of the images are uploaded into Wikipedia Commons so our sister-projects can take advantage also.

Interesting Factoids

 * New User #111 in April, 2006 New user log.

Things That Make Me Giggle

 * From the deleted article Getting Pushed Into Bananas (Mario Kart):
 * Getting pushed into bananas on Mario Kart (Battle Mode) is a very hard thing to accomplish, as many people merely drive out of the way. Being pushed into bananas is considered by many to be the ultimate disgrace of Mario Kart.


 * From the article Adolf Hitler in popular culture:
 * One of the more unusual late works of Salvador Dalí was Hitler Masturbating (1973), depicting just that in the center of a desolate landscape.


 * From the deleted article Kinzie:
 * Their first gig was at a small party in a suburb of Chicago, with only few people watching the band, while the rest was getting hammered on the 2nd floor.


 * From Articles for deletion/Hank Aaron:
 * It's over man. Barry Bonds is the new champion. No need for an article on a beaten player like this no more.

<!-- As Wikipedians, we all agree to adhere to the encyclopedia's core values of verifiability and notability: our articles must be accurate and their subjects must be significant. We regularly delete articles that fail to demonstrate these tenants, why should we keep articles of list of things that fail to demonstrate them? I agree with Eyrian that in popular culture sections are a bane to the encyclopedia, and that their systematic removal is in the best interest of our cause.
 * The first issue I take with in popular culture articles is their lax approach to verifiability. These articles accumulate vast amounts of original research as editors add in "popular interpretations" of symbolism and whatnot in media, art, and music. Connections are insinuated between unrelated items, without a proper source to defend them. For example:
 * From Phoenix in popular culture:"Some literary critics believe the conclusion of Andrew Marvell's 1681 poem "To His Coy Mistress" may allude to the phoenix, given its references to birds and fire," "In the anime series Beyblade, characters battle using a form of spinning top, many of which contain "bit-beasts" which are based on animals including mythological creatures. One such bit-beast is named Dranzer and is based on the Phoenix."
 * From Classical elements in popular culture:"The Fantastic Four are based loosely off elementals: the Human Torch and the Thing personify Fire and Earth, Mister Fantastic's fluid nature mimics Water, and the Invisible Woman can become as transparent as Air, in addition to her "invisible force" fields. In some continuities, their most recurring enemy, Dr. Doom, represented Metal and/or Lightning."
 * From Georgia Tech in popular culture:"In the movie Contact (1997), the character S.R. Hadden (played by John Hurt), responds to a comment about his technical abilities with the statement: 'Once upon a time, I was a hell of an engineer'. This is a reference to Georgia Tech's fight song, Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech."
 * From Kent State shootings in popular culture:"There is also speculation that the second verse in John Denver's "Stonehaven Sunset" refers to Kent State."
 * From Milton Keynes in popular culture:"The city's road system, with its abundance of roundabouts and scarcity of traffic lights, is famously difficult to navigate for those unfamiliar with the city, while self-evident to locals. The resultant frustration for visiting motorists is almost certainly the origin of Milton Keynes' often surprisingly bitter reputation with out-of-towners."


 * None of these claims are referenced. Some might be accurate representations of cultural ties, but who knows? If there's a source for the Contact quote that says, "Yeah, I like Georgia Tech. S'why I made that character reference it when I wrote the screenplay," then we've gone somewhere. As it stands, it might just be a regular guy saying he was good at his job.
 * The second, and far more important criticism I have of in popular culture articles deals with notability, though. Wikipedia has a policy of keeping minorly important people, things, and ideas out of the encyclopedia. This prevents us from downgrading into a social networking site or glorified blog. Why should the same rule not apply to in popular culture lists? The majority of references are of little significance. For example:
 * From Satan in popular culture:"In Charmed, The Source of All Evil is an elected (or descended) king of all the demons, comparable to the devil, which he is referred to as once in season one," "Him, a character on the animated series, The Powerpuff Girls, is a cheerfully evil, red-skinned, cross-dressing demon," "The adult animated comedy show Aaagh! It's the Mr. Hell Show is hosted by Mr Hell who bears a striking resemblance to Satan himself."
 * From Chevrolet Corvette in popular culture: "Eiffel 65's song "I'm Blue" mentions a blue Corvette," "Gremlins, Gizmo drives a pink Corvette toy-car," "Malcolm McDowell drives a C3 Corvette in Blue Thunder."
 * From NYU in popular culture: "Will Truman (from Will & Grace) attended NYU Law," "In Clueless, Cher gives Josh advice: "I hear the girls at NYU aren't at all particular," "In Avenue Q, the song "There is Life Outside Your Apartment" mentions NYU."
 * Why are any of these things important? If I created Places mentioned in Avenue Q, it would be torn to shreds. And yet, the fact that NYU is mentioned in Avenue Q is worthy of inclusion? The same goes for Vehicles operated by Gremlins. Easy deletion fodder, but individually mentioned, worthy of inclusion. There is no threshold of significance when the only qualifier for a pop-culture reference is that it a something appeared in a something else. Tables in popular culture would be of similar quality and theme, and deleted with impunity.
 * Yes, I understand that the same can't be said for every mention in every list. There are some references out there that are deliberate, sourced, and present some sort of literary or critical value. God help me, I can't find any at the moment, but I'm sure they exist. And when they do, I believe they should be included in the subject article. In the end, any reference that is both notable and verifiable can add value to the encyclopedia. Noting that Chipoltle restaurants once had a slogan on their bag claiming "our burritos go to eleven" does not. Consequentially 02:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

-->