User:Jorgath

Hello, and welcome to my userpage. I am always learning. If anyone ever sees something factually incorrect in something I say, please feel free to point out my error. As long as you explain it civilly, I'll be apologetic and grateful. Likewise, if anyone ever is offended by something I say, just drop me a line and I'll happily apologize and/or clarify. If you feel like I directly attacked you, I almost certainly didn't mean to (I'm a pretty nice guy, I think), but I'll apologize even if you ask uncivilly.

What I too often see happen is summed up at WP:LIGHTBULB.

This edit is my 1,000th on Wikipedia. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This edit is my 2,000th on Wikipedia. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

After recent Arbitration cases involving admin misbehavior, I've taken to asking the following question at WP:RfA of all canditates I vote on: "Please state your interpretation of WP:ADMINACCT and WP:WHEEL." Please don't take that personally; it's just something I want to make sure you know if you want to be an admin.

Notice
After a trial period of coming out of my wikibonked state, I've decided that I can, but it'll be off and on as my stress levels permit. And I'm going to focus on new page patrol, article creation, and article editing in my areas of interest, staying off of places like AN/I and RfA for now. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Mini-essay on "Deletionism" vs. "Inclusionism"
I think that this dichotomy is the dumbest thing ever. If you want to include more articles, you've got to respect whether or not they're notable. If you want to delete more articles, you've got to allow for them being under construction. So why not be neutral? Why not, you know, follow the damn policies and guidelines, keep what needs to be kept, and delete what needs to be deleted? Why not?

Furthermore, the "deletionist" and "inclusionist" labels, applied to editors, have now become egregiously used as ways to be uncivil while pretending you're not, and foster a battleground mentality. Seriously, don't do that. I have more respect for someone who refers to himself/herself by one of those terms, but I still deplore the use of the terms.

That said, if you insist on labels, I am an "enhancementist." I believe that before editors suggest keeping, deleting, merging, redirecting, forking, or creating an article, they should consider the very simple question: "Does this option improve and enhance Wikipedia more than any of the other possible options?"

(Keeping this here so I don't lose track of it while it's still in beta).