User:Kuyabribri

Hi, I'm KuyaBriBri and I'm just sort of around Wikipedia. I used to be a pretty active editor and am ranked somewhere above 2,300 in the List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Then some things happened in real life and I semi-retired for some years, but then I decided to come back, though not as actively as I did before.

Please note that I am not and have never been an administrator, staff member, bureaucrat, or arbitration committee member, nor do I currently wish to hold any of those positions or user rights. Verify

Personal policies
See User:Kuyabribri/Policies for my personal policies on hoaxes, proposed deletion, vandalism warnings, and advertising.
 * I don't like calling something "non-notable". Everything on Wikipedia is notable to someone, otherwise no one would have taken the time to write something on it. But not everything deserves an article. The notability guidelines exist because Wikipedia is not about everything.
 * I throw WP:AGF and WP:BITE out the window for anyone who creates an attack page. The same goes for any user who supports an attack page.
 * I am a firm believer that it is sometimes necessary to blow up an article and start over.
 * "Wikipedia" is a proper noun and should always be spelled with a capital "W".
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and each entry in this encyclopedia is an article. Wikipedia does not have "profiles", "portfolios", "sites", or "web pages".
 * If you don't know how to spell the word "article", you probably shouldn't be creating them on Wikipedia.
 * No one cares about your garage band.
 * I detest when an article opens by claiming a company's principal product is "solution(s)" or that a specific product is a "solution" unless the word "solution(s)" is part of a proper name or used in the chemistry context.
 * If you need to use an article's text or an edit summary to specify that...
 * an article subject is notable or how/why it is notable, I'm likely to believe that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.
 * an article or some claim therein is "neutral" or "unbiased", I'm likely to believe that it isn't.
 * an article or some claim therein is "factual", I'm likely to believe that you don't have reliable sources or the claim is original research.

Barnstars
I will only list barnstars that I have actually earned. I will not list barnstars that I clearly did not deserve or were clearly misuse of the WikiLove button.