User:Polly Tunnel

"Don't pick fights with the bullies or the cads"

- David Bowie

Guten Abend, meine Damen und Herren
I am Polly Tunnel, living at the far end of a small island and looking at the world down a telephone cable. There's a good chance that you've got here because you've found me editing some references. Some people would call me a WikiGnome. Mostly I edit stub- or start-class articles, trying to expand them into something useful. I was originally attracted to writing for WP when I noticed that news stories that interested me didn't seem to be getting into the mainstream media. That was back in 2010. Slowly I became engaged with the WP project and found that my editing interests took unexpected and curious directions. I took part in discussions on talk pages and witnessed the bullying that is meted out to those who are wrong (and on some occasions those who aren't). I was intrigued to discover what an encyclopaedia actually is (a composite of external sources) and that this means at times it has to be as illogical or untrue as its sources. My instinct is to have an enthusiasm for inclusionism and kindness, but when I did a little impromptu patrolling I found that the nature of some editors' contributions was enough to make me despair about humanity. There was always a difficulty in distinguishing between different types of inappropriate edit, which meant that I found myself not always being courteous to good faith editors and generally being grumpy and arrogant with people (sorry). I also found that I was spending far too much time on the task, and which gave me too little time to actually write articles. Periodically I clear my watchlist and give up patrolling.

I'll include some examples of my favourite bugbears:


 * Puerility – scurrilous additions concerning the alleged activities of the editor's peers. I suspect in these cases the description of the editor as "puerile" is literally true. Most commonly found on sex-related articles.
 * Opinionatedness – article re-writes by people who think that their unsourced opinions qualify as encyclopaedic content, and try and demonstrate this by repeatedly arguing about them. Most commonly found on politics-related articles.
 * Bullying – edits (usually reversions) accompanied by an edit summary telling you how badly you've done, how much you've broken and how you shouldn't be an editor. Often accompanied by misinterpretations of the WP style manual and essays. Most commonly found on railway-related articles.
 * Obdurate reversion – edits by people who are convinced that no single character of their work can ever be changed, and who will revert any attempt at improvement, often without any explanation. Most commonly found on Spain- and co-operative related articles.
 * Reference removal – edits whose only function is to remove reliable citations of books and national newspapers, leaving the article tagged as having insufficient citations. If there is an explanation in the edit summary it is usually "spam" or "non-neutral". Most commonly found on Thailand- and law-related articles.

Incidentally, if any of my edit summaries don't make sense, the culprit is probably my over-zealous spellchecker...

Immer schön locker bleiben

- Polly

• Antirhodos

• Bailey Review

• Balkan cuisine

• Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016

• Danakil Alps

• Digital Economy Act 2017

• English votes for English laws

• European Union Referendum Act 2015

• Hokushin-ron

• Lake Antiniotissa

• List of advocates of republicanism in the United Kingdom

• Living Wage Foundation

• Modern Slavery Act 2015

• National Living Wage

• Pornography in the United Kingdom

• Portland TV

• Prostitution in Tibet

• R v Walker

• Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019

• Wales Act 2014

• Asian Babes

• ATVOD

• Bawdy House Riots of 1668

• Big Society

• Big Society Award

• Cala Bona

• Communications Act 2003

• Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015

• Dominatrix

• Enosis

• Exeter monastery

• Finances of the British Royal Family

• Fruits on a Table

• Gare du Sud

• Harrison Marks

• Heptastadion

• Internet censorship in the United Kingdom

• Naked News

• National Citizen Service

• Nudes-A-Poppin'

• Openreach

• Ping pong show

• Prostitution in China

• Prostitution in Cuba‎

• Prostitution in Laos

• Prostitution in Macau

• Prostitution in the United Kingdom

• Pupput

• Royal Mint Court

• Sovereign Grant Act 2011

• Soho walk-up

• South Seas Mandate

• Tart card

• Telecommunications Act 1984

• United Kingdom government austerity programme

• Waitrose Duchy Organic

• Achterdam

• Angel's Ladies

• Asian fetish

• Breastfeeding in public

• Britain's Road to Socialism

• Brown Hart Gardens

• Byron Review

• Civil list

• Come Play with Me (1977 film)

• Commission on Devolution in Wales

• Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist)

• Era of Stagnation

• European Union (Referendum) Bill 2013

• Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

• Harpal Brar

• Harrison Marks

• Immediate Media Company

• Indecent exposure

• Japanese colonial empire

• Lap dance

• Living wage

• Mary Millington

• Miss Bumbum

• No More Page 3

• Obscene Publications Act 1959

• Ofcom

• People's Republic

• Prostitution in Singapore

• Prostitution in Thailand

• Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

• Soho walk-up

• South Wind (novel)

• Smith Commission

• The Co-operative Bank

• The Daleth Effect

• Web blocking in the United Kingdom

• Wet T-shirt contest

{| class="plainlinks" width="100%" style="background: #f8fcff;" {| border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-width: 2px; border-color: #999999; border-style: solid" ! align="center" valign="middle" style="background: #e6e6fa; padding: 2px"|T O O L B O X Lists of Policies: Five Pillars • List of Policies • Policies and Guidelines • Simplified Ruleset
 * - align="top" align="left"
 * align="left" valign="center" style="background: #f5f5f5; padding: 20px"|


 * Wikipedia Guidelines: Verifiability • No original research • Neutral point of view • Copyrights • Resolving disputes


 * Behavioral Guidelines: Be civil • Assume good faith • Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point • Wikipedia etiquette • Gaming the system • Please do not bite the newcomers


 * Content Guidelines: Notability • Verifiability • Reliable source • Identifying reliable sources • Burden of evidence • Exceptional claims require exceptional sources • Avoid mission statements • "In popular culture" content • External links normally to be avoided • Fringe theories • Common knowledge


 * Editing Guidelines: Help editing • Be bold in updating pages • Vandalism


 * Style Guidelines: Wikipedia Manual of Style • Manual of Style/Lists • Manual of Style/Tables • Manual of Style/Capital letters • Laying out a typical basic article • Writing better articles • Use English • Lead • Standard appendices and footers • Citing sources • Avoid peacock terms • Avoid weasel words


 * Templates • Template help
 * Article tags: abbreviations • cleanup • external links • No footnotes • Citations missing • Citation needed • Cleanup • copy edit • copypaste • Confusing • Inappropriate tone • incoherent • multiple issues • Notability • Not verified • original research • overlinked • peacock • POV • primary sources • puffery • refimprove • tone • Unreferenced • inline citations • unreferenced • verify • weasel • Wikify


 * Section tags: Disputed-section • POV-section • copy edit-section • expand section • fictionrefs • off-topic • in popular culture • ref improve section • unreferenced section • trivia


 * Inline tags: Category:Inline citation and verifiability dispute templates • citation needed • clarify • failed verification • or • request quotation • syn • verify credibility • who • whom?


 * By subject
 * Delete: delete • db-bio • db-attack • • afd • cfd • ifd • tfd • rfd • mfd


 * Dispute: POV • disputed • Disputed-section


 * Bibleverse :
 * Bibleref2 :
 * Superscript :


 * Spelling Style: Varieties of English templates • American English • British English


 * Citing sources • CiteEx • Cite web • Cite journal • Cite book • CITET