User:SamuelRiv/Archive

The archive currently holds any information I feel is relevant, for reasons I will outline below.

I think we all agree that as editors, staying neutral and reporting the facts is important. But sometimes we have to make judgements on what constitutes fact, importance, and all the stupid WP:abbreviations. That's why I think it's important for users to have a page that puts these judgements into context and plainly states their views and biases, because we all have them.

Finally, if you are following this page, you may be interested in verifying my credentials. I do not endorse this practice, although the first thing I look for when approached with an opinion or edit is whether or not the person knows what they are talking about.

Userboxes
This hosts userboxes that I may cycle around my userpage. I agree with certain people that frontpage userboxes should be information that reflects on oneself as an editor, but that doesn't stop me from having enough of an ego to have this page in reserve. For icons, I stick to Wikipedia open-liscence images or, if possible, icons, especially sports pictograms.


 * "Multisport" userbox (11/22/2007)
 * "Kendo" userbox (11/22/2007)
 * "ML" userbox (11/22/2007)
 * "Natural units" userbox (11/03/2007)

Biases
Here I will report my biases, general and scientific. Note that I usually avoid debates or edit wars pertaining to these, although I believe scientific biases take precedence over WP:NPOV on WP, as they should.
 * I am a WP inclusionist, and further believe that the encylcopedia can be an excellent tracker of current scientific research. However, I work mostly from primary sources (journal articles), and WP should not simply be a database their information.
 * Instead, the place of WP in current research is to make information about recent discovery and investigation available to a more general audience in a non-sensationalist manner. Essentially, it is a place for responsible popularization.
 * In general, anything is better if it has math in it. This goes for history, philosophy, politics, and economics especially.
 * I am a theorist, but I do not put faith in that which has not been observed experimentally (i.e., existence of the black hole event horizon). However, I think it is fair to talk about pre-inflation cosmology and models of the brain in a factual sense, because every mathematically-based theory contains a truth (though this last statement is only an induction).
 * I am not religious, but I make room the possibility of spiritual existence. However, I believe this existence is not unknowable, that like everything else it can be mathematically modelled. I am a true materialist in this sense.
 * I generally am a Libertarian politically, but I support socialization in many cases. I consider myself a political realist.
 * Finally, I generally support self-determination in morality, and I think that basic rights extend to all creatures capable of making such determination.

Questions

 * To what extent can algorithms, equations, etc. be synthesized by an editor? Many papers skip math steps that are important for a non-expert reader to comprehend the information. To what extent does adding original steps conflict with current proposals?
 * Should bias be listed on userpages? Is this practice productive?

Debates
I hope to restore the following articles in a NPOV, factual manner:
 * The Game (game), Talk:The Game, Talk:The Game (game)/Delete,, User:Kinitawowi/The Game (LAME), User:Otherone/The Game (game), User:Jamie.johnstone/The Game,
 * Encyclopedia Dramatica, Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedia Dramatica, User_talk:Einsidler (POV much from admins?), Requests for arbitration/MONGO (I guess the POV is policy (I do not endorse personal attacks, but cyber bullying exists on other sites as well))

I hope to delete the following pages
 * Deletion_review/Perennial_requests (This is not in WP:DEL - how is it policy?)

Essays I endorse

 * User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy
 * Abundance and redundancy
 * Avoid template creep
 * BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
 * Both Credentials_matter and Credentials are irrelevant: the former for questions of technical and scientific articles, the latter for social sciences, humanities, and everything else. Expert editors is a fair policy, but it doesn't say much more than we already know.
 * I disagree with the necessity of reliable-source citations in certain instances, as WP, like absolutely anything, should not be taken at face value without asking for reference, unless a claim is utterly uncontroversial. In science, for example, I can calculate a Jacobian myself and publish the result here - I don't need Britannica publishing every conceivable permutation of a Jacobian that might be needed to illustrate a concept. The same goes for culture and non-scientific hoaxes: as long as sources are there and checkable, there is no problem (unless the source is faked - but primary sources are reliably citable, while WP is not). If there are no sources, then there is no problem because the article can be tagged with no cite.
 * Describing points of view Endorsed in general as a well-written edit guideline that I use for reference.
 * Inline citations are best. use.
 * Notability (science)/Irrelevant arguments
 * These_are_not_original_research
 * I found Many things to many people, What Isn't Grounds for Article Deletion, and Historic debates a very good read.

Sandbox
This is an article about math using absolute value $&#124;x&#124;$ to render $$|x|$$.