User:Worldedixor

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" - Albert Einstein

User Page for Worldedixor
'''This is my opinion and factual observations on MY user page. Some user pages even have cartoons. My user page is maintained in the best interest of Wikipedia and its "continuous improvement". By reading my User page, you must agree NOT to use any of my opinions against me nor "assume that you know my intent". Otherwise please do not "read" my User page.'''

Opinion 30 August 2014
In my observations, (very) few admins and their pals misquote WP rules as a passive-aggressive pretext to justify their relentless WP:Wikihounding. "My mature way" of handling such antics, as an adult, is to simply ignore them and swiftly delete their inappropriate conduct. It appears that "other", more mature admins, are watching "their" behavior.

To further explain a recent observation, a tag team is formed when two editors coordinate their edits in a way that is disruptive to an article.

However, in consensus-based editing (which was the case in what another editor (not me) offered and was in no way disruptive to the article), two editors, sometimes with differing viewpoints, work together to craft an article that is fully compliant with Wikipedia's core content. Editors may revert article changes that violate Wikipedia's core content policies; this is not tag-teaming.

Opinion 29 August 2014
I came across a very positive change within the Wikipedia culture, when a good admin solves a chronic problem in Wikipedia by assertively instructing:


 * Just unwatch the talk page. Admins aren't the police, and they aren't anyone's mom. If you want to keep watching the talk page, it's not up to us to send some message because you don't like what you see.

Opinion
I am opting to go back to editing, and Wikipedia has admin Anna Frodesiak (talk) and the other "unbiased" and well-meaning admins to thank.

Opinion 15 August 2014 – Improving Wikipedia - Standing up to flagrant injustice
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.

Opinion 14 August 2014 - Baseless Reverts and Incompetence
Utter incompetence plague WP. Impatient reverts of well sourced content and incompetence to do a very simple research make it tedious for "competent" editors to add well sourced content. What adds insult to injury is the 1RR restriction.

One of many examples is when it is a well known fact at the UN, that the Islamic State (and Al Qaeda before it) is regularly referred to as a terrorist organization in U.N. communiqués. Yet " a couple of editors" revert well sourced content because they are incompetent to read correctly and click on the hyperlink that leads to the UN list of terrorist organizations that included Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/AQList.htm

Also, a 2 seconds search returned this one of many reliable and verifiable sources, directly from the UN website:

7 August 2014 – As Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) terrorists continue to overrun areas of northern Iraq...

and

“The Secretary-General is deeply appalled at today's reports of attacks by the terrorist group Islamic State (IS) in Kirkuk,... http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=48439#.U-x-2Jp0y00

Opinion 14 August 2014 - My words are starting to make a difference on WP
In this journey of a thousand miles, my words have started to make a difference on WP. Even one of the grumpiest editors has started improving and "welcoming" new editors rather than removing their joy of editing Wikipedia.

Opinion 14 August 2014 - Instigating, Bias and Malicious Conduct
As explained below, according to WP Rules, admins, reviewer, etc... should NEVER EVER engage in bias, ganging up, vendettas, alienation, instigation, defamation, and willful malicious conduct. It is my very strong opinion that Wikipedia will start suffering from a number of lawsuits against it and against some of its admins and reviewers "personally"... IMO, this will be extremely life changing to the accused defendants and very bad for Wikipedia. The solution is very simple... ALL it takes is for Wikipedia to IMMEDIATELY fire admins and reviewers etc. who "choose" to be nasty and engage in defamation, personal attacks, or worse enable editors to engage in personal attacks against editors they don't like, and refuse to remove personal attacks brought to them. I reserve ALL my rights...

Note to self
When editing an article, – — ° ′ ″ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · §   Sign your posts on talk pages and  Cite your sources: < /ref>

Also, to those "perfect" people who ask me to be perfect like them when I edit, they need to read WP:PERFECTION and learn why Perfection is not required in Wikipedia.

Opinion 10 August 2014 - My Favourite Quote of The Day
I don't have time to show more evidence on systematic and repeated WP:Wikihounding, so I will just share my favourite quote of the day:

"Quick to judge, Quick to anger... Slow to understand"

6 August 2014 My Favorite Quote of the day
This quote about whiners hits the nail on the head even when I don't edit any articles and have no contact whatsoever!...

http://deborahtindle.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/deborah-tindle-42.jpg?w=420

3 August 2014 WP Rules
WP:HA

Do not discourage other editors from enjoying Wikipedia and editing articles by making threats to report them, going on a power trip, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, intimidation or instigation.

Opinion - 30 July 2014
WP:ADMINABUSE


 * 1. Without providing a list of names, last year, I was dismayed by the culture of a (very) small number of admins and their darling pets that are incompetent to understand what I write and misinterpret the correct definition of my words. They then apply rules selectively to instigate and also "fabricate" instigating rules along the way. Some admins are excellent and follow Wikipedia rules and try to keep people like me interested in donating time and money.


 * 2. In short, with my wealth of knowledge, I have not made edits in many months until recently when I made a couple of quick and necessary edits backed up by reliable and verifiable sources.


 * 3. Unfortunately, the culture that made me feel uncomfortable 6-7 months ago is still here, and a (very) small number of such admins used the "very" small time I spent as a pretext to instigate me. I can raise these issues with Jimmy Wales or one of the good stewards but I don't have neither the time nor the energy. It is my very strong opinion that Wikipedia is paying the price for the action of these (very) few admins and their puppets.


 * 4. I will end this opinion and return to enjoying my happy and stress-free life in paradise.

Opinion - 15 November 2013

 * 1. Wikipedia desperately, and I mean desperately, needs fresh minds to add content and complete the millions of articles created and are still incomplete. Otherwise, its credibility will continue to plummet.
 * 2. It is my opinion that the biggest problem in Wikipedia are anti-social editors who, through their impatience and "selective" violations of Wikipedia's core principles drive good editors away, and rob them from any joy and incentive to "volunteer" their time and knowledge.
 * 3. What I try to do is, instead of DEMANDING editors to perfectly adhere to WP policy in 24 hours after they create an article, I allow new and experienced editors to create and add new content and I assume good faith. I patiently wait 4-6 months so they and other interested editors can build the article they are all interested in and have knowledge in BEFORE I come with a little hard on and start reverting non-sourced content and bark at them WP policy codes to make them feel stupid. Worldedixor (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Opinion - 2 November 2013

 * 1. When an editor does not know WP policy, it is understandable. I personally take time to correct their behavior assuming good faith, sometimes add a reliable source when I know their information is accurate, and, at times, I leave them a friendly message guiding them when I know how to.
 * 2. When an admin does not know WP policy, it is NOT understandable but when they do not act on their misunderstanding against contributing editors or maliciously talk about them, then their is absolutely no harm.
 * 3. HOWEVER, when an admin does not know WP policy and does not educate themselves on WP policy BEFORE acting in an adversarial manner towards an unsuspecting editor that they misunderstood, and try to negatively impact the good image of a good, knowledgeable editor who is contributing to WP in good faith, with accurate content and reliable sources, in areas most editors do not, then this is wrong and the admin must be held accountable!...
 * 4. You are not allowed to misinterpret the intent of another editor or misrepresent other editors. You are also not allowed to threaten editors with "admins you know" or threaten to have them blocked for misinterpreting their intentions or for disagreeing with you.
 * 5. Millions of editors edit on WP. I made hundreds of edits. My accurate and well supported edits are seen by hundreds if not thousands of editors. I personally do not willfully nitpick on good, contributing and knowledgeable editors.

'''This is my opinion on MY Talk page. By reading my Talk page, you must agree NOT to use any of my opinions against me nor "assume that you know my intent". Otherwise please do not read my talk page.'''

Reflections - 2 November 2013
This is revealing!... Reflecting on these articles... The decline of Wikipedia and Why does Wikipedia keep pestering you for money?

I Feel Good - 1 November 2013
That's all!

Bullies on Wikipedia - Opinion - 1 November 2013
It is widely known that the only way to restrain a bully is to stand up to them. It takes courage!... However, after they flex their internet muscles and throw their tantrums in front of a computer screen, they realize that they have no option but to learn how to act like a human being not just revert edits in a condescending manner, but instead assume good faith, ask for citations, perhaps add quick missing content, and, if needed, revert an edit with a respectful, non-patronizing explanation. WP benefits!

Competence is Required to Edit Wikipedia - Opinion - 1 November 2013
I just love this!...Competence is Required to edit Wikipedia

WP:Competence asserts what amounts to:

Where we very often see big controversies, though, is with editors (admins too) who are disruptive while trying to help. This is where we sometimes see a harmful side effect of our (generally quite useful) notion of assuming good faith. Many editors (and admins) have focused so much on this that they have come to believe that good faith is all that is required to be a useful contributor (and challenge the content of your edits). Sadly, this is not the case at all. Competence is required as well.

Clearly, every editor is incompetent for some subjects, so it is important to know or discover your limitations.

Respectfully pointing out to another editor that they do not have sufficient knowledge about the subject of an article or their command of the language of the subject is insufficient to challenge your edits should not be taken as an insult.

Assume Good Faith - Opinion - 28 October 2013
It is my opinion that one should communicate with others on Wikipedia as if he or she is talking "face to face" to Queen Elizabeth with all the video cameras recording everything that is being said. Then re-read what he or she writes before communicating with others. This will go a long way as to increase the likelihood that what you mean to say to someone in good faith, in a silent medium where the tone of voice and non-verbal cues are non-existent, and what is perceived by others are exactly the same. My biggest disappointment with Wikipedia is the level of incivility and aggression on the part of some established editors and admins.

This is my opinion on MY Talk page. By reading my Talk page, you must agree NOT to use any of my opinions against me nor "assume that you know my intent". Otherwise please do not read my talk page.

Vision
I envision an improved Wikipedia where everyone strictly adheres to Wikipedia Principles without favoritism.

Assuming good faith is at the core of "el calor humano" between human beings.

I am well-meaning and I contribute in good faith.

If you disagree with my edit, or I inadvertently violate WP Principles, use my "private" Talk page to let me know in a respectful manner and I will be willingly responsive, as long as you provide me with the exact provision in WP policy that I violated, as well as state the policy. Let me explain:

1. As an example, deleting or changing an edit and just leaving a [WP:Other stuff exists] to show your superiority is very often seen as patronizing and "intentionally provocative".

2. By contrast, assuming good faith and saying: "comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes", please see [WP:Other stuff exists] is seen as "helpful". It only takes few seconds to "copy and paste" the exact provision in the humongous policy but it makes a world of difference in "human interaction" and "fostering cooperation between editors".

I am respectful and enjoy a civil, mutually empowering debate. I don't deal well with a hostile, chauvinist, pompous and patronizing approach. So, those who can't help it are better off asking someone decent to contact me on your behalf if you disagree with my edit. You will get what you want, conflict will be avoided, and Wikipedia will benefit. Worldedixor (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Important Explanation to Self - Citation density according to WP:MINREF
Wikipedia certainly does not have a "one inline citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rule, even for featured articles.

Requesting a permanent block of user AndyTheGrump
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=578772290&oldid=578772135