User:Xompanthy

As I revert vandalism on a regular basis, I may end up reverting something you think is a legitimate edit. Please don't take it personally. Tell me about it on my talk page, I will gladly apologize if I messed up. Thank you.

I completely agree with all the Wikipedia philosophies of user Kafziel. Here are some of my favorite excerpts:

Featured Articles of the Day become Featured Articles of the Day because they are Featured Articles. A brand new editor has never shown up, made a major improvement, cited his sources in the proper format, and made everyone say, "Wow. That contribution was so awesome, it made the past five hundred vandalism reversions worth it."

If Wikipedia isn't a democracy, one perfectly reasoned argument should be able to counteract 100 pile-ons to the contrary. But it doesn't.

Although I believe in assuming good intentions, it may become clear to me that a user's intentions are not good. As the guideline says, I don't need to "assume" anything if I have facts to the contrary right in front of me.

So far created articles:
 * Supersampling

And countless edits to other articles...

And in case you haven't noticed, my general activities on wikipedia define me mostly as a Wikignome.