If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http:/wiki/User:otr500.
The policy concerning article titles has shown that using the common name, when not prevented by some logical reasoning, is still a refection of the Wikipedia-wide community consensus. I have edited one lighthouse article and created another. I hope they are reflective of improving Wikipedia.
I made reference to the stages of my Wiki Knowledge (experience) but was directed that these already exist. After reading, and seeing that most have negative connotations, I will attempt to find the Wiki-Fountain of stability, since I feel I have skipped certain attributes of some stages. I hope not to regress to any negativity of any of these and hope to progress only to an elder stage. I do think there needs to be an experience level attached to the stages. I feel I have attained a level 3 (out of 10):
I have been informed that words I thought I made up were already in use and I didn't know it. Any help directed my way would be appreciated as I try to gain "Wiki-toddler" status. I made these words up In an attempt to classify my "Wiki-knowledge" so please bear with me.
I am currently a truck driver that was born at Fort Polk
I have lived a large portion of my life in the area. My family and I lived in Kentucky for a while and even in Texas but returned home. As a truck driver I have visited all 48 contiguous states and Canada many times. I have been to Mexico once. It was a nice enough place but I didn't lose anything there. It took a while but I retired from Canada. I have extensive knowledge of the trucking industry, keeping current on all rules and regulations. I have received 3 postings to my CSA scores since 2010. One was concerning failing to "drop a line" for a 3 minute stop recording a change of duty status (2010) and two were related to trailer tail light issues from a faulty tractor to trailer "pigtail wiring" I reported and was supposedly fixed (but was not) and a reoccurring incident, that caused me to get a company issued citation in 2018, also reflected on my score. The company issued a report that the problem was fixed (but not what I reported) and then actually fixed the issue. I quit the company.
My continuing education has been largely self-taught but I have a lot to learn. It might seem I have the propensity to delve into things concerning the South and Louisiana, and this would be correct.
There are many areas where I see needed improvements but need to progress pass the "Wiki-infant" stage.
Most of the things I am interested in are reflected in templates and under groups I have joined.
Things I don't like
Most of the things I am interested in are reflected in templates and under groups I have joined as well as topics I have edited. I do have disdain for certain things:
Haughty people that think they are smarter than everyone else and this alone gives them a higher position in life but certainly a reason to edit the way they like, unimpeded, on Wikipedia.
Career maintenance tags. A one year old tag is bad but an eight year old tag on Wikipedia is a travesty. I also do not like vague tags or fly-by tags supported by an equally vague (or none at all) edit summary. If there is a problem it is too easy to discuss it on the talk page. I do feel there are editors that just like placing tags.
Stubs that will forever remain a stub but I like merging articles in pretense of solving a stub issue when it is not appropriate even less.
Scientific editors that are convinced the "scientific classification" should always be the article title name and the common name can be referenced by redirect.
Cabals: Any group that has determined that they alone can make up rules.
Things that make zero sense
Can we say "overkill"
I live in Louisiana and noticed a strange thing. All the articles on Parishes start out the same: Example; "Acadia Parish (French: Paroisse de l'Acadie) is a parish", and Parish redirects to List of parishes in Louisiana. I thought that was strange that the redirect went to a list instead of Parish (administrative division) but it got better. The example has two paragraphs that read:
"Acadia Parish (French: Paroisse de l'Acadie) is a parish located in the U.S. state of Louisiana. As of the 2010 census, the population was 61,773. The parish seat is Crowley. The parish was founded from parts of St. Landry Parish in 1886, and later an election was held to determine the parish seat, ending when Crowley beat Rayne and Prairie Hayes."
"Acadia Parish is included in the Lafayette, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area."
Being that I have a fairly rudimentary education I was glad to find out that Acadia Parish is a parish. By the end of the second paragraph I began to wonder why the word "parish", meaning Acadia "parish" would need to be repeated four times and the word six times in all. There are sixty-seven words in the two paragraphs (not counting what is in parenthesis that includes the translation of "Parish") so the word parish counts for nearly 9% of the total words. For those of us with dementia or Alzheimer that might be necessary but to others of us it might be considered a little excessive. I decided to check out counties and guess what? The first I checked, Autauga County, Alabama started out "Autauga County is a county". The second, "Baldwin County is a county" and I knew I didn't need to go any farther. At least all the articles on counties point to County (United States).
I know that some group, like WP:WikiProject United States or WP:WikiProject U.S. counties came up with this so there is no reason to question it, and apparently I would be the only editor that might consider the redundancy paramount to a silliness that boarders on stupidity, so I will just list it as something that makes zero sense sort of like "the color black is a black color". Sometimes I am glad that I am not as smart as others because then I would have to wonder who in the hell comes up with crap like this.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000 was kept by no consensus. A previous AFD closed with "No consensus with respect to "Meanings of" articles. If the nominator still wishes for those to be deleted, I'd recommend they create a new AfD...". It was argued that the AFD was closed in support of keeping "Meanings of minor planet names". The main argument seems to be that the "Meanings" blank lists, even though numerically covered in the parent article, are useful or needed by the project for future expansion. The numerical listings on each page includes "There are no named minor planets in this number range" and these range numbers include 4 or 500 other such listings.
I recently commented on an AFD, which is a BLP related list article, and violates BLP as well as other policies and guidelines. In the discussion was mentioned (as reason to keep; being other stuff exists) that List of most-followed Twitter accounts survived an AFD. Other lists were mentioned or linked to in other list articles:
On leave for a while---
Thanks to all but I will be on leave thus inactive for a while if not permanently. I have realized with my endeavors with the article Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg that valid reasoning, no matter how presented, are either ignored or simply does not matter. I think a German naming convention is important but there is too much systemic bias for that to happen. I also personally feel that the group integrating Find A Grave information (and possibly IMBd) does not have Wikipedia interest as a primary goal so must channel my energies where better served. Otr500 (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I never intend to get into any type of "war" with anyone. If I make a mistake I will appreciate any corrections. If I add to an article it will be with the pure intentions of adding value.
I will not know how to do a lot of things so if
anyone would choose to keep an eye on any work I undertake I will not complain.
Although I am very opinionated I strive to be neutral in all aspects of Wikipedia.
I have just recently studied a little on the Wiki-talk pages so will try to be
involved in those.
self-made or URL, if existent name of institution and such things as catalog numbers or similar
date image was created and/or released; to avoid misunderstandings with different date formats, spell out the month (e.g. created 2. Oct. 2099), use ISO 8601 notation (e.g. 2099-10-02), or for new self-made works, use 09:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC) (5 tildes) to insert the current date
pre name and last name of the author (in case of self-made works additionally Otr500 (talk) ) and/or the name of the institution
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.
If this is not legally possible:
I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
The copyright holder of this file has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution of the author, as if in the public domain. However, as a courtesy, a link back to Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/) would be appreciated.