| Revision as of 12:30, 13 May 2012 view sourceZad68 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,355 editsm Reverted 1 edit by KDOG97111 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by AnkhMorpork. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:31, 13 May 2012 view source Bented123 (talk | contribs)2 edits Undid revision 492352669 by Zad68 (talk) not vandilismNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| I Love Dick | |||
| ] | |||
| My name is Jake Waskett. I am a 34 year old gay man, currently living in the North of England. | |||
| I am a computer software engineer, an unashamed nerd, and a Linux user. I am fascinated by computer operating system design. | |||
| ==Milestones== | |||
| As of today (9 Mar 2012), I've been editing Misplaced Pages for about seven and a half years, and have made exactly 15,000 edits. | |||
| ==Major edits== | |||
| These articles needed a friend, so I adopted them: | |||
| *] ] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] ] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] (along with ], ], ], etc. See below) | |||
| ==Adoption plans== | |||
| I intend to adopt these articles at some point: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] and ] (merge?) | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ==Created articles== | |||
| *] (currently in MPMILHIST peer review) | |||
| ==Circumcision== | |||
| In 2003, I became aware of the deceptive activities of many activist groups opposed to neonatal circumcision. My research has continued and intensified since, and I now consider myself something of an expert on the subject. I've published several letters and articles on the subject in academic journals. | |||
| I am neither in favour of or against neonatal circumcision, but am opposed to misleading information. As the American Academy of Pediatrics states, "o make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision." How nice to have an (unintentional) endorsement for ] and ]! | |||
| ==Barnstars/Other== | |||
| I'm suitably honoured. :-) - ] 13:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Indeed. I don't always agree with you, Jake, but your calmness under fire is something I admire greatly. ] 21:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| <center> | |||
| <gallery> | |||
| <!-- Barnstar 1 --> | |||
| Image:Blueprint Barnstar 2.PNG|'''The Template Barnstar''' For creating ] alternatives for all those users who prefer to Keep It Simple I add here a lapel pin barnstar in case you want to add to your KIS rack. {{Label lapel Blueprint Barnstar}}<font face="georgia">]]</font> 08:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)]] | |||
| <!-- Barnstar 2 --> | |||
| Image:Original_Barnstar.png|Awarded by ] for the warmth shown by starting the ].]] | |||
| <!-- Barnstar 3 --> | |||
| Image:Tireless_Contributor_Barnstar.gif|I award you the Barnstar of Tireless Contributor, for your valour shown in warding off trolls on ]-related pages. ] / ] 22:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)]] | |||
| <!-- Barnstar 4 --> | |||
| Image:Tireless_Contributor_Barnstar.gif|I award you the Barnstar of Tireless Contributor, for your ridiculously thorough work on ]. ] ] ] 23:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)]] | |||
| <!-- Barnstar 5 --> | |||
| Image:Heart-purple.PNG|In gratitude for all the thankless work you do around here - '''especially''' for dealing with the onslaught by anti-circumcision activists who would have others tearing their hair out - I hearby award you this ]. - ] 05:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)]] | |||
| <!-- Barnstar 6 --> | |||
| Image:Civility barnstar.png|I award you this Civility barnstar, for always remaining civil in the face of incessant and entirely unwarranted incivility. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 06:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Barnstar 7 --> | |||
| Image:Editors Barnstar.png|I award you this Editor's barnstar for insisting on the highest quality sourcing and most neutral presentation of material for all articles. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 06:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Barnstar 8 --> | |||
| Image:Barnstar quill.png|For demonstrating, with boundless patience and logic, that the pen is mightier than the sword; for basing arguments firmly on policies and reliable sources while consistently upholding Misplaced Pages's ]; and for some of the Wikipedianliest comments I've ever seen in policy talk page discussions, I, ], hereby award thee, Jakew, this well-earned barnstar. <span style="color:Blue; font-size:2.3em;">☺</span> 01:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Barnstar 9 --> | |||
| Image:Antiflame-barnstar.png|By staying cool, calm and collected – and courteous – no matter how frumious or flainstering the situation, thou hast earned this Anti-Flame Barnstar, which I, ] hereby bestow upon thee. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:2.9em;">☺</span> 01:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Barnstar 10 --> | |||
| Image:Random_Acts_of_Kindness_Barnstar.png|Jakew, I award you this barnstar for the unexpected move of (temporarily) restoring the NPOV tag to the Circumcision article on June 3, and for your unfailing civility and patience in continuing discussions (not to mention an exactitude which renders me almost aneologic). <span style="color:Purple; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>] (]) 22:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Barnstar 11 --> | |||
| Image:Original_Barnstar.png|You're consistently one of the most civil forces to be reckoned with I've seen on Misplaced Pages. In particular, I thought was awesome--it demonstrated your good research, civility, ], and uncanny ability to gently turn the argument without confrontation. Good work. ] (]) 03:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| </gallery> | |||
| </center> | |||
| ==Random thoughts on WP policies...== | |||
| ''Warning: the following is is neither policy nor guideline, though it is based upon both.'' | |||
| "But it cites sources" is a surprisingly common argument for using an ] source in Misplaced Pages, but it is not a valid argument for inclusion. | |||
| Anyone familiar with editing Misplaced Pages itself will know that misrepresentation of sources is a common problem. The fact that a source is cited is no guarantee that the source supports the claims made. Occasionally there is doubt about even the ''existence'' of a source. In the case of ''reliable'' sources, some of the qualities that make it reliable (checking by others, peer review processes in particular) help to guard against this. But in the case of an unreliable source (such as a random web page), there are no checks. | |||
| Furthermore, sources (both reliable and otherwise) are not bound by our prohibition against ], so they may extrapolate far beyond their source material, and — again, because the source is not reliable — we cannot have any confidence that these extrapolations would be considered reasonable, or even sane, by experts in the field. | |||
| Thus, in a limited way, many web-based sources are actually ''less'' reliable than Misplaced Pages itself, since at least multiple editors watch Misplaced Pages and are able to verify additions (it should be noted, however, that Misplaced Pages is not considered a reliable source). However, it may be worth retrieving each of the sources cited, to evaluate whether they can be cited ''instead''. | |||
| ===A tale of two policy explanations=== | |||
| *There's nothing wrong with critical thinking, we just don't let it affect our edits. ] is long established policy for one very good reason: when "anyone can edit", some anonymous/pseudonymous editors will be incapable of critical thinking. If we allow it for you, we have to allow it for everyone, including those who can't think at all. Instead, we insist on ] and ] ]. It works, though we have to keep explaining why we do it. — ] | |||
| *Would it be realistic to write a quality encyclopaedia on the basis of editors' opinions about circumcision when those editors have unpredictable levels of familiarity with the research on the subject, and with medicine, epidemiology and biostatistics, etc? It wouldn't work with Misplaced Pages's model, because the view of a true expert in the subject carries no more weight than that of one who is utterly clueless. To make it have a chance of working, you'd need to be able to guarantee that editors had a minimum level of competence in the subject (which means either abolishing anonymity and requiring proof of qualifications, or alternatively performing some sort of examination on the subject matter before permitting individuals to edit). Even then I imagine many disputes would be unresolvable because of fundamentally irreconcilable interpretations. Misplaced Pages's model avoids those problems because we mainly focus on presentation of what reliable sources have said in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policies. The prohibition against original research frustrates all of us from time to time, but it's not there just to irritate you. Think for a moment, and it may begin to make sense. — me | |||
| Similar arguments (and made on the same day), but which is punchier? Which is concise? Which is more persuasive? I wish I had LeadSongDog's eloquence! | |||
| {{userpage}} | |||
Revision as of 12:31, 13 May 2012
I Love Dick