User:Lol1VNIO

{{DISPLAYTITLE:User:lol1VNIO}}__NOEDITSECTION__

{{Infobox Wikipedia user

| title = lol1VNIO{{small|{{nobold|, rollbacker,

reviewer}}}}

| birthdate = June 1

| image = 009 - ren2 - man.svg{{!}}alt=I'm only one editor, after all

| image_width = 220px

| edit_count = 2,806 (non-automated)

}}

I focus mainly on building and maintaining articles.

Building is the creation or expansion of articles or sections through reliable sources.
- Maintaining is the undoing of good- {{em|or}} bad-faith edits that aren't policy-compliant.

Me

Blue Archive
Kaguya-sama: Love Is War – Ultra Romantic
Did you know that the takedown of a controversial Goddess of Victory: Nikke advertisement led to another controversy?
- Onimai: I'm Now Your Sister!
- Chibi Godzilla Raids Again
- DYK that the initial lyrics to "Shukusei!! Loli Kami Requiem" were "as painful as hitting someone with concrete"?

=Motivation=

File:ROCS_Tso_Ying_(DDG-1803).jpg

The main two media for those who long for knowledge (scientia) are books

and academic papers. Books are great. Books explain a topic in great detail and

contribute a great percentage to the {{color|#0D5C33|jungle of knowledge}}. But

authoring high-quality books require high dedication, therefore virtually no

books are free (as in free beer). This is

understandable but frustrating for the Dweller of the {{color|#0D5C33|forest of

books}} whose philosophy asserts that scientia potentia esse.

And so the Dweller looks to his map and traverses the narrow paths surrounded by

thick paper and papyrus trees towards an alternative top-level pathway. The

{{color|#0D5C33|forest of journals}} preserves all first-hand documentations of

novel experiments that the books reference. The Dweller picks the destination

labelled "Open access" and finally finds the knowledge they have yearned for.

After browsing the index of the journal and finding their desired article, the

Dweller is hit with jargon upon jargon. Unlike books, journals assume that the

reader has foreknowledge of the topic area to a university level, hence the

paper happily uses jargon that are defined by another undefined jargon.

The Dweller borrows the issue at the front desk, hoping to find easier papers to

read and cross-reference that way. At the bottom right corner of their view, the

Dweller notices the front cover of a magazine that depicts the Wikipedia globe.

"Ahoy!! It be yer referencin' work that be written by anyone 'round the

globe!"—surely the language must be targetted at a general audience, the

Dweller considered. Sailing the sea of Wikipedia and painting

their new map purple is much fun. Not only does Wikipedia give an

inverted pyramid overview of each jargon, the

language is indeed simple to understand. In fact, it is policy who dictates that

Wikipedia is not a scientific journal and guideline who

advices to Make technical articles understandable.

What's the a catch? Upon arriving at shore, the Dweller is transferred from the

Google taxi to the boat marked User:. The shore, titled "Main Page",

displays a banner that greets the dweller with "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free

encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Being a rather quirky captain, the Dweller

first sails to the bottom of the page to read the legal stuff. For the first

time, the Dweller was cautioned with potential inacurate information by the work

itself...

=Interests=

So far, all of my major written contributions lie within the intersection of

East Asia and animation. It is not uncommon for there to exist more sources in a

foreign language like Japanese in this topic area. I'm native Vietnamese and

know some Japanese vocabulary and sentence structure. I translate sources using

my own understanding, common sense, and a dictionary (1st priority); and machine

translation also (2nd).

I also have lesser-interested interests but that is trivial and is left as an

Easter-egg hunt for the reader.

For a long time, my personal duty was to hop on Huggle and revert

lots vandalism every day. I still do that at random intervals. That's how I

racked up 35 thousand edits.

DYK reviews are done occasionally when there is a particular nomination that

interest me.

I'm not retiring until Touhou Project gets [[WP:good articles|good

article]] or greater status and Blue Archive{{'s}} plot is complete and

concise; I regret quiting that game.

The project

=Content and editing=

{{Quote box

| quote = "It takes only a moderate commitment to edit, but it takes a serious

commitment to write."

| author = —somewhere in the depths of Wikipedia

| width = 220px

| border = none

| align = left

}}

Entering hiatus from reverting vandalism all the time has really changed my

views on Wikipedia. If many editors were just "bad actors", then the number of

featured articles would never have exceeded twenty,

ever. This is the real world, however, and we have over six thousand amazing

printable articles. And seeing immensely

broad-concept articles such as Philosophy or

Logic recently become featured is very satisfying.

I am optimistic and believe all vital articles can be

improved until good article or greater. It's a miracle that Wikipedia works in

practice because would never have worked on any paper.

But there are only about 60,000 vitals out of 6 million articles. This is where

my own guideline on notability

comes into play. Basically, a topic is said to be notable iff it can be reviewed

and featured on the main page as a did-you-know hook. This is somewhat stricter

than the actual WP:Notability guideline but guarantees at least a decent

article. Still, there is this crazy obstacle that haunts me and probably others

since 2001. Step one to writing any article is searching for reliable sources...

That is difficult. I might come back to this after my first good or featured

nominations, but I see a dilemma: if there are too many sources, then very broad

neutrality has to be maintained (though I might have to study the Philosophy

article); if there is a lack of sources, then the article might never see itself

becoming featured. The Goldilocks zone is very narrow for my interests.

The scariest thing to me is lost media. Libraries are destroyed, books are

burnt, media reader become obsolete, optical discs rot, websites die out.

Writing an article isn't just documenting a thing, it's also archiving all

available sources on a given topic for future generations. At least archive your

web sources, instructions at H:AAS.

I have a hunch that WP:No original research (NOR) is the most important one

out of the core content policies. Neutrality is

just common sense for something as academic as Wikipedia, while verifiability is

par to NOR, sure, but NOR does a better job at explaining reliable sources. This

is just one of the niche beliefs of mine. Also,

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility is beautiful.

=Conduct=

File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement-en.svg

First and foremost: civility; suppose a new editor has a very

fringe worldview that is informally considered delusional. On the talk page,

they provide tinfoil-hat conspiratorial sources that they deem reliable to

confirm their belief. Now look from their perspective and see how they feel when

someone calls them stupid. What does that do other than enrage them, making them

increasingly hostile towards mainstream, which radicalizes them, and, and, and.

In fact, calling someone stupid is just admitting you don't have anything

against the supposed evidence. Instead, just refute their point. And if they

insist and make logical fallacies? That's when you play the last-resort

giving-equal-validity-can-create-a-false-balance spell card, which is

overpowered. Now, I get that the vast majority of tinfoil-hatted people always

act the same way in denying logical reasoning, but my point is do not use

ad hominem even against the worst of people. And since this is an online

discussion where you have all the time in the world to think, ad hominem

makes you look just plain ignorant.

{{Tree chart| |sense|-|.| |sense=Are you sure that your idea is a good one by

common sense and that it improves the encyclopedia?}}

Politically, I value individual thought very highly. Individual

thought heavily implies consensus. Do not let peer pressure deter you from

voicing your unpopular opinion that you think is beneficial for the

encyclopedia. And with WP:Civility, theoretically, there it doesn't hurt to hear

constructive criticism from opponents. The common sense diagram featured in

WP:What "Ignore all rules" means can be simplified to just one conditional.

Note that hate speech does not belong on Wikipedia.