User:Otr500

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):

• Update:

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.

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.

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.

Subtitle:

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.

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:

• List of most-subscribed YouTube channels (Vast majority are primary sources.)
• List of most-viewed YouTube videos (not yet checked)
• List of most-viewed Vevo videos (not yet checked)
• List of most-liked YouTube videos
• List of most-disliked YouTube videos
• List of most viewed online videos in the first 24 hours
• List of most viewed online trailers in the first 24 hours

These need to be looked at concerning sources.

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.

1)- Louisiana

2)- Fort Polk

3)- Vernon Parish, Louisiana

4)- Allen Parish, Louisiana

5)- kisatchie National Forest

6)- Red-headed Woodpecker, specifically the very large population on Fort Polk and Kisatchie.

7)- Government

8)- List of numbered highways in Louisiana

9)- Important people in the history of Louisiana.

10)- Biographies.

11)- Lighthouse articles

12)- All things history

• Legal status of Taiwan
• First Taiwan Strait Crisis
• Second Taiwan Strait Crisis
• Third Taiwan Strait Crisis
• Political status of Taiwan
• Anti-Secession Law
• Taiwan independence
• Cross-Strait relations
• Legal status of Hawaii
• Hawaiian sovereignty movement

The article "Four-Stage Theory of the Republic of China" states, "It is a controversial viewpoint regarding the political status of the Republic of China". This article is listed as a "start-class" but is actually a stub-class and is plagued by serious tags (such as "factual accuracy is disputed", no section references, and I added "No references"), that could make it a candidate for an AFD. I can not imagine why it is not merged with the proper referenced parent article. There is Chinese reunification, a good sounding name with only one reference, and the better referenced One-China policy, which surely sounds like a Chinese reunification policy. There is Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China and Taiwan Province. Surely the views of the People's Republic of China concerning the Taiwan Provence can be covered in the article Taiwan Provence. Check out Free area of the Republic of China that states, "is a legal and political description referring to the territories under the control of the government of Republic of China. Liberalism in Taiwan was created 2004-11-17, made it to 2009 before a "No reference" tag was issued, and still has none. Tangwai movement, with no source or references is an original research article (tagged in 2009) concerning a movement in the Republic of China (Taiwan) that is not even referred to in the article Politics of the Republic of China. Otr500 (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Uploading images