User:Flamarande

Loosely quoting somebody I don't admire: "Let my work speak for myself."

In the interest of accountability, here's my log. You can also see my contributions and some statistics.

Da disclaimer I'm a human being. Therefore I'm clearly not perfect, and will, without any doubt, make some mistakes. I base my edits upon my personal knowledge, and my knowledge is limited by the information to which I have access. (for the really dumb: I might be wrong/mistaken.)


My completely personal policy in improving any article in Wikipedia.

  • "No vandalism", (I really hope that I don´t have to explain the reasons for it).
  • "Try to link stuff", link the names, the dates, countries, battles, etc. If you do that, Wikipedia will be much better for it.
  • "Show your sources", in others words: put "references" like books (with the ISBN) and other "stuff" in the proper place (usually at the end of the article).
  • "Put the complete name", Put the complete name (as "true" as possible) at the first mention of the person, then use the "most commonly" know version of it.
  • "Respect the official version", if you read, know, believe and want to present a "correct - alternative" event or reasoning which differs somewhat from the "commonly accepted" one, present it (and show your sources!) as such. My own example: Herleva (I added info from "1066" and although I agree (believe) with it, I wrote the info below the official version).
  • "be flexible", nobody is perfect, not even you.
  • "Use the preview button" (helped me many times)


Problems I see in Wikipedia (this is only my personal opinion).

  • "the "POV-excuse": some users disagree with a part of a article. What do they do? Do they argue their point? No, they say this is POV (a bit like the "Hitler-excuse"). Most of them don´t even bother to explain their reasons in the talkpage.
  • "modern scholarship says..." The killer argument (again a bit like the "Hitler-excuse"). If you defend another perspective you are firstly a outdated fool. Secondly, as modern scholarship is not telling what you are defending you must be wrong and they must be right, always. Thirdly, if scholarship says it and you not, you are a defending a POV.
Basicly, the eager user has read a new book of someone (sometimes it is not even a scholar!) and believes that this scholar is absolutely infallible and has understood everything correctly, this time. We have to rewrite everything, and follow this scholar ad absurdum.
Look pal, I am willing to bet a very large amount of cash that in a hundred years from now, scholars will teach: "In the early 21st century it was believed that... . Today we know that it is a wrong conclusion."
  • "Overeager/self-righteous administrators/vigilantes": Some administrators (and I mean a few) are turning into self-rightous vigilantes, who basicly do what they want. Sometimes, they follow any suggestion of Jimbo to the letter, in a truly Your wish is my command attitude, most of the time they simply follow their own ideas.
  • "Jimbo Walles worship": Some ppl simply worship Jimbo, he can never be wrong, he is perfect, and all his views and suggestions are to be followed without any doubts or questions. Praise Jimbo. Look, I like Wikipedia a lot, I think that it is a great idea (or I wouldn't be here, would I?), and I also agree that Jimbo should be respected. But the guy is only human, some of his opinions are debatable and some of his ideas are probably wrong. Some of his attitudes are in fact quite similar to a common politician (and we shouldn't worship politicians).
  • "political correctness" leads to plain stupidity, leads to double-standards, leads to censorship, and leads to oppression. 'Nuff said.

The shame of Wikipedia

Despite all its faults I appreciate Wikipedia. However there is one issue which I absolutely despise: namely the handling of the names China and Taiwan. Currently Wikipedia does not follow common sense, and does not use these two names/titles as the whole English-speaking world is doing. "China" does no refer to the current country (officially the People's Republic of China) and "Taiwan" does not refer to the de facto independent country (officially the Republic of China). Under the cover of NPOV a group of users decided to play politics (blatant case of double standards).

In my honest opinion a group of self-righteous (AFAIK Americans and Taiwanese) "anti-communists" and "freedom-fighters" are misusing Wikipedia to bother the Chinese government in a manner and fashion that I can only describe as pitiful.

They are also the most polite group of preachers that I have ever met and hopefully someone with enough authority will do the right thing in the name of common sense and accuracy.