User:SpuriousCorrelation

SpuriousCorrelation is currently feeling discouraged about Wikipedia and is taking an off-and-on wikibreak due to loss of motivation.

Your help in cheering this user up would be appreciated.

They will return when their wikistress has dissipated, and their confidence in the wikicommunity has been restored.

Userboxes

This user is a member of
the Guild of Copy Editors.

In an emergency, this user may be slapped with a trout.

This user scored 294 on the Wikipediholic test (revision 997327689).

CS

This user is an "expert" in computer science.

This user is a WikiOgre.

4Y

This Wikipedian joined Wikipedia on December 17, 2019 (4 years, 10 months, 2 weeks and 3 days ago).

This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SpuriousCorrelation.

According to the Wikipedia page on Spurious correlations, a spurious relationship or spurious correlation is a mathematical relationship in which two or more events or variables are associated but not causally related, due to either coincidence or the presence of a certain third, unseen factor (referred to as a "common response variable", "confounding factor", or "lurking variable").

I am a software engineer who majored in English (go figure); most of my edits on Wikipedia occur as a result of a random WikiHole I fell into and found an obscure or neglected article at the bottom of.

I would say my editing style follows my writing style; I am a firm believer in "Less is More". While I wouldn't say I firmly subscribe to a side, I tend in practice to be more of a Deletionist as a result. I think that as a whole Wikipedia (at least the WP:Commons and English sites) are following a logistic function in terms of number of articles, which makes sense. Nowadays, most editors will not start by creating new article stubs, but rather by helping improve the vast information already present. While WP:NOTPAPER is true, Wikipedia is also not a junkyard.