From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wiki Enophile with a particular passion for Rieslings and Champagne.
I LOVE using the talk pages to hammer out details and compromises. If you take disagreement with something I edit, I have no qualms about it being changed if you show the applicable support or evidence for it. My personal goal is to see some of the pages I've contributed to reach "Featured Article Quality" and I know with the help and testing of my fellow editors that many can reach that. No one on Wiki is infallible and we all bring something different to the table. What is great about the talk pages is that in shaping and evolving the article into something better we can learn new things along the way.
As a side note, I'm a she. :)
[edit] Wine Newsletter Quick Links
[edit] Other Interests
- Baseball
- Politics (Though I do try to avoid some of the bickering and contentious stuff on Wiki)
- History in general
- European Royal Families
- Christian Apologetics & Theology (In particular Lutheran History)
[edit] Possible annoying behaviors
- I'm a horrible typist and will make silly typos often. I try to catch what I can but I'm certain to miss a few.
- I'm not as up to snuff on wiki code to make things look as crisp and nice as they can. Feel free to clean anything I do up.
- I'm becoming more and more a stickler for sources. While I'll try not to dive off the cliff into overkill, I will poke my nose into a few things to request some source citations.
[edit] Wiki Pet Peeves
- Long articles with no page breaks. I like being able to locate key points with ease. It's purely my opinion but if the article is big enough to incorporate at least 3 distinct ideas, then it deserves some page breaks.
- Major delete edits without discussion talk pages. I understand the wiki motto of Be bold but I think that benefits Wikipedia more when it applies to additions to articles rather then encouraging major deletions. A better motto for deletions is to Be Discerning--especially when the edits fundamentally alter the article. I'm a huge advocate of growth and evolution in article and I think editors benefit in the experience of taking part in the discussion and crafting of a quality article. It is more mutually beneficial to all involved when particular issues that need to be tweaked, clean up or re-worded within an article is brought up to the editors already working on the article versus doing a major delete and expecting the editors to just deal with the pieces left behind.
This is not to say, I'm against deletions but I think they need to be backed up with substantiated reasoning on the Talk Page with an invitation for dialogue and compromise.
[edit] Thinking inside the box
|
My Wiki habits
| ANAL 2 |
This user rely's on others better grammar too fix there article's. |
 |
This user is bold, but not reckless, in updating pages. |
 |
This user strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues. |
| Flexible |
This user deals with edits, deletion, and creation of pages individually instead of unilaterally and encourages others to do so. |
|
|
Philosophy
 |
This user believes that a user's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions to Wikipedia. |
|
--
[edit] Things to do
[edit] Wine Lists
To Do-- Work on categorizing and better organizing wine related articles.
[edit] Wiki stuff
My views on the City, State debates at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)
Good Article Criteria
1. It is well written.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
3. It is broad in its coverage.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy
5. It is stable
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
Some GA thoughts....
- On a good lead An important distinction between an encyclopedic article and a news or magazine article is that we don't need to "build anything up" for the reader-no suspense or plot development. Rather we lay everything out in the beginning and then go into more detail and development below. With a good lead, a reader should know the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE and WHY of the article before they even get to the TOC.
