User:Sam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia.

even This user is a Wikipedia eventualist. 1RR This user prefers discussing changes on the talkpage rather than engaging in an edit war.

Wikipedia:Babel

en This user is a native speaker of English.

id-1 Pengguna ini bisa berbahasa Indonesia dalam tingkat dasar.

I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.

-- Edward R. Murrow [1]

[edit] Who I am

My name is Samuel Wantman. When I joined Wikipedia and was asked to pick a user name, I didn't know what to do. Should I remain anonymous? Should I create a fake identity? After a great deal of thought, I decided to use my actual name. I am not adding any other information about myself, but if you pour over my edits you'll probably be able to figure out quite a bit about me. If you do a web search you'll find some other information. I have an unusual name, so most of what you can find is me.

While I am using my real name, I don't want to say anything about my credentials or past experience. They do not matter. I believe that the edit is important, not the editor. If the edit can be verified, and it has been written in an NPOV way, then it is a good edit. It doesn't matter what the credentials of the editor are. I know I have been guilty of adding uncited material based on my personal experience on occasion, and if you find that any of it was in error, I apologize. Experience is valuable to fill out articles when sources are rare or hard to find. An edit based on personal experience will hopefully be replaced eventually with one with a citation.

Why have I chosen not to be anonymous? It is to hopefully keep me honest. By using my real name, I am more cautious, careful, and hopefully more polite. I know from experience that a small lie can grow into a big one. I didn't want to start out by lying about who I am. I strive to be a trusted member of the community.

[edit] Seven suggestions

1. All articles are imperfect, get used to it. Some are very poor. In a collaboration of many people, with some more capable than others, it would be a near miracle if an article appeared fully formed, cited, well-written and error free. The beauty of a wiki is that eventually articles can reach this state after many iterations by many people.
2. Improve articles by building upon what is there. Even though there is a strong urge to delete something for being "wrong", it is very important to put effort into what can be salvaged and improved upon. This takes more work, but it has many positive side effects, the two most important being that the article gets better, and people collaborate more agreeably.
3. NPOV does not mean deciding which side in a debate is correct. In most POV disputes both sides are doing the same thing -- insisting that their view is correct. Energy should be put into finding citations for opinions and their refutations. The POVs of the writers and editors are irrelevant. If the POV of an article is to be challenged, it should be done by adding citations of counter claims. The discussions on the talk page should NOT be about which claim is correct, but about whether the article presents the claim and citation accurately, and in a well-balanced way.
4. People's agendas are irrelevant. It would be ridiculous to claim to be an editor who is totally without a personal agenda. If they are aware of it or not, everyone has an agenda. It is a waste of time, and counter-productive to discuss people's motivations -- all it will lead to is bad feelings and personal attacks. Instead of discussing the motivation of other editors, editors should look for ways of finding acceptable language for opinions they find distasteful.
5. Watch your emotions. If you cannot work on an article without getting charged up emotionally by the subject matter, or cannot stand to see distasteful views presented in an NPOV way, you should probably stay away from the article, and leave it to other editors.
6. Devote time to talking with others. Extra work put into discussions when there is a conflict or misunderstanding goes a very long way. This means making certain that you have stated your case clearly, you consider and address the concerns of other editors, no pronouns are ambiguous, etc... What is obvious to one editor can be totally misinterpreted by another.
7. Be nice. Rudeness and incivility only lead to an editor being ignored or banned. Even if an editor is 100% certain that their position is correct, it is no excuse for not being civil. We are all volunteers here. Nobody enjoys being yelled at. Don't yell back.

[edit] My contributions

• First edit: March, 2004 as User:216.175.84.101 (27)
• Currently over 12,000 edits

[edit] Featured Articles

• San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (with User:Leonard G.) Main page: Sept. 14, 2005

[edit] Featured Lists

• List of largest suspension bridges

[edit] DYK

• Hieronymus Bosch paintings (3/8/06)
• Jiangyin Suspension Bridge (5/30/05)
• List of gamelan ensembles in the United States (1/31/06)
• Mantle Hood (8/7/05)
• Robert E. Brown (12/5/05)
• Runyang Bridge (5/30/05)
• Tatara Bridge (7/27/05)
• Xihoumen Bridge (6/12/05)

[edit] Projects started

• Wikipedia:Category intersection (with User:Rick Block)
• Wikipedia:LGBT notice board
• Wikipedia:Classification and related templates

[edit] Images appearing on the main page

• Image:Painted_Ladies.jpg (11/17/06)

[edit] Templates

• {{CategoryTOC}}
• Re-designed Classification Templates:
  • Template:Fooian fooers
  • Template:Fooian people
  • Template:Nationality by occupation
  • Template:Occupation by nationality
  • Template:Fooian scientist types
  • Template:Scientist type by nationality
  • Template:US bridges by state

[edit] Policy focus

• Wikipedia:Categorization

[edit] RFA summary

This is a bot-generated summary of the current candidates on requests for adminship.

When the bot is running this page will update about once an hour. The last update was 09:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

If this page does not update, a similar summary is available at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report.

Open RFAs are ordered from oldest to most recent.

0-69%

70-85%

86-100%

< 10 responses

[edit] Adminship

	Username	S	O	N	S %	Ending
1	Nmajdan	55	0	0	100%	16:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
2	Danny	236	94	8	72%	00:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
3	Mikeblas	31	1	1	97%	02:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
4	Angusmclellan	75	0	1	100%	13:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
5	J Milburn	49	0	0	100%	16:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
6	Dgies	68	1	0	99%	15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
7	Natl1	12	13	11	48%	20:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
8	Smcafirst	8	13	2	38%	00:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
9	Fuhghettaboutit	50	3	0	94%	01:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
10	Hemlock Martinis	28	9	1	76%	06:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
11	Coelacan	54	0	0	100%	00:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
12	Veesicle	7	6	7	54%	01:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
13	Joebengo	12	9	6	57%	01:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
14	Staecker	21	2	2	91%	03:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Recently concluded: Darthgriz98

[edit] Bureaucratship

	Username	S	O	N	S %	Ending
1	Mackensen	99	30	1	77%	21:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sam (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)

• Administrator since December 29th, 2005
• watch pages