User:Mandruss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No obscure corner of Wikipedia is safe from this user's rabid agenda-driven crusade to censor spelling errors.


"It's a mess, ain't it, Sheriff?"
"If it ain't, it'll do till the mess gets here."
Garret Dillahunt, Tommy Lee Jones, No Country for Old Men


It is not necessary to use the singular they when referring to this user. The masculine personal pronouns will do nicely.


WP:BRD works well when you use it in good faith, no matter how many times in 24 hours you do so. Like anything else, it can be used as a weapon in bad faith. That problem is not with BRD but with those users. Promote BRD to guideline and deal with the bad faith users who abuse it. Eliminate the context-blind 3RR rule, which is as ineffective as mandatory sentencing and for exactly the same reason.


This user likes three Wikipedia articles: Dunning–Kruger effect, Authenticity (philosophy), and Serenity Prayer.


Perfect is the enemy of good. Don't oppose small improvements because they fail to solve the problem 100%; the result is usually no improvement at all. Small improvements can be followed by other small improvements.


"Hey Mandruss. You said this today but said the opposite last week. Am I missing something?" Yes. Let this user never be accused of being unwilling or unable to change his mind. Usually without notifying the talk page participants of the change. And sometimes he just fails to get it right the first time.


"This is a wp:contentious topic, and you are a brand new editor, and that's really a terrible combination. At CTOPs, other editors have very little patience with newbies who haven't yet learned enough about policy to avoid being disruptive."
Valereee, a Wikipedia administrator


"And so it was that later, as the miller told his tale, that her face, at first just ghostly, turned a whiter shade of pale."
Gary Brooker, Keith Reid, Matthew Fisher


Userboxes

More information General, Politosophy ...
Close

Barnstars

More information Barnstars ...
Close

Who is Mandruss, anyway??

There are billions of people who are not me. This is one example.

I am a middle-aged male who has nothing better to do than sit around editing Wikipedia articles. If "you're as young as you feel", I'm about 82.

I was born in a log cabin that I built with my own two hands.[citation needed]

I believe I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

I would date Elle King if she asked nicely.

My girlfriend and I met through a radiocarbon dating website.

I have an indentured servant, but he gets mad when I talk about his false teeth.

I once played Fellatio, a supporting character in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.

I have opposable big toes. Thumbs, not so much.

I am not perfect. I'm sometimes wrong like anybody. Fact is, I was wrong just last year (November, I think it was). I thought I had made a mistake, but I hadn't.

Please buy my new book, "How to Get Rich Writing Books About How to Get Rich".

I am 8,353rd in line to the British throne. If necessary, I intend to abdicate.

I asked ChatGPT to talk dirty to me and it respectfully declined. I like human chat better.

Currently in the Jehovah's Witness Protection Program.

My idols range from Albert Einstein to Steven Wright. This is not to imply that Steven Wright is not very smart, or that Albert Einstein was not very funny.

My interests include history, various sciences, aviation, humor, furry mammals, trolling ChatGPT, designing unreadable CAPTCHAs, and musing about the future of civilization. I don't know much about music, but I like to listen to it.

More seriously, for anyone who cares ...

This is how I see myself, which is not necessarily what I am (I'm still working on it). Your mileage may vary.

Autism spectrum, philosopher, comedian, efficiency expert, process expert, user interface/human factors expert, student of human nature including mine, pragmatic idealist, neatness freak, housekeeper-janitor, facilitator, organizer, innovator, sometime pain in the ass. Jack-of-all-trades except that one about content creation.

I'm just a somewhat competent mid-level editor, and I don't currently aspire to be more than that. I retired from Wikipedia editing in 2021. Two years later, I rose from the ashes, reborn and refreshed but now semi-retired. I have changed both my mindset and the nature of my participation in ways that reduce stress, frustration, etc. I am enjoying Wikipedia editing more now.

Recommended dosage

I strongly believe in the fundamental Wikipedia concept of collaboration, and I tend to show little tolerance for editors who do not collaborate, especially if they have some experience. Collaboration does not mean editing an article at the same time as other editors. It means discussion, give-and-take, and respect for consensus. I fully support the essay, Process is important. I oppose risk-aversion and rigid adherence to convention, and I support innovation, "thinking outside the box", and Try It And See™. I instinctively think big-picture and long-term. Wikipedia's behavior policies and guidelines are effectively optional, and I opt in.

I believe that a certain level of humility is important at Wikipedia as well as in life; at the same time, I am often quite assertive in a discussion (I actually believe I have something useful to say, many times; go figure). I am opinionated, in my opinion. (I used to think I'm indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.) In this game as in all games, I play hard but fair, never cheat, and know how to lose.

I work hard to know what I don't knowto know the limits of my Wikipedia knowledgeto avoid venturing too far into areas where I lack competence. I sometimes fail at that.

My greatest editing strengths lie in matters of form, not substance (I do not create articles, for example). I believe that matters of form are important in an encyclopedia, and I feel that Wikipedia gives them short shrift. If I worked for a newspaper, I would be a better copy editor than reporter.

Ultimately, I'm more interested in improving the machine (en-wiki infrastructure, methods, systems, processes, etc.) than in improving its product (the encyclopedia). That is where my aptitude, skill, and career experience lie. But a better machine produces a better product, so I'm trying to improve the encyclopedia indirectly.

Many editors list their major contributions on their user page: I created Article A, I wrote DYK B, My article C passed GA, and so on. Even if I felt a need to show the Wikipedia community that I'm a net asset to The Project, I don't do major contributions; rather, I have done thousands of minor ones. I don't think visitors to this page would be interested. Hence, no list.

One exception: In c.2017, I was one of the two initial innovators of the "consensus list" system in use at about eight Wikipedia articles at my last check several years ago. My suggestion for your next major contribution: Institute a consensus list at the Article D of your choice. I'm happy to help by consulting or by doing some of the work (I can swing a metaphorical hammer). After it's in place, it will be up to you and others to defend it and maintain it. So there's my "major contributions list".

While editing has come to occupy quite a lot of my free time, I try not to become so invested in Wikipedia that I would find it difficult to quit. I created a personal userbox, mostly as a reminder to myself:

This user is aware that, in the end, it's only Wikipedia.

Humor influences

In alphabetical order.

Mini-essays

Micro-essays

Committed identity

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI