User:MrPersonHumanGuy

If I had known about the Graphics Lab sooner, I wouldn't have brought up this Minecraft painting of Jean Picard at the Reference Desk back in 2022. Perhaps the fixer-uppers at the Graphics Lab would've been less inclined to use colorful metaphors.

My only complaints are that:

• I have to mark what I brought up as "resolved" after the image is fixed, which means that if I wait too long, or I don't keep frequently returning to the Graphics Lab to check on it again and again, I run the risk of causing there to be an embarrassingly long gap of time between the image being fixed and me placing the {{resolved}} tag. No other noticeboard on Wikipedia obliges users to go out of their way to confirm fulfillment like that.
• I typically have to wait days or even weeks before someone gets around to fixing the image file that I brought up,^[b] so I'd sometimes put up a custom {{ombox}} banner that says This request hasn't received a response in {{age in days}} days to remind users scrolling by of how long I've been waiting in the hope of getting the attention of the potentially willing.

In the middle of 2024, I edited Vāsudeva such that a couple of instances of "an historical" were changed to "a historical". When I was reverted, I consulted the help desk for general advice and was told:

[F]ollow what the article's creator did and keep usage consistent within it.

With that advice in mind, I used some historical revisions to successfully argue my case for the "a historical" wording on the talk page.

When I feel safe doing so, or I'm willing to take a chance with a stub, I like to be bold and move a draft into the article mainspace instead of submitting it for review, which I am discouraged from doing in most cases by two factors:

• After a draft is submitted, it may take several days (or even weeks) for it to get reviewed. On the bright side, that potentially gives editors plenty of time to improve that draft while waiting.
• Submitting puts a draft at risk of being rejected (instead of declined) by a reviewer, even if tendentious resubmissions aren't really a problem.

Of course, there's the risk that the new article may be nominated for deletion, especially if it's poorly-sourced. However, if the discussion ends in favor of deletion instead of re-draftification, I can always go ask the deleter to restore the article as a draft.^[c] Although, if the deleted article was a stub, and all its sources have been salvaged on a source assessment table, then I shrug (figuratively) and move on.^[d]

In some cases, draftifying an article is the best way to remove it from the mainspace as opposed to deletion. If an article seems potentially unsuitable for the mainspace, instead of nominating it for deletion and waiting days or weeks for consensus to be formed,^[e] I can just move it to its draftspace counterpart, tag the mainspace remnant for speedy deletion, and let the newly draftified page sit there. Draftification keeps pages' contents and revision histories publicly available, so it seems like a decent compromise.

I've found it inconvenient that, in order to make a request for comment, you have to be in an unsettled dispute with one or more editors, which means you have to pick a side and hope you've made the right choice so your actions don't seem foolish in hindsight. This means you can't use RfC to preemptively establish consensus on something that no one has fought eachother over yet.

I don't do web searches for sources, and I'm generally super hesitant to visit any because I prefer not to leave my digital footprints on so many different websites just for Wikipedia's sake.^[f] When making new articles, I like to stick with references that others have found and (in many but not all cases) added to articles to support claims.^[g]

Admittedly, this tendency to deliberately keep myself source-blind in this regard has put me at risk of being fooled by deceptive footnotes (added by other users) that appear convincing, plausible, and contain no obvious telltale signs that they're not what they seem to be.^[h]

On the other hand, being hesitant to visit just any old site may make me less susceptible to exploitation by those like the Heritage Foundation or archive.today than the average encyclopedia builder. After all, curiosity killed the cat that failed to stop, think, and take proper safety and security precautions before it took a leap of blind faith into uncharted waters.^[i]

WP:TNT is WikiSpeak for "I'm too lazy to put in the effort to fix this article, I don't want other editors to worry about it, and I don't want our laziness to be the reason the problems are still there, so I'd rather force whoever worked on it to start from scratch again."

When I rephrase lengthy sentences so that they get straight to the point, I think of myself as vacuum-sealing information.

I've come across a couple of Wikipedia articles with tags that say "See our advice if the article is about you" (either {{COI}}, {{undisclosed paid}} or {{promotional}}) even though the article is about an abstract concept (e.g. open-book management) or some other thing that isn't a person or organization, so the wording on those tags humorously implies that a given concept is a sentient person capable of viewing articles.

When I add text, I sometimes can't help but make last-minute changes to it after I've published it. Sometimes, I'll revisit something I contributed to several months ago just to make more edits.

In some cases where I've struggled to solve a problem on Wikipedia, I would often visit the relevant forum (such as the help desk or the village pump) and suddenly get an idea or two that turns out to be an effective solution to the problem I was concerned with, so it turns out that I never needed to bring up that problem in the first place.

• 
  Geologic time spiral
• 
  Causes and effects of global warming
• 
  Observable universe
• 
  Reachable universe
• 
  World history
• 
  Timeline of North America
• 
  Triangle of everything
• 
  Water-energy nexus