This is a Wikipediauser 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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:MrAureliusR.
Committed identity: 97b418c8d5262391b3b59016160fb86e6b27be69ae6c76d294b3a24d0eed3ba9d59cf78e4b019179b341d354acc6c1986828802ce9c62fca6b36284f1ce48a04 is a SHA-512commitment to this user's real-life identity.
The proliferation of mediocrity is never its own excuse.
Association of Deletionist Wikipedians
I'm a Canadian hacker. I love working on embedded systems. Wikipedia is something I have used for many years, and I have tried to be a good Wikipedian. I always wish I could spend more time editing and helping out than I actually can. I would love to be an admin or other super helpful person, but in general I just can't devote that much time to Wikipedia. Recently, I've been trying to become more active so that I may at least qualify to become a new page patroller again. But, even just minor edits here and there helps out I suppose.
I have also done some work as an internet radio DJ and host, first for AnonRadio (part of SDF) and now also for TildeRadio, part of the tildeverse. It's something I love doing when I have the time to do it! I can be found on Mastodon.
Despite having been on wikipedia for about 14 for over 15 years! (10:43, 12 September 2006 User account MrAureliusR was created), I only passed the 1000 edit mark last year I think? Thus, I can only display the apprentice editor badge (and now the level 2 ribbon!).
In terms of my approach to Wikipedia, I definitely lean towards deletionist. Often, when you come across an article that has been written badly, bad citations, etc. I personally find it easier to blow it up than to try and work from garbage. Also, less is more. So many articles suffer from unnecessary detail that makes articles difficult to navigate. I think that if you can communicate a concept in 500 words instead of 1000 words, the 500 word version is always better, pretty much without exception. I know that there is a whole class of Wikipedians that disagree with me and that's okay!. Everything balances out in the end.
Without exception, every time I have needed help here on Wikipedia, a super-friendly helper or admin has come along to help me. This is a truly rare thing on the internet, and something that I really value about this website. Lots of teachers and researchers like to treat Wikipedia as a second-class citizen in the encyclopedia world, but when you step back and really look at the scope of the project and how much of it has been done to an exceptionally high level of quality, it's truly humbling and staggering. That a project can have so many humans working together, generally moving in one direction, is simply astounding.
Go look at an article like Korea. Despite being currently graded as C-class, it's an amazing source of well-cited information about the Korean peninsula. The maps, pictures, art, history... it's all there. It never ceases to amaze me...
So the next time someone tells you that Wikipedia is garbage, and not reliable, point out that it generally has fewer errors and more up-to-date detail than official encyclopedias like Britannica.
Online presence(s):
My Libera.Chat nickname is MrAureliusR. I used the same nickname on Freenode, but have decided to migrate to Libera.Chat.
Contacting me is best done via my User Talk page; you can also use the email me link the sidebar.
.png)