KTo288

This is a Wikipedia user 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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:KTo288.

Babel

UK

This user uses British English.

yue

呢位用户嘅母语系粤语/广州话。
呢位用戶嘅母語係粵語/廣州話。

About Me

這個用戶是華人。
这个用户是华人。
This user is of Chinese ethnicity.

華夏兒女

This user is an administrator on Wikimedia Commons. (verify)

This user is a reviewer on the English Wikinews. (verify)

INFJ

This user's MBTI type is INFJ.

LG

This user's alignment is Lawful Good: the "Crusader."

According to The Political Compass this user is:
Economic Left (−7.12) and
Social Libertarian (−6.46)

This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years, 1 month and 28 days.

Current pet hates on Wikipedia

Rather than re-editing to integrate a new link into the body of an article some editors prefer to add a "See [[This article]]", what is a "see such and such" within a paragraph, but a manifestation of "q.v. this". If it really can't be easily integrated into the text, then it does not really belong there, and should either have a new sentence or paragraph written for it. If such a sentence or paragraph would unbalance the article, the link best belongs in the see also section, if at all.

Editors who feel that they need to say in the lede-details follow in the section below, the lede is an introduction and short summary, its expected that a topic will be expanded in later sections.

Editors who believe that readers have the memory of goldfish, and repeatedly refer the reader to a previous or later section, falling foul of self referencing, q.v. "this" and thinking that readers have short memories, thinking that readers have the memory of goldfish and have short memories.

Editors who write "recently" or two years ago etc, rather than specify a date.

Editors who feel the need to list in the "see also" section links to articles that have already appeared in the article proper. If it has appeared in the article proper it is not a see also.

List magnets lists, e.g.'s and e.t.c. to which editors cannot resist adding their favourite example, usually originally intended only to be illustrative these things have the tendency to grow to such an extent that they overwhelm the section they are in. If they cannot be pruned back, and editors will fight the cutting of their favourites, the only option is to spin it off into its own article. I never thought I'd hear myself saying this but some lists serve as just fancruft magnets.

Visual Editor [1][2] and the way that it makes articles look as if they were a copy and paste of themelves [3] I hate it all the more now, because since I've started to edit on [4] tablets and smartphone [5][6] I've come to appreciate that a working WYSIWYG editor would be great.

Sea of blue linking in which just about every word is linked , including some that shouldn't be . To confuse matters some links are piped to the same article using different words , while others use the same words to link to different articles . This is often accompanied by excessive overlinking, in many articles I have copy edited there have been three or more links to the same article within the space of one sentence . This is because some editors think that readers have the memory of a goldfish, and that they must link the same link whenever they can, in case the reader forgets. This is because some editors believe that readers will forget something they have just read unless they are constantly reminded of it.

The aforementioned belief that readers have no memory so to speak, and must be constantly reminded of the contents of previous sections.

Use of inappropriate words, misuse of words as filler or to play up the significance of the article e.t.c. I'm not quite ready to go giraffedata on these but sometimes

"unique"-if its not one of a kind its not unique

"like"-like means similar to but not including, "such as" means similar to of which this is an example

"strangulate"-does not mean strangle

"economic" and "economical" are not synonyms, economic means to do with the economy, economical means to be thrifty

using nouns as verbs and vice versa, e.g. to revenge against somebody, using a similar long form of a word instead of the more appropriate short form, e.g. using leverage as a verb (outside of finance related contexts) instead of lever. Using the wrong form of a word, e.g. with oppression, oppress, oppresser, oppressed, oppressing, oppressive using the adjective version of the word as a verb.

Using alternate when what is meant is alternative, unfortunately this is a battle lost, most people don't seem to know or care that these are not synonyms.

Kill your babies

One piece of advice given to new writers, is to know when and how to "kill your babies" most of us are really loathe to do this, but sometimes, the best prose is created when it is pared down to the minimum number of words needed to clearly express an idea. I'm as guilty as anyone when it comes to verbiage, so though it sometimes hurts to see your work cut down, Wikipedia is one of those experiences where you'll find people to both fatten and slaughter your babies, its sometimes hard to see which makes the best improvements, so usually after I've created or "improved" an article as much as I can, I will walk away from it only visiting it occasionally to see how its doing, and try and resist the temptation of continued parenting of it. (compare [1],[2],[3], and [4]). For some reason its always easier to kill other people's babies than your own.

About me

I used to have an alternative account registered as User:KTo228 for public computers, Wikimedia have in their wisdom merged these accounts. I have on occasion used the sig Koonan the almost civilised.

I'm an erratic and random editor, and I'll edit any article that takes my fancy. I'm Commons:User:Kto288 at Commons. Since finding that rather than putting files in the best category I could find, I can create the correct category on Commons, I've been editing a lot less on Wikipedia, and a lot more on Commons.

I am an occasional contributor and reviewer at Wikinews.