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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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:Mycroft7.
This user knows that genetically modified food has saved over a billion lives, and that all agriculture is "genetic modification", what we do today is just faster.
Hello and welcome. This is the userpage of Mycroft7, my Wikipedia-ego, where I make my two cents public record on the questionable premise that anyone cares. To the right are my proudly displayed userboxen, which are reductive, divisive, and silly.
There really is no rule that can't legitimately be bent or broken, where "legitimate" is defined as increasing the accuracy, transparency, or quantity of relevant content.
That said, you should aspire to know the rules before you break them, so as to better judge the usefulness of your actions. Bureaucratic nitpicking is counterproductive, but there are good reasons for the rules, and their spirit should be adhered to.
Be bold! Don't be overly worried about "messing up," and don't let it stop you from editing. This might seem to contradict the previous rule. However, the best way to learn is by doing (assuming you're willing to learn), and the rough edges will get smoothed out eventually.
The most important rule is maintaining neutral point of view. Sometimes this is much, much easier said than done, but it must be aspired to if the article is to have any credibility.
Don't take anything personally. Wikipedia is full of more experienced editors who just want to help, and idiots who don't. By approaching everyone with respect and restraint (especially if they don't deserve it), you can learn from the former, and be a good role model to the latter. Trust me, you'll come off looking much better that way.
Being right is never a valid excuse for being a dick.
Ideally, every article should include its own justification. Why does the subject deserve an article? Why should we, the readers, believe the authors? The answers to these questions should be implicit and supported by reliable outside sources. Not every article needs to be able to survive a Congressional hearing, but that eventual goal should always be in mind. If there is not at least a plausible path to this goal, the article should not exist.
Don't make an article promoting yourself, your garage band, your business, or your groundbreaking new theory of physics. It won't last, and it's annoying having to delete them all. Wikipedia is not for advertising, talking about yourself, or publishing your manifesto. If you are really a notable person, somebody else will eventually make an article about you.
If you insist on vandalizing articles, please, for everyone's sake, at least try to be clever about it. Any vandalism including the words "LOL," "pimp," "faggot," "sux," etc. is almost certainly not clever. Just stop. You are a fool.
You are not the first person to think that an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is a flawed enterprise. If you have some diabolical scheme to demonstrate this, don't bother. We know. Really. Wikipedia only works in practice. In theory, it can never work. Such is the mystical nature of Wikipedia.
Mycroft1, my arrogantly assumed namesake. He finds you tiresome.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
