I am not the same person as User:Giggy. I had this account before he came up with his (and Gigs is what everyone calls me in person anyway).
4,432 in the AfC pending backlog.
13 left in the unreferenced BLP backlog. Fix one
An editor says that something's wrong with this page. That editor can't be troubled to fix it, but can sleep easy knowing that they stuck on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly why it's there.
I am not the same person as User:Giggy. I had this account before he came up with his (and Gigs is what everyone calls me in person anyway).
So, I was the guy that created the WP:FAKEARTICLE shortcut. This was intended to supplement the other shortcut, WP:UP#COPIES, and refer to one very specific thing, a user page that is intended to look like an article, function like an article, and mislead the reader into thinking it's an article, even though the subject matter is not something that could ever realistically be in main article space. This shortcut was created after we had a spate of resume-like userpages that were formatted with infoboxes and clearly designed to look like encyclopedia articles come up at MfD.
This shortcut, along with the other one I created, WP:STALEDRAFT, have been subject to a little bit of misuse, and have created a some ire among people who see them misused and overused. Clearly they are useful shortcuts considering the number of times they have been cited (over 2500 times for FAKEARTICLE), but it does go to show the power shortcuts have in shaping the application of policy. Shortcuts turn into vocabulary, and any connotations they carry might become de-facto policy, regardless of the text the shortcut points to.
Any notability standard that allows a subject to be notable regardless of secondary source coverage is fundamentally flawed.
Some of our BLP policies (quite rightfully) make it hard to write actual biographies (as opposed to "rap sheets") for lower profile individuals, and our loose notability guidelines won't let us delete their articles. We do these people a disservice by keeping their articles.
Editorial discretion is not original research. We make decisions all the time about what to cover inside an article, how much space to give to a topic, how a topic should be framed, etc. This isn't original research. We are "editing an encyclopedia", not "compiling facts mechanically". There seems to be a desire over the last few years to move Wikipedia more and more toward some mechanical, bright-line, and robotic criteria for editing, this was never the practice, and never the intent of our policies, or the mission here, which is "writing an encyclopedia".
"Verifiability in reliable sources is absolutely critical. But elevating that to a religion which rejects truth is a huge mistake." - Jimbo
As long as we conflate problematic biased editing with the concept of conflict of interest, we aren't going to be able to have very good conversations or policies on the topic.
I used to have a hash here for my committed identity. I keep forgetting the password for it, however. In lieu of a committed identity, I will say that my identity can be confirmed through demonstration of ownership of the domain that associated with the email of this account.
Gigs Is currently not on a wikibreak, and dislikes it when people have perpetual wikibreak templates displayed, even as they actively edit. No one much cares if you take a break, anyway.
Barnstars
+1 to you for the Lolcat article listen file. --Chrome89 (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor
For making me laugh after listening to your recording of Lolcat. It's amazing how much you can record one of the silliest articles on Wikipedia with such a serious tone. Soxred 93 02:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Your withdrawal of the deletion nomination of Daughter of the Nile was extremely courteous. I appreciation, I will personaly spend some time today on improving the article. Thank you Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 21:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
To Gigs, In recognition for your many tireless contributions in the Wikipedia:Namespace. Your hard work and due diligence is appreciated. Hu12 (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
While we may not see eye to eye on every issue, I've followed you contributions and believe this barnstar is well deserved for all the hard work you put into making Wikipedia a better project. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
for know what needs to be nipped Maurreen (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
For patience and smart reasoning about BLP-related issues. Maurreen (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
For you continuous efforts to build the encyclopedia, both directly upon editing articles and via prudent discussion on article talk pages, as well as through maintenance of our core policies -- Kendrick7talk 07:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The BLP Barnstar
This is exactly right, and sorely needed. NickCT (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Civility Award
You have my respect for doing a speedy U-turn and being prepared to explain and apologize after a minor misunderstanding with someone who appeared to be a new spammy account but was actually someone who recently re-named. Thanks for your diligence. Fæ (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For your idea of effort of putting up the UBLP watchlist notice. Over 5,000 UBLPs have been removed in the past month! Regards, The-Pope (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
Hi - just a quick message to say thank you for implementing some of the changes requested on the Permira talk page Js971805 (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Civility Award
Props for maintaining civility even in the face of serious disagreement and criticism. (Don't drink from the cup, though; the star is very sharp.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping article clear of WP:COI and other nonsense. Hu12 (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I am very pleased with your closing of the discussion at Template talk:Cite doi. You summarized everything that was said very well and I feel that you have reflected the discussion in your closing comments. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
