Contents
Retirement
As a contributor to wikipedia I've made well over 3,000 edits, 90% of which have been made on pages related to the Eight-thousanders. Now a n00b - User:Globetrotter1918 - comes storming in who's not willing to engage in a constructive discussion, who doesn't adhere to the rules set, who doesn't even have the courtesy to reply to comments, and yet has been given the same status as a regular knowledgeable editor.
FYI, off wikipedia I have been doing 8000m peaks for well over 20 years. I am a regular contributor to Alpinist Magazine. I am on constant co-operation with Eberhard Jurgalksi who maintains the database on 8000ers.com, and I also contribute to Elizabeth Hawley's Himalayan Database. I do the fact-checking for the books from Bernadette McDonald and have contributed to books about K2 written by people like Jennifer Jordan and Peter Zuckerman and Amanda Padoan. I am a special advisor to the Polish National Mountaineering Museum in Zawoja, together with people like Reinhold Messner and Krzysztof Wielicki. I relay messages between base camps in the Karakoram and press outlets and blogs like Explorers Web and Raheel Adnan's blog altitudepakistan.com. I contribute to mountaineering festivals in Banff Canada, Mendi in Bilboa Spain, and am one of the members of the jury in the next edition of the festival in Poprad, Slovakia. I do translations in several different languages of mountaineering books and articles. I own one of the world's largest libraries exclusively dedicated to K2 and I am often consulted to contribute to books and scientific papers.
But all of this is not enough,because here's User:Globetrotter1918 and his reverts.
To me this is an indication that, even when the basis of wikipedia is a good one, in essence there is something fundamentally wrong with this platform. That's why I think it's best that I retire, because I simply don't have any time and energy to be engaging in such a time-consuming business any more.
Bye, wikipedia, it was nice while it lasted, but I'm not coming back.
Qwrk (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Jorge Egocheaga and some advice
Dear Qwrk. I truly understand your frustrations. We have all been there and seems to getting worse these days. Believe I want to help help you anyway I can, and trust me when say I was itching to revert that guy myself when I saw him undo your change. But it appears we still need a source. I still feel badly that I was not around when VF got into his dispute at Damavand and it's a shame he got blocked (for doing far less than you are now) and then eventually retiring (now semi-retired) partially because of that. Don't let these clowns drive us all away. Then they will surely rule. If you do decide to stick around, please be careful. Learn from what happened to VF. He went to ANI and got blasted. If you get hold of the wrong admin, the same could happen to you. Just some advice. Thanks and all the best to you whatever you decide. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 19:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you very, very much for these kind words and thoughts. They will be essential in the process of whatever I may decide to do. Qwrk (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Dealing with reverts
Are you familiar with WP:BRD and WP:DR? If a user reverts you without meaningful discussion, it is they who get blocked. You just need to report them and get help. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Of interest
Re: User:Globetrotter1918. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WKS Śląsk Wrocław just filed.
Cheers, Poeticbent talk 03:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back ?
It seems that you're coming out of retirement ? Mlpearc (open channel) 18:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, I have no intentions of doing so. I'll hang on to my account for the watchlist only and will only interfere with posts when they are obvious cases of vandalism, or in case I can add something minute. My life's too short for waging war here. Sorry. Qwrk (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Babies and Bathwater
Hey Qwrk, After a long evening wikidrifting, the deep and inherent value of this project has sunk in more than ever.
While examining the Revision History of the Wow! Signal page, a "Good Faith Reversion" caught my attention, and led me Racerx11's talk page, which led me to yours. Though I was merely trying to learn how to become a better editor, it seems that I may be able to perform a much more valuable task:
I hope to convince you, an obviously dedicated and hard working editor, that your efforts are truly valued, and that now more than ever, Wikipedia needs people like you. Please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Please, don't let your Principia go unpublished. Ye Newton of Mountain Climbing, let this Halley sooth the treachery of a Hooke trying to tarnish your work (though perhaps this is too kind for such an uncourteous individual as GlobetrottingHisPants, even though it works within the analogy, since despite his false claims and harassment of Newton, Hooke was still a great scientist, but I digress)
In a world where more and more people are confining themselves to 140 character thinking, and thereby running a cognitive map full of ignorance and inherent lack of understanding, Wikipedia stands out as a reliable beacon of hope that man will truly advance his ways, and once again throw off the shackles of a political system which is bought and sold on the dollars of Crony capitalism. We, more than ever, need Wikipedia in order to have a place where the wealth of human knowledge is available to those who seek it. It is hard working editors such as yourself who help to bring the site alive! As such, I want to give you two barnstars, first, the geograpy barnstar, for your hard work in human geograpy:
The Geography Barnstar | ||
message Inthedryer (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
and second, a well deserved Anti-Vandalism Barnstar:
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
message Inthedryer (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
,
During the day, being inspired by individuals such as yourself, I do my best to Turn on my fellows to the path of free-thought, and a desire to understand how the universe works, whether it be on the political, geographical or cosmic scale. At night, I try to carry on in this noble work one sentence at a time, learning from senior editors like yourself so that when I feel ready, I can help pass the torch of knowledge, a torch which illuminates the world.
This is noble work which you have skillfuly done for quite some time, work that is appreciated by all those who have eyes to see, and hearts to feel.
Please do carry on Qwrk.
Inthedryer(talk) 6:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your kind words and the barn stars and, please, do know they are highly appreciated. The main concern that I have for the future well-being of wikipedia still stands, unfortunately, which causes me headaches. There should be a system in place where the number of constructive edits gives more weight to anything you do over here, so I will keep adding / editing / deleting stuff wherever I deem fit, but not on the same scale as before. Not until this issue has been dealt with.
- But again, I thank you very much for these gestures that rank amongst the most appreciated ones that I've seen here.
- Qwrk (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
-
- Hello again Qwrk. I think in general, established editors do receive far better treatment and enjoy considerable more leeway than do new users (and many people see that as a problem), although it certainly doesn't always seem that way. Indeed, at times we are actually at a significant disadvantage. For example, when an "old" (established) editor and a new editor or IP gets into an edit war that requires intervention, most admins will dish out equal length blocks because they don't want to show any favoritism to the old editor; or even nothing to the new editor and punish only the old editor because "they should know better". The problem with that is in those situations the old editor has far more to lose. We have spent a great deal of time in becoming trusted contributors, and even more time in hopes of establishing ourselves as good, quality editors with some degree of respect from our peers within this community. A brand new editor or IP in a dispute, often has none of this to speak of, and may not even care if he attains it or not. They may only care about "winning" the dispute. The stakes are far higher for us and it is here where we suffer. We have to consider if our involvement will jeopardize our "good name", while the newb will not care and may just leave the project afterwards anyway, regardless of the outcome of the dispute. Meanwhile the old editor is left to live with a "mark" that he may not be happy about wearing and we risk losing that quality editor in huff; losing a good editor who would have otherwise made thousands of future quality edits, as opposed to the other who may have just stirred up more trouble if they hung around at all.
-
- Recently I have been reading some comments on some forums about the future of Wikipedia. The increasing access to the internet worldwide will mean many more new-editor contributions, but I'm afraid it may not mean many quality new editors. A large percentage of the new editors will be those with either limited experience with the internet, limited grasp of the English language, or both. They may have no idea how to collaborate on project such as this one. It is almost certain that sooner or later the core group of editors that currently maintain and protect the project, will be unable to effectively do so. It is too large and we are too few. I have read where some some crafty individuals have managed to sabotage many WP articles by preying on the fact that there isn't enough editors knowledgeable enough about certain subjects who can recognize sabotage when they see it. This is all concerning to me.
-
- Sorry to ramble on and I could some more but I will spare you. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm glad to see you are still at least active. Your additions and reverts are more valuable than you may realize and are much needed in the future. Hope you can continue helping out around here. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 12:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- First and foremost, Racerx11, do understand how much I appreciate your concern for wikipedia, and the fact that you've taken this time to voice some of your thoughts. I have to deal with three stumps to type with, so don't expect as lengthy a reply :-)
-
-
-
- In short I see a way out of this dire strait that we're facing, even when some of these have been discussed ad nauseam in the past.
-
-
-
- I won't start up the discussion about IP-only editors, but I'm a big [read BIG] supporter of that proposal. Why hide behind a mask? I'm used to play an open game, for I fear there's really few who are too lazy to set up an account. Yes, that may sound like suspicion, so be it then. We've seen far too many interferences where IP-only editors are involved.
-
-
-
- Secondly, by means of handing an example; we don't discuss the existence of, say, "gravity", or the fact that Australia was claimed by Cook in 1788. So "facts" will simply remain what they are; hard-coded agreed-upon things we don't need to discuss any further, that's why we call them "facts". Little do I know about programming, but with the concentrated knowledge on this platform there surely must be a way to tag "facts" as entries that can't be messed with. It'd save us all a lot of time not having to deal with things that only annoy us and take too much of that most precious of commodities.
-
-
-
-
- I feel better after reading your reply and I don't know if I ever really felt quite as doom and gloom as my above post makes it out to be. More likely, I expect just enough will be done over time to keep WP from collapsing under its own weight. Though there still may be some tough times ahead. Take care Qwrk. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 19:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Sorry for this very delayed reply but, as you will probably understand, it's been a hectic two weeks that were exclusively devoted to Nepal and Everest. The dust has settled a bit, the true scale of the horror has yet to reveal itself.
- I hope for the best possible solution and future for WP, and I really do think it is possible to come to a workable solution where we don't need to be on the alert for fact that don't need changing. I've always considered this to be one of the best platforms imaginable and, like I said, if there are things that need my interference I will do so. Only issue that limits me is the time that I have, and it's a variable I only have limited control over. [The next Bernadette McDonald book is one to look out for, I promise; we're getting somewhere :-) ] Qwrk (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
May 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Dean Potter are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. The Dissident Aggressor 21:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- That addition on the talk page was not a way to voice an opinion or use it as a so-called "soap box", as you mentioned in your removal. It was meant to be a further clarification, to which you could have simply replied or commented, but I bet you didn't look beyond the rules that we should adhere to, did you? Well, be my guest. Qwrk (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)