User:Resoru/General

Welcome!

I try to be friendly and welcoming and I very much appreciate it when others do the same. Please carry out disagreements with respect and civility so we all feel motivated to stick around.

I edit Wikipedia primarily because I enjoy the topics I write about and want to make the articles reflect that. Hand in hand with that goal, I'm learning every time I edit an article. Editing encourages me to dig deeper into topics I find interesting - doing research and digging up historic facts.

I identify strongly with inclusionism and structuralism.

I'm a hardcore video gamer and mostly edit articles related to gaming. I'm interested in game consoles and game companies. I particular like Zelda, Sony, and Nintendo-related topics. The history sections are often lacking and I think adding some historic context brings a lot to the encyclopedia. I'm also passionate about organization - and this applies to any other article. I rearrange articles around more logical lines so the content flows better and is more clearly guided. This reduces redundancies.

I've also noticed that some articles about consoles are far too long and/or detailed, so I tend to spin off different sections into their own articles. It's a delicate balancing act to maintain the right information in the original article while making the new article focused and self-sufficient. Further, I think that in general there are opportunities for new articles to be created about specific topics - for example, the history of a console or a fictional character. Although having seen as many emulator articles as I have, I'm hesitant to endorse such a principle too thoroughly or universally. There are many times for moderation.

I appreciate any help and cooperation from other editors.

Interests	Wiki philosophies	Editing tendencies
Video games History of video games Nintendo The Legend of Zelda Virtual Boy Sony PlayStation 4 Square Enix Final Fantasy 2PM Wong Fu Productions	WP:HARMONY WP:INCLUSIVE WP:NORULES WP:POTENTIAL WP:BOLD WP:CCC	Reorganizing sections Breaking out large articles into a number of smaller ones Creating redirects for every possible variation on a name Massively expanding articles Saving articles from the wrecking ball / banhammer / grim reaper / idiom of your choice Going all out with categories, and especially diffusion Creating series of userboxes for things I like Requesting permissions using Commons:Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change

On my business card, I am a corporate president. In my mind, I am a game developer. But in my heart, I am a gamer.

— Satoru Iwata, GDC 2005 (thanks DarkToonLink)

About me

I'm drawn to sarcasm and satire:

• WhiteFeminist

• "All those Facebook photo shares FINALLY paid off! We've done it! We've achieved total #LGBT #Equality!! #ChangeWeCanBelieveIn #DOMA"
• "Just reblogged like 15 photos of children suffering from #GlobalPoverty. Maybe now some people will #ThinkTwice about consumption! #Activism"

Irony and hypocrisy:

• Missing white woman syndrome

And pointing out irony and hypocrisy where it exists:

• "Almost Done With The Latte-Sipping Activist Crowd"

Compromise is sweet:

• Kerry Floats a Deal on Arms, and Russia and Syria Seize It

WikiHumor

• Murder of Cali the Dog =(

• Cali wasn't collateral ant, squirrel or trout damage"
• "Should death section be only human deaths or include dogs? Seriously, edit warring on this"

• "Include dogs."

• Hatoful Boyfriend
• Street Cleaning Simulator
• Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing
• WP:NPC (no personal compliments) - "Never suggest that a view is excellent or well stated, just say that all views are welcome."
• List of commercial failures in video gaming

Thoughts on Wikipedia

• You know you're a Wikpedian when you look for an edit summary when you modify a review on Amazon.com.
• I explain some of my views on Wikipedia policy
• I compare between Wikipedia and representative democracy
• I expand on why I value Wikipedia policy
• I'm internally conflicted over open-ended free-spiritedness and hardcore policy discipline -- I did say the following, and I found the analogy to be apt: "But a certain justification for the bureaucracy is that it forces us to hold controversial decisions up to light of scrutiny, tossing ideas back and forth and testing our views by fire until we forge a steely and battle-tested compromise." But need we subject ourselves to such torment? We're not gladiators here. We're writing an encyclopedia. Besides, the gladiator references are a bit patriarchal.

• Furthermore, sometimes established editors seem to adhere to existing policy all too easily and with all too little thought into whether or not it should stay that way. Love of the status quo.

• In a legal sense, we follow civil law and not common law.[1]
• I respect the opinion of a combative zealot so incredibly much less than that of a reasoned, calm thinker.
• Wikipedia is often the first to cover important news events, and sporting matches are among them. I categorically reject the notion that Wikipedia is "not in the business of" reporting scores in real time. We are an encyclopedia, and have a commitment to provide the most current and accurate information. Let's note with pride the willingness of some editors to take time out of their day (and perhaps monitor the Wikipedia page while watching the game), just so others can receive better information. It's a virtuous act that we should reward.
• Inclusionism as an editor retention strategy
• [2] Whether reliable sources are "correct" isn't the question per se. "Correct" is a matter of interpretation, so we avoid interpreting and follow reliable sources.
• Live scoring is an elegant and easily recognizable representation of our goal as a project - to relay the sum of human knowledge.

What Wikipedia has taught me

• Copyright licensing terms, especially fair use (from image uploading)
• The politics / bureaucracy of a large organization (from all task forces, projects, processes, hurdles, etc.)
• Tons about various video game-related topics (from reading articles)
• Copyediting and making sentences flow well (from cleaning up really bad prose to make it acceptable; from cleaning up acceptable prose to make it good; from cleaning up good prose to make it great -- there's something to be learned at each level)
• Research methods (namely using ProQuest and related tools to find historical new sources)

Interesting finds

Perhaps my first edit

Interesting essay on problems with Wikipedia

Former contributors survey findings

Interesting thoughts, especially the quotes, on this user page

I like what God of War II did for its structure -- synopsis (catch-all for fictional elements), release section (including sales!!), reception section (does not include sales). I guess the fundamental question is.. does reception include sales? A little of both. Also does a nice job of formatting release date in infobox.