This is aWikipediauser page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other thanWikipedia, you are viewing amirror 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other thanWikipedia. The original page is located athttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leifern.
This user has been on Wikipedia for21 years and 23 days.
Ever since I started editing Wikipedia, I have noticed a tendency among a certain class of editors - and they are in a minority - to use this as a place to exercise as much authority as the place affords them. They are prone to obstructionist behavior while self-righteously hiding behind guidelines and policy, typically by picking nits in other people's work rather than doing any of their own. And whenever they are called on this, they demand that others assume good faith.
This behavior typically provokes a response in kind, and we get bogged down in endless posturing in various conflict resolution stages, all too often ending up in Arbcom cases that tend to focus on eliminating the conflict rather than improving behavior.
Good Wikipedia editors should be guided by the credo that theyfirst be helpful. If we see something that should be improved (and there is plenty of it), improve it rather than pointing out its limitations the way an armchair football fan would. And if you choose to be the kind of editor who criticizes other people's good efforts, you have to be prepared to be criticized for the way you do this.
Obstructionist behavior, no matter how well-founded it is in policy and guidelines, discourages editing. We should commit to each other's editorial skills, so editing becomes fun and rewarding rather than painful and frustrating.
I am a management consultant, presently working with a niche firm that focuses on clients that participate in market-intermediated capital formation. In the past I've worked with clients in a wide range of industries on problems on the best use technology to solve business problems. I've helped pharmaceutical companies with medical research programs, banks with risk and compliance issues, media and entertainment companies with new business development, and a number of companies on topics related to intellectual capital formation. I've had my own firm from time to time, and also been part of the consulting staff atMcKinsey & Company,Accenture, and a now defunct but lovable firm known asViant.
My interests include cooking, photography, ethics, current events, and various religious issues.
I got off the fence and joined theAssociation of Inclusionist Wikipedians, for all the reasons the association provides. The debacle over the article onSolveig Fiske finally convinced me, as I realized that deletionists want articles deleted simply for reasons that simply don't make any sense to me.
If you're going here because you're irritated by my edits
No, Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your version of the truth
A neutral point of view means, among other things, that a reader should walk away from an article with a clear sense of what the controversy is all about.
It is a true statement to say that "some people believe the earth is flat," even if the earth isn't flat.
Too many articles in Wikipedia are cluttered by editorial asides that belong in other articles.
I'm sorry - well not really - if facts don't fit your sense of reality.
Having said that, I appreciate that the same events look different depending on your point of view. This means that a neutral point of view should be recognizable to to both (or all) sides, even if there is much else they disagree about.
Looking to the majority to decide political issues makes sense; looking to the majority for the truth is foolish. Everything we hold to be true now was once only believed by a heretical minority.
The next question after someone says: "The majority of people/nations/experts believe X" should be "why?" not "why do you believe differently?"
Louis Kaufman, whom I heard about on NPR - fascinating story about one of the most heard musicians of all time, yet until a Wikipedia entry until I wrote it.
Alta controversy, a controversy that was way more interesting than I realized at the time
For your fine contributions to Norwegian articles, in particular the less lauded sides of Norwegian World War II history.Manxruler (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
this WikiAward was given to Leifern byManxruler (talk) on 17:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Leifern has been identified as anAwesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today asLeifern's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Leifern!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, seeUser:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. —Rlevse •Talk • 00:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
.svg)
