User:Eequor

You have 88 pages on your watchlist (not counting talk pages); you can display and edit the complete list. In the time period selected below, users have made 31337 edits to articles in the English version of Wikipedia. Checking watched pages for recent edits...

Euphoria may refer to;
- A psychological state of intense good feeling. [disambiguation page]
- Euphoria programming language
- An album by Def Leppard
- An album by Leftover Salmon [another disambiguation page]

This is a disambiguation page; that is, one that points to other pages that might otherwise have the same name. If you followed a link here, you might want to go back and fix that link to point to the appropriate specific page.

User:D3h 3l33t (484I r00lz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

4h 1zzz 4 (!r(uM\/3nti0N D3v!(3, s0 !f 4h 1zzz rh!!D!N9 1n Urr K4R U m!9Ht 93T Bu5xxxed b/ d3h 3ff-B33-3Y3!!!!!!

Could you please write your edit summaries in plain English? They would be much more helpful than the leetspeak summaries that you are currently using. Thanks. Guan aco 17:05, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

U zh0ULD 83 gr34Tphhu1 zz@T 3y3 d0 N0t #r!te zz3m !N |<L!N90N!!!! &nd zz@t 3Y3 M 3D!T!N9 d3h 4RT!(L3ZZZ zzz3mz31v3zz 1n uR 3NN9L!zh33!!! R U 90!N9 2 84N M3 2 d3h http://l33t.wikipedia.org n0\/\/?

D3h 3l33t (484I r00lz

[and yet, se makes perfectly normal and unobjectionable edits...]

To understand concepts of the shape of the universe, according to the standard big bang model, the reader should, ideally, first develop his/her intuition of manifolds, and more specifically, of Riemannian manifolds.

However, those definitions are somewhat abstract.

Apparently nobody has used the word lithipedia before.

Wikipedia does not have an article for lexical gap.

Wikipedia philosophy

In VeryVerily's continuum of conflicting Wikipedia philosophies, Leah is:

a centrist activist, being neither predominantly eventualist nor immediatist:
- Reverting poor writing and unbalanced coverage is appropriate. Edits should only be reverted if they are unsalvageable or difficult to salvage.
- Articles should be kept in as good a condition as possible, but not to the extent of stymying their organic growth.
- The process of free, continuous editing will in the long run make articles better and better.

a centrist educist, being opposed to both stasis and unreliability:
- Edits which add controversial material should be justified with discussion.
- Edits should not be reverted unless they are truly just troublesome.
- The burden of proof is on the Wikipedia community.

a socialist, enjoying thoughtful discussions:
- Wikipedia should be made a welcoming place for newcomers who wish to participate.
- Actions should not be interpreted as rude unless disrespect is overt.
- Personal attacks should never be made and are to be deleted on sight.

a communist, rejecting ownership without scarcity:
- There is no author for articles. Although one person may seed an article, each one is a community effort.
- Once an article text has been submitted, the submitter has no special privileges vis-a-vis future edits to that text.
- There is no "original intent" other than what is in the text and perhaps notes on the discussion page.

a centrist correctionist, siding neither with those who propose extreme actions nor their targets:
- Malicious users should not be tolerated.
- Assume good faith.
- Every attempt should be made to reason with a disruptive editor.
- Factionalism is never constructive.
- All users, especially admins, should be most critical of their own actions.

a diplomacist, seeking resolution to controversy without conflict:
- Edit wars considered harmful. They are also childish and pointless.
- Reverts are appropriate only for demonstrably bad-faith editing, such as making controversial changes without regard for objections.
- A responsible user should bring controversial issues to the attention of the community.

an extreme neutralist, uninterested in promoting any point of view outside of discussions:
- The ability to write from a neutral point of view is a skill that is not difficult to acquire.
- NPOV editing does not conflict with other editing goals, and should never be compromised except for personal essays, fiction, and humor.
- Provided all the relevant facts are available, it is not difficult to tell whether writing is POV.

a moderate inclusionist, feeling that most articles have some value:
- Articles may be deleted if they are of no value to anyone.
- Deficient pages can usually be improved with editing.
- With the exceptions of simple deductive reasoning or eduction to expand existing articles, original research has no place outside the user namespace.

an moderate individualist, believing that each person has propriety over their beliefs and means of expression:
- A user page belongs solely to its user and is sacrosanct regardless of its content.
- Everyone is entitled to their own points of view and freedom from persecution for their views.
- When the Wikipedia community objects to a user's contributions, the ideal compromise is for the user to copy their editing to personal subpages, allowing each side to do what they wish with the content.
- Every user has a moral obligation to improve Wikipedia however they are able.