Jump to content

User:Rodney Baggins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This editor is a
Veteran Editor IV
and is entitled to display
this
Gold Editor Star.
Rodney Baggins (nom de plume)
Born(1968-12-19)19 December 1968
NationalityEnglish
Occupation(s)Technical writer, Proofreader
---------------------------------------------
Wiki: Pending changes reviewer
Wiki: Random page patroller

Hello World!

[edit]

(I never dreamt I would ever be in a position to actually say that literally, all those years ago when I started programming the Beeb in my bedroom!) —— Wiki-editing is the best hobby I've ever had and I'm sadly addicted! I think the Internet is one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century, and Wikipedia is the most incredible application of the Internet ever to be devised. A living, breathing, self-checking encyclopedia, available to readers the world over at the click of a few keys on a computerised device!? My great grandma would have been totally aghast! Well, I for one think it's amazing and am uber-privileged to be part of it. OK, you meet a few unreasonable jerks and far too many vandals along the way, but also lots of nice people, and on the whole it's just a very rewarding, highly educational, worthwhile pastime; my only complaint is that I'm not being paid for my time, but then that's the case with most hobbies isn't it!? Huge kudos to the creators of this marvellous machine and whosoever had the original idea for this most wonderous of inventions. Editing Wikipedia is a fantastic way to improve your general knowledge and build a greater appreciation of the world around you. So, Hello World, and welcome to my user page!!

Wikipedia is a that never sets...
a bright, unparalleled star surrounded by galaxies of readers!

About me

[edit]

I'm a freelance technical writer and proofreader based in Nottingham, England. I graduated in electrical/electronic engineering from Bath University many years ago, and I have a professional background in railway signalling and safety systems, also telecomms networking.

I realised a few years ago that I was becoming addicted to surfing around Wikipedia, so I thought in my spare time I would put something back and it then turned into a bit of an obsession! I love the English language and I'm dedicated to upholding the correct use of British English in the written form. I do have an A level in English language (grade A) but never did get round to studying it formally to any greater degree because my scientific brain kind of took over.

I'm particularly interested in ice sports, especially figure skating and short track speed skating. I used to spend quite a lot of time at the National Ice Centre (which is just down the road from where I live) before it closed its doors in March 2020 and then never really got going again... I'm a big fan of rock music and am also interested in the paranormal. I seem to have developed a fascination for aviation accidents and incidents too. I was invited to join the snooker project a while back because that's also a major interest of mine and someone noticed me sniffing round the tournament articles!

Some of the Wiki pages I've edited

[edit]

  • Timeline of Welsh history – I created this article because it was the only home nation that was redlinked in Timeline of British history and it seemed rather pitiful and insulting to Wales. Landed myself with a huge project which turned out to be very enjoyable indeed. Re-ignited my passion for Wales and my love of the language through my Welsh roots.
[edit]

Snooker
(co-nomination with Lee Vilenski) ... nomination discussion

John Spencer (snooker player)
(co-nomination with BennyOnTheLoose) ... nomination discussion

Imparted wisdom

[edit]
Assume good faith

AGF is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is contained in the "4th pillar" which suggests that editors should treat each other with respect and civility at all times. Try to give other people the benefit of the doubt and assume their intentions are good. Be polite and try not to throw accusations around without knowing the facts. You might get egg on your face! You can rest assured that anything I do on here is always done in good faith.

Be bold

The "5th pillar" of Wikipedia is that the policies and guidelines are generally there to be observed (to help us all get along and aim for a common goal) but they can equally be ignored under some circumstances and it's OK to be bold as long as you're willing to explain what you're doing to everyone else, and you don't take it personally when someone raises an objection. I've ruffled a few feathers this way myself but sometimes it just has to be done, otherwise there's a risk of stagnation, and we're all about making progress and moving things on...

Leave an edit summary

Always leave an edit summary so other people can understand why you made the edit – even just something quick like ce or sp helps. If you don't leave one, your edit is more likely to be reverted if it's not immediately obvious what you've done or why you've done it. I pride myself on leaving comprehensive summaries that sometimes run onto two or three lines, although it's best to post on the Talk page if you need to get something more complicated across. Try not to use edit summaries for conducting lengthy conversations with other editors, that's what the Talk page is for. Deleting something from an article without explaining why is just reckless! And reverting someone else's edit without leaving an edit summary is just plain rude!

Ref. maintenance

When I visit an article that I've never edited before, one of the first things I do is check over the references. Obvious errors jump out in red and need to be fixed first. Bare references need filling in next. And I generally check to see if any of the links are dead!

On Wikipedia, sources are vitally important for verifying content and informing the reader of where the information came from in the first place. See WP:REFB. The correct use of sources helps to uphold the "2nd pillar" of Wikipedia, which is to strive for a neutral point of view at all times. It's OK to present the documented opinions of relevant commentators using carefully selected citations, but your own personal opinion on the subject is not really of any concern to anyone but yourself!

References should be reliable, well defined, and working...

  • Reliable: Examples of reliable sources are major news outlets (such as BBC News, Eurosport), respectable mainstream newspapers (such as The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph), official governing bodies (such as the IOC when it comes to the Olympics, WPBSA for cue sports), etc.
  • Well defined: If the reference is not properly defined, it's called a "bare reference" and it will appear in the Refs list as just a URL link, which is ugly and uninformative, or at best just a linked title which is equally useless. A bare ref. can easily be filled in using a CS1 template such as {{Cite web}} with a few basic parameters: url, title, date, author, work, access-date. The format for the citation is:
<ref>{{Cite web|url= |title= |date= |author= |work= |access-date= }}</ref>
  • Working: If a reference no longer links to the required webpage, then the source is "dead" and needs to be "rescued", using an archive facility such as the Wayback Machine (which is really easy to use). Try looking for an archived version and add the parameters archive-url, archive-date, url-status. The citation will now look like this:
<ref>{{Cite web|url= |title= |date= |author |work= |access-date= |archive-url= |archive-date= |url-status=dead}}</ref>
The url-status parameter can be set to live if the original source is still active, and the archived version will sit in reserve. It's OK (in fact a great idea) to provide an archive even if you don't need to use it right now, as some day someone might need to pull it off the bench and use it.

P.S. Rodney Baggins is not my real name! Rodney is the name of my white cat, who looks amazingly like the cat pictured up top; Baggins is the 'surname' of my black cat, whose first name is Bilbo...