Special note: edit my page if you see any spelling mistakes, broken links, section mismatches, or other things that just plain don't make sense. Discussions should go on the talk page, though. Be bold—but vandalize only if it's really, really funny. :-)

Who I am

I'm Joost R. Meerten. The R doesn't stand for anything, like the S in Harry S. Truman. I'm Dutch. You'd expect me to be on the Dutch Wikipedia, but somehow that doesn't interest me in the slightest; probably because most local topics don't interest me, the English Wikipedia is much bigger, and translating back and forth is a fairly thankless job. (Nevertheless, I am listed as a translator on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation—let it not be said I shirk from thankless jobs.)

There used to be a fairly cryptic outline of my personality here, followed by a fairly self-humbling account of what I do on Wikipedia. I decided it's too unfriendly. It's still in the history, if you really want to know. A more appropriate outline is obtained by VeryVerily's Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies page (a very nice catalogue). I'd classify myself as:

• A moderate eventualist. I believe in evaluating and respecting all input, no matter how wrong I think it is, but also believe in boldly editing any bad material.
• A moderate anti-statusquoist. Nobody should have to justify themselves to get an edit in. The onus is on those who'd like to see it go. You're far more prone to make poor and rash decisions when it comes to "kicking bad stuff out" than "keeping good stuff in".
• A communityist encyclopedist. This is not contradictory; the original is a false dichotomy. Wikipedia is a de facto community, and we should be kind to newcomers, because where else are editors going to come from? We should be wary of personal attacks—how on earth will we create a workable atmosphere to edit in if people are out to get each other? But: the purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. This is good to keep in mind when the personal attacks do start to fly: remember what you're here for—it's not to bolster your ego or to prove to the world that you're right after all.
• An anti-authorist. A sense of ownership is unavoidable, and may even be a good thing for quality management, but if it gets in the way of good editing, it should just go.
• A rehabilist. I know it's rare, but I've seen vandals reform. Is your time really so precious that you won't risk wasting a few minutes on a moron over turning in a vandal for a potential newcomer? That said, there will always be bad apples who abuse good faith—but that's what we have blocks and bans for.
• A WikiPacifist. Edit war! Huh! Good God! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say it again! There are more constructive ways of reaching a good article. In fact, it's hard to think of anything less constructive than point-blank reverting. Pissing contests are never going to establish anything beyond the immaturity of all participants. The three revert rule is going to be more consistently applied, and I think that's a very good thing.

What I'm at

I'm an irregular and fickle editor; you'll rarely catch me sitting down and spending a long amount of time on a single article. Similarly, I've more than once had a plan for bringing some articles up to featured state, but "more important things" always seem to interfere. I typically browse Wikipedia to and fro and fix any deficiencies not related to content (unwikified text, typos, broken links, links to disambiguation pages, missing categories). I rewrite the odd paragraph if I see any obvious way of improving it. I rarely make sweeping changes or indeed add new articles.

I'm a perennial newbie

I haven't yet built enough confidence to think I've "seen it all" on Wikipedia, I don't think I ever will, and I secretly suspect that might be a good thing. If you see me do something stupid, kick my ass on my talk page. If I make an edit you don't agree with, ten to one I've left a note on the article talk page. I never revert anything that isn't clearly vandalism. I will occasionally revert edits that are not vandalism, but only if the explanation fits in an edit summary. And though I'm not a member of the Harmonious editing club (mostly because I don't feel dedicated enough), I obey the one-revert rule and will encourage others to do so: never revert a revert, take it to the talk page instead.

I strive to never take things personally, because I really don't know you and you really don't know me, so go ahead and say whatever you want. I'll take it like a Wikipedian.

I'm an inclusionist

I'm an inclusionist , but not the kind that stalks VfD and votes Keep on everything just to tick off the deletionists. Though I'm fairly lazy, I would instead improve an article if it shoud be included. I started off with very clear opinions on "notability" (namely, that Wikipedia is not paper , and notability is no criterion for anything) but recently I've recognized that this position, in its extreme, is untenable. This is why I no longer vote on articles to which I can apply no other criterion than notability; I need to work it out first. I won't vote by gut instinct.

I have had long discussions over fancruft as well, which were invaluable for getting an understanding of what motivates deletionists . To coin a phrase: some of my best friends are deletionists. :-)

I've got bad ideas

We've been voting on deletion policies, the latest incarnation being Preliminary Deletion. I thought it wouldn't meet its intended goal, and had a suggestion of my own, Countdown deletion. I mentioned this in a very off-hand way and it got almost no attention, but Bishonen convinced me to revive it. It seems more people are interested in it after all.

I waste time

I write useless notes to articles (see below). Sometimes I really go above and beyond with this and write complete yarns that serve absolutely no practical purpose. Don't say I didn't warn you.

• /Orange

  The gripping tale of one man's struggle against his own ineptitude. A moving epic of growth and silliness.

• /Wikibooks

  What would happen if Wikibooks was put up for deletion? Why, it would get eliminated like the fancruft it is, of course.

What I've done

I really don't keep track of everything I do, because it's mostly small potatoes. I recognize that it's nice for people to see what, if anything, you're contributing to Wikipedia, without plowing through the contributions list. So here are some subjective selections of "my" work (in quotes, because Wikipedia is all about collaboration). These are articles I've made more-or-less significant contributions to. Keep in mind that this list is not exhaustive and is no indication of my interests. I'm not distinguishing between articles I started and articles I just notably contributed to; I've never understood why the distinction is important.

• Blunsdon United and the associated VfD nomination
• Elizabeth Barry—not so much for the content as for the social process
• Iron Gate (Danube) (translated from the Dutch WP)
• John Hancock
• Jos Verstappen (translated from the Dutch WP)
• Orange (disambiguation) and Orange (word)
• Sollog, spawning alt.usenet.kooks in the process
• Washington Crossing the Delaware

Award gallery

Deletion cookie award.

You have been unanimously chosen as this year's recipient of the Deletion Cookie Award for the Countdown deletion proposal. Bishonen|Talk 10:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I award JRM this barnstar for wonderful editing and patience during the VfD, save and redevelopment of the Sollog article!

Wyss 04:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I hereby slap you for engaging in excessive shit wittery, boo-ya-ka-sha! ;) Arm 04:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Notes to articles

Main page: /Notes

These are personal notes to articles; a sort of sidebar encyclopedia. Most of this is not very serious, all of it is quite personal, none of this really belongs in Wikipedia to begin with, but who's gonna stop me?

This page just got too darn large to stay here, so it got its own page.