This user uses American English, but is appalled at its rapid and continuing deterioration.
Mix
This user has been influenced by too many dialects of English to use one orthography, vocabulary and grammar consistently.
its & it's
This user understands the difference between its and it's. So should you.
’s
Thi's user know's that not every word that end's with s need's an apostrophe and will remove misused apostrophe's from Wikipedia with extreme prejudice.
couldn't've
This user believes that couldn't've would make a perfectly fine word.
"…"! US vs. UK
This user uses "logical quotation marks". Forcing internal punctuation leads to factual errors. It's not a nationalistic style issue!
I used to love editing Wikipedia, until it became cabalistic, elitist, ethnocentric, Zionist, and hypocritical. (Confirmed Serious)
I have made it my goal to bring Wikipedia down through constructive edits. Constructive being, in this sense, the same thing that the majority of editors do today: revert any changes I disagree with, delete unsourced material without looking for a source first, put up templates instead of improving articles, and accuse anyone who stands in my way of sockpuppetry. This will serve to irritate good-intentioned editors until they go away.
I intend to make Ignore All Rules the ONLY rule that I adhere to with any regularity.
I will use Wikipedia's contradictory rules to my advantage whenever I see the opportunity. Ambivalence will become the word of the day.
I will meatpuppet for people whom I have never met, whose opinions I might have previously opposed.
It is my prediction that until Wikipedia undergoes a major reform, the number of registered, editing users will continue to decline as it has for the past four years. (Confirmed Serious)
This reform must have many facets, among them:
Administrators must no longer be appointed by other administrators. This is how George W. Bush was elected, and on Wikipedia, this has created an elitist culture of groomed admins. (Confirmed Serious)
The status quo is evidence of a systemic bias and must be abolished. In many situations, the less active Wikipedians' statements should carry more weight than the most active. The most active participants already like Wikipedia's methods and culture of arrogance, and will do anything, including blocking users erroneously (in the case of admins), to keep the status quo. The less active users frequently have better ideas for improving the site, which are ignored by the cabal, which in turn, makes users less active. The dissatisfied customer is not a repeat customer. (Confirmed Serious)
There is a thin line between factual inaccuracy and vandalism, and both run rampant; reverts must not be made when a categorically false statement is removed, even if empirical evidence is the only basis for its removal, much like when the article on Liberia was vandalized to state that the official name of the country is the "Republic of Niggers". (Confirmed Serious)
Debates must involve consensus among all parties, even if it involves compromise. (Confirmed Serious, but I'm not so thick-headed as to not realize that you just can't please some people.)
Debates over the accuracy of a statement must not involve Wikipedia policy. Facts are independent of their implementation. (Confirmed Serious)
If Wikipedia is a group entity, the burden of proof must lie on everyone, not on the individual. Doing anything else assumes bad faith. If an addition is proposed or put into a page, especially if unsourced, the immediate response of everyone should be to attempt to CONFIRM the statement, not revert the page and demand proof. In absence of confirmation after a number of people (see below) have attempted to support the information, THEN comes the burden of proof. It may take longer to get things done, but hell, look at how long it takes to get things done, now. (Confirmed Serious)
If one is going to be hypocritical enough about reliability that, when presented with a fact, empirical or sourced under WP:RS, they decide that a consensus is needed to approve an obvious truth, then there must be more than a 2 against 1 bullying match with robotic editors that spout policy and nothing else. A consensus will have to involve at least a dozen users that are more than administrative meatpuppets. (Confirmed Serious)
Wikipedia will either need to require registration to prevent anonymous IPs from editing, whence comes the majority of our vandalism, or pages must not be locked. Ever. The Internet is dangerous; edit and flame wars happen everywhere. Why would you expect Wikipedia to be safer? We already have a tidy, albeit disorganized, cabal of editors and administrators who have made it their sole purpose to perform reverts and undue criticisms. Let them answer to the floodgates. (Confirmed Serious)
.png){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
