I love language and logic, and proofing English-language documents I read is something my brain does automatically. I've been an admiring user of Wikipedia since the early 2000s, and finally, after making a small donation, decided to "make it official" by henceforth conducting my occasional minor edits via a single identity.
That being said, I remain effectively an amateur Wikipedia editor, as the vast majority of modifications I make tend to be minor grammatical fixes and relatively small-scope copyediting. I would like to become more involved, but I presently lack knowledge of the mechanics and protocols sufficient to confidently tackle larger projects. I mention this here because I welcome any input, advice, or direction someone reading this might be willing to offer.
My "worldly" occupations involve information technology (computer hardware and programming) and law (paralegal work, e.g., document preparation and research, primarily in U.S. criminal defense and related fields of civil litigation). These engagements are, certainly, tangential to the interests and motivations stated above, but what I really want to do is to find a more immersive and engaging role; I'm frankly not satisfied with my current position.
Participating in the Wikipedia project, helping to maintain such a valuable public resource, gives me a sense of purpose. And the very active community of editors makes me feel I'm part of something intelligent, meaningful, and living. I have more than once been awed by the amount of energy and dedication some editors have applied to this project, and I wish I knew enough to be able to contribute in similar ways.
I consider myself a moderately "aware" person, and I feel that we, the people (i.e., all the people there are), must act energetically to guide our course. I'm a strongly moral individualist and I believe that liberty must be actively defended as hard-won territory against the erosion of encroaching armies led by Them.[a] Every "grassroots" movement through which people can express themselves freely, interact peaceably, and share information organically is a treasure, and, in this era, a triumph of nature over the great multitudinous artifice.
Words! They mean something to me, but do they convey the same, losslessly, to you? This concept -- the mind's striving for efficient expression, communication, exchange of ideas -- is one of the primary senses driving my editorial efforts here.
I place this flag here with the caveat that I admit to not understanding enough about the circumstances surrounding this conflict (or, for that matter, most "current event"-type political topics, which are usually complex in that they always involve multiple perspectives, which I am loath to minimize, despite that they are often spawned by deliberate, plausible-to-the-intended-audience misinformation) -- but I am confident enough in this instance that I back the "right side" for the simple reason that I oppose military aggression in general, defensive acts being essentially the only kind of violence I can morally support. The history of wrongs committed by way of foreign intervention in popular affairs,[b] and the harms, both consequent to those international engagements and those inflicted domestically (each perhaps demonstrative of a more or less subtle oligarchy the objectives of which are not entirely consistent with those of the peace-loving masses),[c] are,[d] in my view, rarely considered by those who technically wield the real power but who have given it all up for decreasingly blissful ignorance, but something with respect to which I wish people would invest more energy in maintaining awareness. However, I am realistic about the true condition of humanity, resulting in a massive hit to my personal motivation.
^Not a conspiracist generally; I use the term as a placeholder in order to keep this sentiment brief [Edit: I later expanded on the point anyway, further down the page.]
^That is, the long list of unjust abuses committed by the "powers that be," for example, the frequent and shameless manipulation of the internal affairs and governments of smaller countries by a more powerful one by means of force or subterfuge
^For example, the internment of civilians based on racial background, or the marginalization and persecution of identifiable groups targeted for more-palatable pretextual reasons, while effectively hoodwinking those people who might otherwise object to the erosion of protections of a class of people, and who fail to recognize that, tomorrow (or "but for the grace," etc.), they or theirs may find themselves on the barrel end of the machine gun they helped to build -- only for the truth to, on occasion, emerge too late for natural, contemporary outrage to gain an actionable foothold: yesterday's history is constantly in the making, but, for obvious psychological and biological reasons, people's attention is universally diverted to local survival
^I may be a bit too comma-and-clause happy. (Also footnotey... and parentheticallily... and inventowordistic.... And I suppose I am hyper-conscious of the number of periods used in formation of ellipses and sentences, as well as, at times like this one, hypotaxic and polysyndetic.)
When I found these userboxes, I thought it would be fun to sift through and see how many I could feel comfortable collecting here. And then, like most things Wikipedia, I kept going.
prog
This user has been programming for 89.9% of their life.
