User:Nraymoss

Five things I learned about Wikipedia

1. Irrelevant concepts: Sometimes, other editors who are not as quick-thinking as you, may not immediately realize the value and importance of what you are working on. They may try to drag in irrelevant concepts such as "consensus" or "verifiability" or "NPOV". They may even, misguidedly, revert some of your edits. This is an unavoidable occurrence, and nothing to be concerned about. Simply rerevert the changes, and proceed – after all, you are working on the most important thing possible.
2. Ignore all rules: Because of the importance of your work, Wikipedia gives you a number of powerful tools which will help you perform your work speedily. You are encouraged to be bold. You are free to ignore all rules. It is much more important to improve the encyclopedia than to slavishly follow policy, and what improvement could be more important than yours, which is the most important thing possible?
3. Factual content is worthless:Don't let anyone tell you that your work is not important. Some editors place an undue emphasis on actual, verified facts, but factual content is worthless unless it is properly presented. Readers will be badly confused if some articles use British spelling and some use American, or if some section headings use All Capitalized Words while others capitalize Only the initial word. Ensuring consistency of these vital details is not only important, it is the most important thing possible.
4. Correctness is not a popularity contest:Proper article titles are also extremely important. Articles are referred to, and can only be found or linked to, by their titles. A wrongly-titled article might never be found, or worse: the false implications of its wrong title might give a reader dangerously wrong impressions. For example, if the topic of an article is occasionally referred to by a more popular name, it is permissible to have a redirect stub under the popular name pointing at the correct name, but the real article must, obviously, always have the strictly correct name. Remember, correctness is not a popularity contest. The content of an article may be important, but ensuring that the article has the correct title is the most important thing possible.
5. Sacred tradition:Sometimes, you may become disheartened at the progress of your important work. It may seem as if every other idiotic editor on the project is ganging up on you, all simultaneously unable to appreciate the importance of your work. Do not lose heart, however: you are carrying on a sacred tradition; you are not alone. In fact, there is a special gallery erected to commemorate and celebrate the valiant efforts of unsung heroes like you who were willing to work, despite the costs, on the most important thing possible.

Some complicated Math Formula:

$f(x)={\frac {a_{0}}{2}}+\sum _{m=1}^{\infty }[a_{m}\cos(mx)+b_{m}\sin(mx)]$

List of Poor Quality Topics

• Fixed_point

WHAT I WILL DO BETTER IN FUTURE

My proposal on Wikipedia was very weak and most likely a poor one if not very bad. This is due to the fact that the initial topic on merits and demerits of fixed points I choose to discuss had no enough information to really convince my readers about what I was trying to put across and again it has more to do with arithmetic fixed point which in all made my edit a weak one. Again, I went ahead to propose a new fixed point iteration of which I did not again do a very good job even though slightly better than the previous proposal. The reasons why this wasn't that better was that the fixed point iteration presented was good only to buttress the fact that fixed point iteration could sometimes be very slow thus addressing fixed point iteration's deficiency of not being a faster algorithm, and I did not present a very good mathematical formatting to present my case . This process has taught me how to look for the missing stuff in peoples' documentations in order to perform an academic critique and look for loopholes to fill out and elucidate stuff that needs further elaboration. I have also learnt how to edit Wikipedia if I have any new findings to make it better for young and coming scholars. Should I have the opportunity to edit a Wikipedia page again, I will look for an information which will be beneficial to the public and then present them in a more scholarly manner by organizing them in the best of ways possible, explaining why the need for it, giving examples to buttress it and then support the process with a well organized proof.