My views on Wikipedia Policy: A common problem new editors encounter is the vast array of rules and procedures that exist as Wiki Policies. They are not perfect and never will be.

• Consensus: or "collective agreement" is a grossly overemphasized ideal in the wiki world. It should be described as agreement to disagree when used to describe the process by which decisions on contentious subjects are reached in wikipedia. Mentioned 12 times on the deletion policy page, "deletion can be performed only by administrators. If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will normally not delete it.", highlights the fact that it might not be possible to agree.

• Articles for deletion (AFD): Even though I have been the target of a nomination for speedy deletion, I generally do not believe in deleting articles. In my opinion only extreme examples of neutral point of view or assumption of bad faith violation are grounds for deletion of articles.

• Wikipedia is not the Real World: There are many rules and procedures and it can be difficult to keep track of them all. Some are policies, some are guidelines, and some are mere suggestions. Unless you have been around for a while, it can be difficult to maneuver and even more difficult to make your point. Editors get hung up on real world practices. For instance ownership of an article they just wrote or changed significantly. Editors need to leave their real world notions at the welcome page.

Wikipedia makes no claims of fairness or truth. The only rules that matter are notability and verifiability. Therefore someone who wants to create a wacky article proclaiming the existence of a Counter-Earth can do so if they can find reliable sources for their claim. The notability guidelines serve two main purposes. First, as each requires the use of sources to demonstrate the notability (something the vast majority of editors fail to read, not to mention WP:V is a core policy) it works as a screening function to prevent made up items that have been part of the Criticisms of Wikipedia.

My views on Wikipedia Editors: Becoming a wiki editor has a steep learning curve. Even with all the help available online it takes months of hard work and studying to become an effective editor. These are some of the lessons I've picked up along the way.

• Synthesis & Original Research: Synthesis is an insidious failing and is closely related to original research. Plainly stated synthesis is creating content by interpreting the meaning of other peoples work. It can range from simply and innocently combining thoughts that seem to be related all the way to willful creation of ideas not attributable to any source. Care should be taken to avoid underlinking and overlinking, the biases (we all have them) of individual editors can be manifested in the choices we make for internal links. Editing is about building the web and creating encyclopedic articles, not about getting your message out.

• Ownership: All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article.

• Conflict of Interest: A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is a conflict between the ability to make contributions to any article in a way that is neutral, verifiable,and from reliable sources and the personal interests of the editor outside of the wiki world. Ideally one should abstain form editing those articles those authors deal with in the real world. However, when the editor is a subject matter expert, at a minimum an editor should proclaim the outside interests on the article's talk page or with a clear link to their own talk page and state their intention to remain neutral. Other editors can then view the edits made in the correct light. Wikipedia is not the real world. How important is it for you to edit any particular article? If you are editing a Wikipedia article in order to affect the real world, you have a COI.

• Tendentious editing & over linking: Persons who engage in tendentious editing which is partisan, biased or skewed and over linking to bolster their point of view are not monitored nearly closely enough and not corrected nearly as often as they should be. There should be a team of Admins responsible for maintaining neutrality in terms of WP:POV. It is not enough to ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?" There is too much "correctness" political or otherwise in wikipedia. Many times those internal links are merely WP:OR supporting the editors POV instead of the viewpoints of any recognized experts on the subject. This is also evident when editors cite blogs as sources. Admins should be more proactive in enforcing a neutral point of view.

I have become interested in the troubled teen industry. But on occasion I find something else that interests me.

• Young Adult Therapeutic Transition Program - deleted by admin
• /userboxes/troubled_teen
• Mel Wasserman
• Stone Mountain School
• NorthStar Center
• Youth Outcome Questionnaire
• Category:Therapeutic community

• /userboxes/1st amendment : ripped off from User:Gerrit_Erasmus
• Howard D. Abramowitz
• Plantado
• Unguentine
• Hughes Electron Dynamics Division (EDD) ‎
• List of catchphrases
• Cabo Pulmo
• McIver's Cabin
• TM Racing (motorcycle manufacturer)

These are articles that have been targeted by other editors who have an axe to grind. Most of them are about the troubled teen industry,

• Therapeutic boarding school
• Behavior modification
• Wilderness therapy
• Behavior modification facility
• Residential treatment center
• Aspen Education Group