What's the best content you've ever contributed to Wikipedia?

The 15 admins I nominated for RFA and/or coached. None of them gone rogue yet!

final nighttime i became into bored so I edited the bugs Bunny website the line beginning up with 'bugs Bunny is a fictional character' I replaced too 'bugs Bunny is a fictional character who likes to consume penis and trip penis' i became into warned, so I then made a actual replace to the dates on the Nibiru website, and corrected the dates. My content cloth became into reverted basically approximately immediatly, even inspite of the undeniable fact that what I edited it too became into splendid, have been given to confess, most of the admin are smug sh.. :D. ^_^.

I've worked on three featured articles. (Under another nickname, though. This nickname is only for Yahoo! Answers.)

Of course, the MyWikiBiz and Wikipedia Review crowds don't think that featured articles or new content are useful at all on Wikipedia, so these contributions don't count. At all. Feh.

Some of the excellent work that I contributed to Wikipedia (before coming to my senses and realizing how many punks think they own the place) is found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thekohser#Wikipe...

Probably the most challenging of those articles was the one on National Fuel Gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Fuel_Gas ). The one that wins the "elegance" award would have to be the Asparagus graphics discussion (http://www.mywikibiz.com/Image:Asparagus_productio... ). The article on Job sharing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_sharing ) is pretty decent, too.

Now, I save my better efforts for sites other than Wikipedia, where I can maintain some level of control over my content. For example, which of these articles is the better one?

Brandywine Springs (on Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandywine_Springs

Brandywine Springs (elsewhere):

http://www.mywikibiz.com/Brandywine_Springs

And, in closing, I'd have to say that the work I did on one particular coal mining company's article was decent, though certainly not my best. It's rather comical to have been indefinitely blocked for having written that article -- all for free, not in exchange for any payment. Perfect example, though, of how Wikipedia is full of self-righteous blowhards who think they own the place. Clearly, they don't understand what "open source" really means.

Going forward, I've learned that the best content I can ever contribute to Wikipedia is the content I don't contribute to Wikipedia!

I met a guy in a bar who said he had written a brilliant article on Einstein's general theory of relativity but it was completely reverted the next minute as "vandalism" so he took the hint. Regardless of whether or not I believe the fellow, I'm not going to waste anything good I have on Wikipedia.

My best contributions were deleted as original research, so I started a new site, Wikinfo.org

One featured article, one good article, one 'Did You Know' and some other stuff.

That reminds me, I'm going to google wikipedia and see if the wikipedia definition of wikipedia is one of the top search results.

If so then I'm going to give it a truthfully spiteful definition.