Wikipedia:Collaborations of the Week/Male

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Male

Nominated on 23:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC); needs 18 votes by 31 January.

Has over 1,000 inbound links.

Support:

1. Beland 23:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Silence 18:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
3. NeoJustin 0:2:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
4. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
5. --Coolcaesar 21:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Mike H. That's hot 16:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Neutrality^talk 04:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Support on basis of male superiority :)--Urthogie 16:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Iten 07:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Duran^talk 23:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
11. --Wonderfool 22:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Gflores ^Talk 14:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Andrew Levine 06:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Carabinieri 18:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
15. ≈ Ekevu ^talk _contrib 18:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
16. --Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 01:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Iamvered 21:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• Supporting this one. Males are more important than females. -Silence 18:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Obviously. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• I'd say that females are more important because they are the primary determining factor in human population size & growth. ;-) — RJH 19:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • But they don't even have penises. Got you there, don't I?
  • Plus, the female sex is already far too predominant in modern culture; you can't go anywhere without seeing 'em! The male article needs much more work to get up to snuff, and to help spread awareness of issues and facts related to this commonly-forgotten minority. -Silence 19:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Plus, around 50 percent of the world is male :)!!--Urthogie 16:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Err, well I can see the future of this article is in good hands then. LOL — RJH 21:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You guys are idiots. i agree with some stuff, but the sexes are equally important. Without women there would be no children, i agree, but if ultrafeminists had their way, and there were no men, where would they get their offspring

• Isn't this a tad bit too broad for an article? Dunong 18:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No article is too broad. See Life or Existence or Human. --Urthogie 19:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It is! And it's in the right place for broad articles: an Encyclopedia! ≈ Ekevu ^talk _contrib 18:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Raising awareness of the page may lead to vandalism of the page. --GeLuxe 09:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• The page is heavily vandalized, anyway (for such a short article), and the comments here and on female make it seem unlikely that the resulting article will be NPOV.--Curtis Clark 04:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

---