User:Grenavitar/2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User:Grenavitar

You have new messages (last change).

This is me - it's a kangaroo not a donkey

1 Interesting Thoughts
2 Old Banners
3 Template:Catholicism
4 I arghh
5 I admin?

[edit] Interesting Thoughts

or so I think...

Vandalism on wikipedia is a linear function [f(x)] and article quality is logarithmic [ln(x)] so should there not be some threshold of article quality where the wiki format fails and more harm is regularly being done to a good article than good and therefore all change should have to seek approval. I'm sure this goes against wiki conventions, however, for a stable version I think this would greatly help. There would be a vote for each article to and then the page would be protected... any changes found to be important would be discussed on the talk page and then added by an admin. If we look at the rate of addition to good articles (that aren't current events of course) this really would not be much strain on admins. The threshold would likewise have to be a very good article. I think that's an interesting idea. :O

and

Reference I have a curiosity and this might not be the place but... Does the word "rights" carry a POV? Most people would not argue the view of humans have a general right to life (even death penalty is only in "extreme" conditions). A more would argue (at least in the US) that civil rights for all races are objectionable. Therefore they are not the "rights" of the people. The same goes for suffrage for both genders. Today we are continually the civil rights movement and many would argue that gay rights are a continuation and therefore should be accepted as such. This as we can see by the news stories is hotly debated. Is it the "right" of gays to marry or is it government overstepping its right if this is allowed? Using the term gay rights is very one sided and implies that they do have the inherent right to this is it not? When we step into the future pedophile rights or child lover rights might be the issue as a contination of the civil rights movement and sexual revolultion: allowing consenting children to participate in sex with adults. With human views seemingly gravitating to the acceptance of casual sex this does not seem so outlandish to me, however, starting a timeline and calling Lindsay Ashford the head of pedophile rights at this point in time might be frowned upon. This then follows (as I see it) that we should be able to create a timeline of white rights based on the KKK and show the progress (and then loss thereof) of "white rights" or whatever you would like to call it. My point is that the word rights heavily reflects views prevalent in our time which is a very chronocentric point of view. I am, of course, not thinking that any of these title will change, they are so far ingrained that we know these movement by such point of view terms. I am just curious to user opinions on this issue. Thanks (Originally posted on Talk:Gay_rights_timeline#Rights_and_POV)

[edit] Old Banners

I am currently discussing this issue with Mr. Gren — Muwahid

Help save images with unknown sources by finding their sources and copyright status then adding them to wikipedia!

Note: This user has recently suggested a new policy. For more information see Wikipedia:Limited administrators!

[edit] Template:Catholicism

not that I'll ever make it, but I'll at least put topics for fun.

Catholicism

List of catholicism topics

Sacraments

[edit] I arghh

Archived old section

Take me out to the ball game...

Islam: 2
Criticism: 22

Over time you begin to realize that wikipedia is much greater and much worse than you thought. The ability to create articles like that on the 7 July 2005 London bombings so quicky is amazing and the number of articles we can have here and the effort some users take on them is astounding. However, you also notice that any semi-controversial article trying to maintain scholarly integrity will be destroyed. From my own editting experience Jihad... well, just about any Islam page actually, is horribly POV. Users like IFaqeer, Zora, Mustafaa are all educated and willing to educate themselves to help write NPOV articles with some substance, not just news reports. On the other hand users like Zeno of Elea, Germen, and Enviroknot have something against non-Islam bashing on Islam pages. I have no idea of their motives nor do I want to. I just want them and those who constantly vandalize Islam with childish references to go away. Users like Doc glasgow seem to find the same problem on Christian articles. He notes on his user page to avoid Jesus and the Bible because of their constant changing much of it POV. Zora has also talked about the problems of copyeditting Islam because it is constantly changed and often not for the better in respect to writing style and content. So, while I don't want to argue for wikipedia based genocide or internment, I'm not sure I'd shed a tear if it happened. Hopefully people will learn what scholarly sources are and maybe greater usage of page protection until admins can change to draft versions submitted on talk pages. Maybe that's against the "wiki way" but so is idiocy. ...Here's to hoping...

No matter your POV blatant vandalism is bad. Unless it's to an environmental engineer.

User:Muwaffaq - Jesus->Muhammad - what was that editor thinking....
User:Saduj al-Dahij - comment vandalism
User:Zeno of Elea - Allah Crescent

[edit] I admin?

This user [1] an administrator on the English Wikipedia.

I am apparently an admin now. Firstly, please talk to me if you think I have done something wrong. I am new and trying to do things correctly. If you think I have done something wrong please talk to me about it.