From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Helpful Links
| Contact Admin |
Great Essays |
Interesting Editors |
| link |
link |
link |
[edit] My Projects
As I adore absurd silliness, I include the following:
[edit] Interesting quotes
| “ |
"Edit warring" is a bad thing, yes, but is it edit warring to revert once or twice over a given period of time, when those reverting on the other side have provided no reasonable argument to the original redirection/merge argument? By some definitions, yes, but regardless, the solution is not to say "edit war bad" but to give an alternative. We need guidance on how to assess these situations, on when to stop for discussion, and when to undo those knee-jerk reactions.
-- Ned Scott
|
” |
| “ |
That's the way consensus is supposed to work, and in practice, the way it does. Guidelines proposed, drafted and implemented by a few editors will never replace the consensus of editors. This is why guidelines should follow consensus, not consensus follow guidelines. It's counterintuitive, a form of circular logic, and wholly ineffective.
- MalikCarr
|
” |
[edit] GA Candidates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_candidates
[edit] Top Ten Things Ruining Wikipedia
- Editors that are diametrically opposed to an article's subject seem to dominate said article's content.
- Editors with, not only zero knowledge about an article's subject, but zero desire to research said subject having the tireless determination to contribute to Wikipedia.
- Too many single purpose editors whose only desire is to get rid of or include "χ" on Wikipedia.
- The philosophy that an infinite number of monkeys working at an infinite number of computers for an infinite number of years could produce an encyclopedia.
- DIMEist (Deletionist, Immediatist, Mergist, and Exclusionist) editors who think their sole purpose on Wikipedia is getting rid of 90% of the television, video game, and other pop culture articles. Here's a thought, why not go after all the non-notable rivers, highways, parks, and schools? I guess it is a matter of personal preference, after all.
[edit] Table code
| header 1 |
header 2 |
header 3 |
| row 1, cell 1 |
row 1, cell 2 |
row 1, cell 3 |
| row 2, cell 1 |
row 2, cell 2 |
row 2, cell 3 |
[edit] Great essays
[edit] Interesting editor list
- ConfuciusOrnis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) been given ample opportunity to demonstrate why it's POV and you've completely failed [1], homeopathy[2], pseudoscience[3], Richard Dawkins[4], atheism[5], creationist perspectives on dinosaurs[6], geocentric model[7], Kent Hovind[8], atheists in foxholes[9], mammary gland[10], Fat Bastard (character)[11], obesity[12]. George Orwell[13]
- Filll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) First BP demonstrates extremely poor judgement at one of OM's articles.
- Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- Jim62sch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- C56C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- Knight of BAAWA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- Hrafn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) [14], [15], [16], [17]idiosyncratic, counter-productive and disruptive I will however attempt to refrain from expressing in precise detail how low an opinion I have of you, your judgement and your reasoning skills. mudslinging admits to a limited knowledge of biology I don't give a flying toss Rvt vandalism?
- Philip J. Rayment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
[edit] Request Administrator
[edit] Userboxes
