Revision as of 20:38, 20 March 2006 editCiriii (talk | contribs)426 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:00, 20 March 2006 edit undoCiriii (talk | contribs)426 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
'''''This week's Recommended page:''''' | '''''This week's Recommended page:''''' | ||
] | |||
This was originally written by an anon and despite being slightly edited, and kinda unencyclopaedic, it is very factual in the biographical side and I reckon it's a really good read nontheless. | |||
Revision as of 21:00, 20 March 2006
Today is 25 December 2024 |
This user maintains a strict policy advising against all personal attacks. |
I TEND TO RAMBLE!
Statement of WIKIness 1
EDIT DON'T REVERT I will never revert a page that has been edited in good faith. If someone has something to say, even if 99% of the populace disagree it probably is still relevant. This is where there is no consensus between wikepedians:
NPOV vs. POV : Actually Wikepedia's policy on Neutrality is rather contradictory to itself and can be read in two ways. 1) Avoid any opinions and include only published fact 2} Include all fact, and represent all opinions. Since there is no way to decide which facts are correct, the second one seems logical, and unlike other encyclopaedias this one has the added bonus of a discussions page where you can often see nationaliStic, local or egoistic pride shine! And whence form an objective view. What a bonus, eh?!
I am unlikely to revert first time vandalism on a userpage. Editing, NOT reverting, is always the best way! I bet you can find something worthy in every edit...look hard! Otherwise those trying to Be Bold...will eventually give in! What is the point in constant reverts, a revert war...only one opinion being promulgated! That is not objectivity, nor beneficial.
Statement of WIKIness 2
NATIONALISTIC PRIDE IN ARTICLES IS DAFT Encyclopaedic nationalism is increasing. More and more discussion pages contain rivalries, especially over history. I'm not naming names but I'm sorry..there are some areas in history that are accepted as fact by scholars and governments, no matter what the old wives tales say..you can if you so wish revise history into a nationalist mould, however, the French forces didn't win at Agincourt, The British Empire didn't ultimitely become a galactic force and Andorra doesn't rule the world!! It is really egotistical to dismiss somebody's opinion because it is based on a different national school of thought than your own, equally it is not productive to edit an article brutally to your way of thinking. A compromise should be reached to provide the best of both views. You cannot dismiss someone becuase of their birthplace.
This user lives in the United Kingdom. |
UK | This user uses British English. |
This user lives in England. |
This user is proud to be English. |
derbyshire | This user is from Derbyshire, "The Peak District" |
Welcome matey!. If you are through that rambling at the top, and made it here, heres a warm coffee, and a seat by the hearth.! My name's Christopher, call me that or Ciriii
I have a degree in history, specialising in European political and Royal history over a fairly broad period. I have a real interest in politics and theology too. thgese are all pretty intermingled though. I know a fair few languages, and a few that aren't listed on Babel, though they are mostly dead now, and my translation skills may not be required!
This week's Recommended page:
Mary Wollstonecraft This was originally written by an anon and despite being slightly edited, and kinda unencyclopaedic, it is very factual in the biographical side and I reckon it's a really good read nontheless.
Recommeded discussions page:
Holocaust denial This is a really contentious issue with many archived discussions, it is still ongoing and there is simply too much to take in. I don't know but maybe the discussions page merits several articles of its own. My Two penneth: I believe there is a case for revision of certain facts. But denying any or all facts relating to the event is misguided. Similarly, do-gooders should not mistakenly label revisionism as denial!
My Contributions, Etc>>>
]
Categories: