User:THE KING
| Template:User vandalised |
"The word 'truth' in '911 Truth Movement' is a form of newspeak. There isn't really any truth involved in the actual movement. Which really isn't a movement either. It's more of a gyration." (Thanks to User:Morton devonshire). |
Today's motto:
Useful links:
TODO:
Create Souljahz,- redirs to Theory X and theory Y,
Of late, i've noticed that a lot of wikipedians are more concerned with pissing each other off than working on an encyclopedia. This is very alarming, and dil over here is probably the user that typifies this attitude more than anyone else at the moment. Just take a look at some of his edits and you'll see what i'm talking about. It would be nice if people would just think when they're editing 'how does this improve the article im working on' when they edit. Don't take the easy road, which is deletion. Take the morally high ground, and fix an article.
List of people who need to take a serious look at their policy of taking the easy road:
Rant continues: WTF is with the wiki-fads of mainstream media regurgitation, sources and referencing, and image 'verifiability'? These trends are a threat to wikipedia. I stand with the original editors, in that a lot of people can edit and collaborate to make a good article, even if the subject wasn't published in the Royal Herald or doesn't have 100,000 google hits.. NOR defeats the purpose of an open encyclopedia - that anyone can edit it! It is so elitist, and v different to when i joined the wiki. I used to be very pro-wiki, and still am, but if it goes any further i would support a fork, and i'm sure i'm not alone on this one. The article Cult checklist is a good example of where over depencence on referencing and covering your own ass has led to an article which could have been a concise representation of the thoughts of the people has turned into a pile of crap, a useles repository of meaningless data, which ironically is what we are trying to avoid.