User:Woodnot

subpage

These are my answers to the questionaire about the RfA.

A1 It could be countered by removing more personal questions.

A2 You could put more information about administration on the main page.

A3 I don't see a problem with co-nominations but if it's a problem a quota would be useful.

B1 One way that questions could be limited could be to reveiw there work on Wikipedia.

B2 Questions that should be off-limits should be be personal questions like; Age, Sex, Relationships.

B3 One way could be to stick to the administrators "policies" and nothing else.

B4 I beleive it should be based purely on votes and that non-editors should be allowed to take part.

B5 Certainly! But should't all editors have a go.

B6 I will repeat my answer to question B3, it should just be there policies there talking about in there adverts.

C1 Possibly by giving complex spelling and grammar courses for candidates.

C2 I think candidates should be mentored, and that is similar in both ideas.

D1 Possibly by stopping candidates who have abused Wikipedia from going through.

D2 That each Recall should have one question or more that is the same in all of them and I suppose it should be the responsibillity of the Bureacrats.

D3 The Recall should be made stronger and various Editors should be given the chance to become an administrator through messages.

D4 It could be a form of master peice such as correcting a highly un-obvious mistake , or writing a highly informative and accurate Document.

E1 My answer to A would be to come up with a question to find traces of being a vandal and B to ask more questions concerning the communitys ideals.

E2 I have not taken this examination conciously, so all ,y answers are in a way invalid, but I do think the personal elements should be removed.

Part 1, an introduction

I'm not going to give my identity or any clues as of yet, thats just common sense. However I will give bits of information on the way, as I voice my opinion on certain subjects. I have plans to enter politics, either in an existing party, or in a completely new party of my own founding. If would like you to (if you want to) to tell me through my talk page (which can be found on the discussion pages of Wild dogs and Tool use in animals) which ideologies this sounds like, whether their are any existing parties with opinions like this, and possibly a name for a party based around these principals.

Part 2, Why War must be permitted

Now I am going to talk mainly about how pacifism (particularly pacifism expressed through people who have not experienced war) has aspects that make it like a form of neo-imperialism. I am also going to talk about how War is useful, if not nessacary to the long term survival of the human race and why the alternatives to this are (in my opinion) less moral and ethical than actual war. Pacifism is the beleif in absolute non-violence, an early pacifist being Jesus (although part of his arrest and crucifixtion was about inciting violence, which could imply he had other teachings that haven't been discovered yet) and