Ryan Wetherell wrote:
On 12/29/06, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Ryan Wetherell" wrote
Just objecting to the PROD is too easy an
excuse to remove it. It's not hard at all to give a sentence about
why you think an article is important.
My story about PROD: User:Arthur Rubin stuck one on [[Hillel Furstenberg]] shortly after
I made it. With some nonsense about 'no assertion of notability' and then some
other nonsense about not meeting [[WP:PROF]]. As far as I can see, Furstenberg meets each
of the six criteria in section 1 of WP:PROF. So my reason for objecting to a PROD on an
article about someone who is a member of both the US and Israeli Academies of Sciences is
that the thing was ludicrous. Please bear in mind the number of people with time on their
hands.
And you justified yourself in the edit summary when you removed it;
that's good enough. I hope that's somewhat in-line with what James
Hare is suggesting.
I don't know about James, but I expressed a similar sentiment in an
earlier discussion, and I'm certainly quite satified with the way both
the tagging and untagging was handled in this case.
Look at it like this: when one removes a PROD tag (or in some other way
reverts another editor) without giving any reason, there's no way for
the person being reverted to tell whether the actual reason is "Of
course he's notable, he just won the Nobel Prize" or "Waaah! Don't you
dare touch my article!" or anything in between.
The same goes for adding the tag in the first place. Since the person
who added it gave a reason, you could respond to that specific concern.
Since you also gave a reason for removing the tag, the person who
added it could read it and agree. If either of you hadn't explained
your reasoning, the other one would've been left guessing, and the whole
thing would probably have gone to AfD.
"Explain your actions" should in my opinion be right up there with
"Assume good faith" and "Avoid edit wars".
--
Ilmari Karonen