G'day Ray,
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:15:33 -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
If there is any expectation that the editor will be around it is worth starting a personal dialogue. If he is a flash in the pan who happened to add something on a momentary impulse and be gone in a short time, waiting a while to remove trivial but harmless material will help to avoid the most pointless arguments.
The biggest problem is single-purpose accounts, who will endlessly request deletion review of blatant spam.
It doesn't take long for that lot to stand out in a crowd with their evident bad faith. Blatant spam may not even be harmless. You can start by giving them the benefit of the doubt, but with a little patience the lack of doubt is soon apparent.
(I assume you meant "Blatant spam may even be harmless")
AfD and RC Patrol and Wikiproject Spam and those CVU people and so on seem to have taken a different view of spam. Remember when we had biased articles and said, "Time to rewrite this to be more neutral"? Remember when we said to those who wanted to have articles about their companies or whatnot in Wikipedia and we said, "Good authors are always welcome, just don't step out of line, punk"?
Now we say, "There's a minor chance, if I reverse the polarity of the neutron flow, that the subject of this article may approve of its presence in Wikipedia! We'd better take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure!"