On Jul 17, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Timwi wrote:
I think people are used to forums and Usenet where proof by assertion is a valid technique and where saying the same thing only louder will very often work.
Admins get away with that all the time.
"Admin XYZ called me names and insulted me, he needs his admin powers revoked!" - XYZ: "Ah, but you violated [[WP:3RR]] and [[WP:TLA]] and [[WP:YHNCTSMYT]], get lost, EOD."
I'm sorry, but if you think citing Wikipedia policy such as the three-revert rule (which can and *is* verifiable, look at a users contribs) is "proof by assertion" you are simply mistaken. "Proof by assertion" would be something like: "X is a bad person, because I say so." being considered a proof that X is indeed a bad person. Claiming X did something verifiable, in order to explain to X why e is being sanctioned for doing it, is nothing even a little like "proof by assertion". Please be more careful in your future postings, if you want people to continue to take you seriously.
Maybe I think this way because I was treated that way on my very first day. Although admittedly I didn't get blocked or anything, I did make a good-faith contribution which was, within minutes, deleted (the correct action would have been to turn it into a redirect). Not knowing that someone consciously deleted it (there was nothing to indicate this, and to this day there still isn't anything to indicate this to newbies, so the first impression is a technical glitch),
Actually, now there *is* a nice, (hopefully) clear line in the message that comes up when you go to a redlinked page, that says: (paraphrasing) "If you expected a page to be here, it may be a database delay, or it may have been deleted - click *here* to check the deletion log, and *here* to see the discussion, if there was one." So, while this certainly may not have been there when you made your page, and it certainly may be able to be further clarified or explained (I'd *love* any suggestions you'd care to make on this subject), there *is* such a message. (And once the developers get the "oversight" bit better arranged, hopefully we can turn the viewing of deleted edit summaries and revision dates back on, which will make it even more obvious.)
Jesse Weinstein