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