"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.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 12/29/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@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.
Charles
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.
--Ryan
Ryan Wetherell wrote:
On 12/29/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@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".