I didn't say that it had no good use, just that I've never personally
seen one. I've tried it on stagnant pages, & it usually produced a
xenophobic display of WP:OWN. If there were any admins around, it
produced threats to block as disruptive. I didn't run into any really
nasty people, for I never did get blocked--i ran away first.
Since then I've found a much more effective method. Start with
Proposed Deletion, & if the tag is removed, go to AfD. By far the most
effective way of getting an article improved. I'm not really nasty
myself, so I haven't started with speedy unless I actually thought it
needed to be deleted, and nothing less would do.
With time, I've had the satisfaction of seeing an increasing number of
the pages I months ago tried to edit coming round to AfD. I just
watch. I'm not vindictive.
(All this, of course, is slightly exaggerated for effect) - DGG
On 6/24/07, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
"David Goodman" wrote
As for BOLD, I have never seen it cited for good
ends; most good
editing doesn't need it. It is usually used as the attempted
justification for edits against the consensus.
Yes, yes. WP:TIMID must be the way. If a page has been one way for a whole year, all the
more reason for having it the same for a decade. And to hell with the times when editing
need to be radical. Let's have scared editors.
Actually, BOLD is required for numerous different reasons, none of which individually may
be common these days.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from
www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.