---- Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Philip Welch wrote:
On May 5, 2006, at 7:17 AM, Phil Boswell wrote:
It's not as if those articles on Pokemon are taking up space which would otherwise be available for your own pet subject.
Undue weight. It's absurd for Pokemon to have 10,000 times more coverage within Wikipedia as, for instance, 19th century philosophy.
{{sofixit}}: rather than bitching that there are too many articles about something you don't like, try writing more articles about something you do.
In the meantime, who's going to want to write new articles in an environment which is at times actively poisonous towards newbies?
If you can get jumped with an AfD notice before you're finished writing a simple Pokemon article, who will want to invest the effort writing a complex article which will have "nn, delete" and "yah, boo, you're expertize meanz nothing to us, you elitist pig!!11!!" plastered over it before the virtual ink has dried?
We need to move towards an environment which will nurture the current generation of Pokemon writers and help them mature into 19th-century-literature writers at their own pace, rather than drive them away to their own little Pokepedia and lose them forever. -- Phil -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/We-need-a-policy-against-vote-stacking-t1553689.html#a... Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.
You are kidding aren't you? You are using Pokemon as a metaphor right? Please tell me that Pokemon is not a subject in Wikipedia. No Phil, you're just being a jerk and screwing with my head again. Knock it off. And if Pokemon really is in there, then it's your idiocy. -Boobs
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l