On #wikipedia last night, a user pointed out I may be in violation of [[m:Don't be a dick]]. This is most probably true.
This whole thing has gone out of proportion, and I accept that both of my actions maybe seen as incivil (albeit in good faith).
I still, however, think the term hypocrite was unneccessarily harsh and I think the fact I am chair of [[WP:CJ]] is irrelevant.
Thanks,
Joe
On 5/3/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
I agree with Steve.
On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/05/06, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@octa4.net.au wrote:
- General jargon of which cruft is just one.
- Being put to AfD within hours or sometimes minutes of starting the
article. I think this is most offensive. New editors are finding their way. They are not obsessed with WP. They have a life. They will take time to develop the article. If someone thinks the article is bad,
they
make a note of it and follow it for a week or so, talk to the editor
on
his talk page and perhaps the article talk page. It is sheer bad
manners
and certainly biting the newbie to push something to Afd so quickly.
There
is no hurry. WP is not going to be perfect tomorrow if you speedy
delete
a few articles. 3. Comments on Afd like, "looks non-verifiable to me", "seems non-notable" and other comments that show the nominator has not done enough homework before jumping to conclusions. I have seen quite a few AfDs withdrawn recently after the nom realises that the debate is showing they were quite wrong. Nominating something for deletion has
its
responsabilities. 4. Nominations which are basically "I do not understand this, so lets see whether people want to delete it". We should want to improve and keep stuff, noit delete it.
To me, all of this strongly points to the fact that we need an intermediate step before the voting phase. If I come across an article that I think should probably be deleted, quite a lot is expected of me
- I have to become "the nominator", effectively leading the campaign
to delete the article, take into account the background of the user who created it, doing homework on it and so on.
I suggest we should have a simple template along the lines of prod, which would add a discreet label along the lines of "This topic may not be suitable for Wikipedia - can someone check it out?" or "There may be copyright issues in this article - verify please" or whatever.
AfD is a nasty process, and there is no need to subject a well meaning newbie to it. But there is also a need for experienced editors to tactfully remove unwelcome articles from Wikipedia. At all costs, save AfD for the actual disputes where people are already in conflict, and a vote is really called for.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.
-- Joe Anderson
[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.