On 23 Sep 2006, at 20:34, George Herbert wrote:
On 9/23/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
On 23 Sep 2006, at 19:20, George Herbert wrote:
On 9/23/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
On 23 Sep 2006, at 18:36, George Herbert wrote:
The existence of the school in question has been verified, as I understand it.
Nuking the article because one can't verify some other information in the article is nonsense. If it's not completely verifyable and you have some particular question as to its accuracy, then tagging it with unverified, then editing out the info in extremis, are the established thing to do.
This incident worries me. Nothing personal to you, Guy, or Cyde Weys, but there's an established consensus on schools. Just because you've been around for a long time and are admins doesn't mean you can game the procedures to delete something which consensus says should stay. Complaining when people kick back and complain about it is ... nice chutzpah?
This is part of the problem I had with Tony, back six months ago. It's fine to be bold. But the limit of being bold has to be when consensus kicks back and complains about what you just did. If your reaction when consensus kicks back is "process wonkery sucks" then there is a problem.
Trying to undo a consensus via admin guerilla warfare, nicking little slices off it here and there, is not a good way to fix things, and particularly not a good way to establish positive admin/general editor populace relations.
Would you be happy with as stub stating the existence of the organisation? Is this verifiable from secondary sources?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Happy? No, it should be a fleshed out, referenced article. That would make me happy.
Acceptable? Leave it as a stub with minimally verifyable information.
Bad? Leave info in it which is unverifyable and appears suspicious or spurious.
Worse? Keep it deleted.
All in my personal opinion, of course.
Would you be happy to convert it to a stub with only verifiable information? If so, it may be worth saying so on DRV.