On 23 Sep 2006, at 20:34, George Herbert wrote:
On 9/23/06, Stephen Streater
<sbstreater(a)mac.com> wrote:
>
> On 23 Sep 2006, at 19:20, George Herbert wrote:
>
>> On 9/23/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater(a)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(a)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.