User talk:Sandstein: Difference between revisions
→Resignation from Wikipedia: deleted, my talk page is not a messageboard |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
{{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} |
{{User talk:Sandstein/Header}} |
||
== Resignation from Wikipedia == |
|||
When Wikipedia first started, it was a very nice project. You could contribute to existing articles or start new ones, and it was fun to watch other users improve on what you had written -- expanding it, making it clearer, adding more information, etc. It really worked well for a number of years. |
|||
But those days are over. I've found lately that if you try to contribute anything at all, somebody immediately deletes your contribution, citing some obscure violation of the minutiae of thousands of Wikipedia rules and policies. I've sometimes spent hours and hours arguing with someone over making even the tiniest change to an article; then after having soundly won the argument, had my contribution deleted anyway. Start a new article on some topic, and it gets almost immediately deleted. Try correcting or adding to an existing article, and your edits are immediately reverted. Try to look up an article you wrote a few years ago, and it's gone. There's just no point in spending time on the Wikipedia project anymore, when anything you do is immediately deleted. After many years of contributing to Wikipedia, I've finally had enough of fighting with these self-appointed deletionist Wikipedia topic police. I won't be contributing to it anymore, and will be joining the increasing number of people who are abandoning the Wikipedia project. [[User:SimpsonDG|SimpsonDG]] ([[User talk:SimpsonDG|talk]]) 14:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution]] == |
== [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution]] == |
||
Revision as of 07:28, 3 December 2011
Welcome to my talk page!
Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:
- Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.
- Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.
- If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].
- If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
You deleted an article that had consensus to delete. I am a little miffed that the nominator, anyone in the closing discussion, or you, as the closer, did not consult the members of the FOOTY project who cleared it, the recreator (me), or the admin that desalted it for their reasoning. Will you move it back into my userspace again? GNG is already met in several people's opinions (I can only assume that the editors commenting did not look at the sources from their comments but maybe they turned into dead links or there was just the norm kneejerk reaction), but we can now wait for the subservient NFOOTY to also be met. Since it will happen sooner or later then I would like to have a copy to resubmit. If you are not comfortable with it in my user space I can copy and paste it into MSWord and request deletion after.Cptnono (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
There is also a disambig page that is screwed up now. Do you want me to jump on that or will you do it yourself?Cptnono (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, considering that the article has already been userfied once to your userspace, and that the subsequent deletion discussion which I closed was unanimously in favor of deletion, I don't feel comfortable userfying it again without a DRV consensus that it's at least potentially notable. If you need the raw deleted text for your own reference, I copied it to [1], which will expire in a day because of copyright/attribution issues. You know probably better than I what needs to be done with respect to any dab pages. Sandstein 18:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Brett Kimberlin article
Hi-I see there has been some controversy over the Brett Kimberlin case--not surprising. I do think it deserves an entry, particularly as Kimberlin was the subject of a 1996 book CITIZEN K and has been in the national news for three or four other different reasons. Could you give me any guidance on what is required for this article to get started? Kimberlin's convictions are a matter of public record, and he has been reported on in a number of reputable news sources over the years. Was it simply an overwhelming negative tone to the articles--an omission of facts, etc? Can you give me some insight into the primary reason for deletion? I want to devote serious effort to this one, according to the rules, but-frankly-don't want to plunge in if it's going to be a waste of time. In short, what elements and characteristics of a good faith effort on this one include, in your estimation? thanks--Oldsmobile Oldsmobile (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I assume you refer to Brett Kimberlin, discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 17. Sorry for the delay in answering, but I recommend that you ask this question of the person who deleted the article, User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. From what I see in the log, the reason for deletion was Wikipedia:CSD#G10. Sandstein 07:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Web.py deletion review
Hello,
You deleted and salted web.py in October 2007, and at the time it was not notable. I think it is definitely notable now; see for example [2] and the "Who uses web.py?" section on [3].
Thank you. InverseHypercube 03:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. Sorry, I disagree. Web searches are never proof of notability (see WP:SOURCESEARCH) and neither is who uses anything (WP:INHERIT). What is needed for notability is that somebody who is not related to the subject must have written about the subject in a reliable source in some detail, see WP:GNG. Sandstein 07:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)