User:RadManCF/Mentorship
SerdechnyG
[edit]First things first. The most fundamental policies are the Five Pillars, located at WP:FIVE. Other core policies include:
- Neutral Point of View, located at: WP:NPOV
- Copyrights, located at: WP:COPYRIGHT
- Civililty, located at: WP:CIVIL
- Ignore all Rulls, located at: WP:IAR
Please note that IAR is very controversial, and many Wpeople on the English Wikipedia are reluctant to use it. I would recomend reading the essay "What Ignore All Rules Means" located here: WP:IAR?.
As you seem to be a devoted content writer, you should also be familiar with our notability standards, located here: WP:NOTABILITY, and with the Manual of Style, located here: WP:MOS. If you have any questions, or would like me to participate in any discussions in which you are involved, please let me know. I hope this is helpful to you. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. It all looks clear and familiar. GNG is the same in all wikies regardless of language. As for ignoring, actually I'm rule-obeying person, but sometimes it's too much rules to study. If I try to read (and understand) them all, I will miss a lot of useful time to write three-four interesting articles. And even if I will cram all rules from A to Z, even then there might be such events as those, where you had found me. Even if I'll write an article, which notability is obvious, as obvious as even Capt. Obvious can proove it, even then, just from the Blue will come some genius, and post AfD "No indication of notability whatsoever". -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I understand completely. I've misunderstood rules also. If you have any questions about any policy or guideline, let me know, and I'll explain as best I can. With regards to notability, there's more to know than the GNG. There are several additional guidelines relating to notability, most of which are linked to the GNG page. It's also important to remember that notability might not be obvious to everyone, and so notability is explicitly explained in the article, rather than relying on a reader's prior knowledge of what is notable, for example the first sentence in the White House article. Just about everyone reading the English Wikipedia knows why the White House is notable, but the article explains it anyway.
I also feel that trying to learn policy by reading and memorization alone is useless. What I know of Wikipedia policies and guidelines I learned by watching it in action, mainly at WP:ANI, WP:WQA(Wikiqette Alerts) and WP:AFD. ANI and WQA are good places to learn behavioral policies, while AFD is a good place to learn policies relating to inclusion of articles. As some people have taken issue with some of the articles you have written, I think it would be benificial to you to read deletion discussions, and the articles they relate to. This should help you see what wikipedians expect in an article.
Finally, I think you should ease up on EEMIV and Crusio. I'm not saying disengage from discussion with them, just that you should recognize that they were acting in good faith. You stated that a number of editors helped correct your mistakes, while EEMIV and Crusio only performed reverts, undos, and other destructive actions. That isn't uncommon, fortunately or unfortunately. There are a number of philosophies common on the English Wikipedia, that fall into two opposing camps: Inclusionists, and Eventualists on one side, and Immediatists, and Deletionists on the other. EEMIV and Crusio sound like Deletionists. Deletionists feel that the best way to deal with content they consider to be below their content standards is to delete it. Like I've said about essays, it's neither right nor wrong. Engaging them in discussion about their actions isn't a bad idea. Calling their actions persecution would be considered excessive here (although given the policy from the Russian Wikipedia that you cited, I can understand why you did. I don't know what happened at the Russian Wikipedia that led to the adaptation of that policy, but here, we do not think that nominating for deletion more than one article by a particular author to be, on its face, wikihounding/wikistalking. I would argue that structures such as WQA and ANI are adequate to deal with such things.) They could definitely have been more patient with you, but you could have debated their reasoning for their actions. I would strongly recommend doing so, as it would help you learn policy. I hope this has been helpful. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- What I know of Wikipedia policies and guidelines I learned by watching it in action, mainly at WP:ANI, WP:WQA(Wikiqette Alerts) and WP:AFD. ANI and WQA are good places to learn behavioral policies, while AFD is a good place to learn policies relating to inclusion of articles.
- Exactly as I imagined it. The only way to reach experience is to go for it. The only way to improve my English grammar is to write. And those AfD discussions are the best places to gain such experience and to study how to become more convincing in debates. As for those two, with whom I had clashed at Administrators' noticeboard - it is indispensable experience as well as AfD discussions, and maybe even more. Inclusionists and Deletionists exists not only in en-wiki, we suffering from deletionists even more in ru-wiki, but they're more united there than here. As usual, they pouncing on the articles of blacklisted users with all their dog-pack, regardless to their own thoughts. They do it just for fun and herd instinct, studying carefully all rules related to deletion and notability, but even don't try to read five pillars or Jumbo's principles (which, by the way, are the main rules and regulations in ru-wiki, despite they aren't even translated). It's a Delete Inc. Sometimes even silliest cases happens. For example (LOL), one administrator edited one of articles which I had created, and removed some trivia information about commercial use of the article's subject. When I restored it back and said that it's indeed silly, but it's proove a notability (in ru-wiki, commercial use of subject as TM or brand is a critical point to keep AfD-articles). He responded that "there are a lots of notability proofs in article. Its notability is obvious". Few days later some "red user" (those who logging in only to join AfD and haven't user page) put article for deletion. When I said this administrator about it, he put an wiki-vacation icon oh his talk-page (means "Don't bother me, I'm off-line") and responded to me: "Well, sometimes even administrators are wrong".
But here, in en-wiki, I see no unity among them. It's only a seldom couple that had latched on to the articles on my user page and nothing more.
- Exactly as I imagined it. The only way to reach experience is to go for it. The only way to improve my English grammar is to write. And those AfD discussions are the best places to gain such experience and to study how to become more convincing in debates. As for those two, with whom I had clashed at Administrators' noticeboard - it is indispensable experience as well as AfD discussions, and maybe even more. Inclusionists and Deletionists exists not only in en-wiki, we suffering from deletionists even more in ru-wiki, but they're more united there than here. As usual, they pouncing on the articles of blacklisted users with all their dog-pack, regardless to their own thoughts. They do it just for fun and herd instinct, studying carefully all rules related to deletion and notability, but even don't try to read five pillars or Jumbo's principles (which, by the way, are the main rules and regulations in ru-wiki, despite they aren't even translated). It's a Delete Inc. Sometimes even silliest cases happens. For example (LOL), one administrator edited one of articles which I had created, and removed some trivia information about commercial use of the article's subject. When I restored it back and said that it's indeed silly, but it's proove a notability (in ru-wiki, commercial use of subject as TM or brand is a critical point to keep AfD-articles). He responded that "there are a lots of notability proofs in article. Its notability is obvious". Few days later some "red user" (those who logging in only to join AfD and haven't user page) put article for deletion. When I said this administrator about it, he put an wiki-vacation icon oh his talk-page (means "Don't bother me, I'm off-line") and responded to me: "Well, sometimes even administrators are wrong".
- What I know of Wikipedia policies and guidelines I learned by watching it in action, mainly at WP:ANI, WP:WQA(Wikiqette Alerts) and WP:AFD. ANI and WQA are good places to learn behavioral policies, while AFD is a good place to learn policies relating to inclusion of articles.
- There is such expression in Russia, that start should be low (Russian: Начинать надо с малого). After I will become a skilled hand at such discussions about second-rate articles and about persecution-incidents, I will be ready to start writing more important issues and join more complicated debates. So, indeed it's helpfull, thank you very much. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I need your advice. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
To edit or not to edit, that's the question
[edit]Still, my persecutor is following me. I wrote a two one-sentence edits in one forgotten article, and guess what? User:EEMIV did not deleted it, nor put the sources request. He surprised me instead, by warning me that my minor edits was not so minor... I thought that it's over now, scum subsided, and I can breathe freely. But there is nothing of the sort. The adventures continue. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)