User talk:72.24.231.159

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your edit to Wikipedia:Five pillars

If you would like to argue that an article that you have written belongs in the English Wikipedia and should not have been deleted, please use Wikipedia:Deletion review. Editing policy pages to be an expression of your disagreement with guidelines for inclusion is likely to be treated as vandalism. Jkelly 19:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth does the deletion of an article bother you enough to go around messing up pages? If you want help understanding our inclusion guidelines, please ask. However, if you're just here to express your disappointment as loudly as possible, you're just wasting your time and ours, and should find a different hobby. Jkelly 22:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. Please don't vandalise this page; all you're doing is wasting your time, as we will continue to revert it. Thank you for understanding. — Editor at Large(speak) 22:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm afraid not.

I am but a single ship adrift on the sea of Wikipedia's elitism. Gentlemen, you worship a false god. Accept salvation or face the wrath of Wikipedia's disgusting bias.

Wikipedia is run by elitists: Put simply, if we don't like your article, we're canning it. Chances are, you're a 'non-notable,' which means you fail at life. Only a wikipedia administrator can deem what the true important issues in the world are, because we know absolutely everything. You can "imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge" to your heart's content, but we still run the show. Heil Wales!

You're welcome, and thanks. I'm sure that there are other editors that would describe me as one of the grumpier Wikipedians that they had encountered. In any case, I certainly don't imagine myself to be involved in any kind of "war", but I suspect you're right about us being on "opposite sides" of at least one issue, which is that I think we really are publishing a whole lot of material that we don't need already, and you seem to think our criteria for inclusion are too strict. There are a lot of other people who would agree with you about that, but I am certain that your point would be a lot more convincing if you were to engage in a reasonable argument for loosening those criteria instead of pasting the above in inappropriate places. For instance, I have a lot of sympathy for being annoyed about how often "non-notable" really means "I've never heard of it", but I'm not going to go get to work making our inclusion guidelines more sensible, as I'm not really that interested in it. If you are, why not at least make an attempt to engage with them in real discussion? You may not get anywhere, but it certainly won't be less effective than your current approach. Jkelly 23:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I've tried. I've made attempt after attempt at communicating intelligently with the certain admins responsible for my disgruntlement, but it didn't phase them. My "current approach" is simply my reaction to their innate thickness. I understand why you find it irritating, and I'll stop for now. However, my opinion remains just as strong as before.