From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
- If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
- If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
|
Apparently, some clod decided about two seconds after I entered information into this blank page that is linked to some other pages in wikipedia, that it was in need of immediate deletion. I really hope that administrators have some useful function other than stupid interference with the creation of articles. Stepp-Wulf 04:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC).
- WP:CIVIL. As the tag says, "does not assert the importance or significance of the subject". To fix this, explain why he's important enough to be in the encyclopedia, and be nice. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Slapping a speedy on an article a few seconds after it was created is not exactly being "nice" either. Especially when the editor has been around for awhile. Bkonrad 04:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Howdy! Please review WP:CSD, I believe my use of the speedy tag was completely appropriate. A couple things: First, Wikipedia policies apply to everyone equally, newcomers and oldtimers. Asking for special treatment based on you being here for a while isn't really super great, if anything, you should be held to a higher standard than new users. Second, with the use of the Preview button, you can put a fully formed article up in one shot. Traditionally, as you know, the purpose of each and every submitted edit is for the article in question to be in a 'Ready to publish' and standards compliant state the whole time. Preview allows you do do this without leaving the article undone. We shouldn't be arguing over this, we should be working together to make a great encyclopedia. I hope you'll consider the above. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is NOT a bureauracracy. Applying CSD criterion willy nilly without due consideration is counterproductive. Being disrespectful of other users is likewise counterproductive. Expecting everyone to work in a prescribed manner (like using preview or always contributing a fully-formed article at the first crack) is just not very realistic. Traditionally, as you know, the purpose of each and every submitted edit is for the article in question to be in a 'Ready to publish' and standards compliant state the whole time. Where in the heck did this concept ever come from???? Can you point to ANY accepted policy or guideline that puts it so bluntly? A HUGE number of articles, quite possibly a majority, began as stubs which often did little or nothing to justify existence. CSD was always a first line of defense against utter garbage sticking around. It was never intended as an obstruction for serious contributions. While it is good that you at least notify contributors on their talk pages, I think you could exercise some degree of discretion as to how quickly you tag something. Bkonrad 04:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Bkonrad, with respect, if you feel I haven't been editing in good faith, please feel free ot use the RfC procedure to seek resolution. I believe community consensus is with me on this. If you'll review the state the article was in when I added the nn-bio tag, I believe you'll agree that it was appropriate. If you don't, let's discuss the specifics of how the policy works and figure out where the disconnect is. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, this is far from a matter for RfC. I certainly don't think that you haven't been editing in good faith. I'm just trying to offer some freindly advice. Though perhaps I'm not the best person to be offering advice. Wikipedia has changed dramatically since I have begun editing here (and not all for the better, IMO) and perhaps I'm just out of touch with what Wikipedia has become. IMO, we have become too accepting of a "delete first, ask questions later" attitude--which is very, very, very different from how things were in the past--and which is a slap in the face to persons making good faith contributions to the encyclopedia. older≠wiser 05:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- No worries. I discussed this on #wikipedia to get a sanity check, and I got a good reminder to check the "links to this" before tagging for delete, which I'll do. There was an existant article already linking to it, and if I had dug deeper, I would have seen it. I still suggest that every editor make a best attempt to use the tools in place (like preview) and take steps to avoid looking like CSD fodder. Also, I believe my WP:CIVILITY request for the initial poster above was appropriate, as I'm pretty sure that "clod" and "stupid interference" aren't really super constructive. See ya around! Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
