User talk:Starblueheather: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:27, 28 December 2009

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Starblueheather, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guess not. Nonetheless, I hope that we can get along. The last AfD where we participated left a sour mood and a few things hanging. I won't argue about the merits of the article and its kind, that's over and done with, but the etiquette front is relevant and may not be as bad as you think.

The remark that those who tag and delete PRODs and A7s are generally "drive-by editors from outside the field" is not intended as a value judgement, but the way those processes work. Familiarity with the subject is not expected or, optimally, relevant. You said that I question other editors' ability to reason. Certainly they can reason. Unfortunately committees, politicians and YouTube comments show us (though more strongly) that reasonable people using tools unsuited for reason is not the optimal combination. That's my impression of summary and proposed deletions. They mostly work, and are valuable, but I'm not comfortable with the lack of checks on their use to make sure reason's involved, nor with the false positives, where the outcome depended more on manpower and know-how than subject merit and article potential.

You also said that I question others' sanity. I only denigrated that of Wikipedians as a whole, and must insist. They're nuts. You're nuts. I'm definitely nuts. Look at us! Building an entirely new kind of encyclopedia - never mind the largest reference work anywhere, ever - and a co-operative, functioning online community to support it, ex nihilo, with a workforce of amateur volunteers, with types of technology and community that are barely understood, and essentially on the basis of "Hey, I wonder what happens if we do this?" We're off our collective, editable rocker. This attitude isn't as prevalent as it was way back when, but it's there and firmly entrenched. Don't take Wikipedians doubting their collective marbles as an insult when it's an expression of high spirits. I suspect you won't put a lot of weight on my ramblings right now, but we have Jimbo Wales on record on Wikipedia being insane.

Describing my subtlety with the "sledgehammer to the crotch" metaphor is not necessary. It is, however, hilarious. Merry Christmas, if we can still say that today. --Kizor 01:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 * [[Wikipedia:Tutorial|Tutorial]]
 I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|sign your name]] on talk pages using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out [[Wikipedia:Where to ask a question]] or ask me on {{#if:Mufka|[[User talk:Mufka{{!}}my talk page]]|my talk page}}. <!-- Template:Firstarticle --> Again, welcome!&nbsp;-- <font color="#000080">Mufka</font> [[User:Mufka|<sup>(u)</sup>]] [[User talk:Mufka|<sup>(t)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Mufka|<sup>(c)</sup>]] 00:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
+----
+Guess not. Nonetheless, I hope that we can get along. The last AfD where we participated left a sour mood and a few things hanging. I won't argue about the merits of the article and its kind, that's over and done with, but the etiquette front is relevant and may not be as bad as you think.
+The remark that those who tag and delete PRODs and A7s are generally "drive-by editors from outside the field" is not intended as a value judgement, but the way those processes work. Familiarity with the subject is not expected or, optimally, relevant. You said that I question other editors' ability to reason. Certainly they can reason. Unfortunately committees, politicians and YouTube comments show us (though more strongly) that reasonable people using tools unsuited for reason is not the optimal combination. That's my impression of summary and proposed deletions. They mostly work, and are valuable, but I'm not comfortable with the lack of checks on their use to make sure reason's involved, nor with the false positives, where the outcome depended more on manpower and know-how than subject merit and article potential.
+You also said that I question others' sanity. I only denigrated that of Wikipedians as a whole, and must insist. They're nuts. You're nuts. I'm definitely nuts. Look at us! Building an entirely new kind of encyclopedia - never mind the largest reference work anywhere, ever - and a co-operative, functioning online community to support it, ''ex nihilo'', with a workforce of amateur volunteers, with types of technology and community that are barely understood, and essentially on the basis of "Hey, I wonder what happens if we do this?" We're off our collective, editable rocker. This attitude isn't as prevalent as it was way back when, but it's there and firmly entrenched. Don't take Wikipedians doubting their collective marbles as an insult when it's an expression of high spirits. I suspect you won't put a lot of weight on my ramblings right now, but we have Jimbo Wales on record on Wikipedia being insane.
+Describing my subtlety with the "sledgehammer to the crotch" metaphor is not necessary. It is, however, hilarious. Merry Christmas, if we can still say that today. --[[User:Kizor|Kiz]]<font color="black">[[Special:Contributions/Kizor|o]]</font><font color="green">[[User_talk:Kizor|r]]</font> 01:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)