Please don't take the attempt to delete this article personally. You're obviously trying to add to the encylopedia, and I know it's frustrating to see people undoing your work. My suggestion is to spend a little time bumming around the project and you'll pretty quickly get the hang of it. The important thing is not to get discouraged and don't take stuff personally.-- Kubigula ( talk) 05:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
No.
It is clearly ridiculous. Someone lame-ass wiki troll simply called in his friends and had them all vote 'nay' on the article.
Look. If you are going to accept user generated content, do so. If not, simply reserve this freedom for academics.
I do not doubt that this draconian bullying is a notable cause for wikipedia's poor showing in the fundraising department, notwithstanding its huge traffic.
- I'm sorry you feel that way. I can say that nobody called in any friends; there are just a lot of people that watch new articles. Wikipedia welcomes user generated content, but it's not quite the wild west. There are lots of guidelines, but really only five defining principles. You can read them here, if you are interested.-- Kubigula ( talk) 06:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but that first pillar is inscrutable. Defining wikipedia in the negative shines very little light on what wikipedia is or strives to be. Moreover, you and your crew should spend a lot more time checking the accuracy of high-traffic entries. Many are laden with blatant falsities - I remember, for example, the article on the philosopher G.E. Moore contended that he co-founded Intel. Completely erroneous! Oh well, you've scared me away. You and your friends are good at that. Awesomdude 06:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Please don't take the attempt to delete this article personally. You're obviously trying to add to the encylopedia, and I know it's frustrating to see people undoing your work. My suggestion is to spend a little time bumming around the project and you'll pretty quickly get the hang of it. The important thing is not to get discouraged and don't take stuff personally.-- Kubigula ( talk) 05:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
No.
It is clearly ridiculous. Someone lame-ass wiki troll simply called in his friends and had them all vote 'nay' on the article.
Look. If you are going to accept user generated content, do so. If not, simply reserve this freedom for academics.
I do not doubt that this draconian bullying is a notable cause for wikipedia's poor showing in the fundraising department, notwithstanding its huge traffic.
- I'm sorry you feel that way. I can say that nobody called in any friends; there are just a lot of people that watch new articles. Wikipedia welcomes user generated content, but it's not quite the wild west. There are lots of guidelines, but really only five defining principles. You can read them here, if you are interested.-- Kubigula ( talk) 06:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but that first pillar is inscrutable. Defining wikipedia in the negative shines very little light on what wikipedia is or strives to be. Moreover, you and your crew should spend a lot more time checking the accuracy of high-traffic entries. Many are laden with blatant falsities - I remember, for example, the article on the philosopher G.E. Moore contended that he co-founded Intel. Completely erroneous! Oh well, you've scared me away. You and your friends are good at that. Awesomdude 06:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)