User talk:Gwen Gale: Difference between revisions
archivin' this codswallop |
A response on the deleted discussion on the deleted Alex Jones section |
||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
<!-- DO NOT POST YOUR MESSAGE HERE. Please post all messages AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE and if we're already talking about something please keep it in the same thread. NEVER EVER try to copy-paste old threads from my archives onto this page unless you CANNY know what you're doing (and there is wontedly no need to do this), thanks --> |
<!-- DO NOT POST YOUR MESSAGE HERE. Please post all messages AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE and if we're already talking about something please keep it in the same thread. NEVER EVER try to copy-paste old threads from my archives onto this page unless you CANNY know what you're doing (and there is wontedly no need to do this), thanks --> |
||
Alex Jones Discussion |
|||
It strikes me as improper that you deleted this discussion. The point in posting something on a Talk page is surely to receive responses from the person concerned and the others on the topic of discussion. That, inevitably, takes time. You have simply deleted the whole section without leaving time for it to be properly discussed. However, it should be clear to anyone that I tried to raise concerns in the proper way. My concerns can now be taken to the next stage. |
|||
You say the section was restored anyway. That's quite beside the point. It's not tremendously important whether that section exists on the Alex Jones page one way or the other. The point is that someone endowed within administrative powers clearly is casually violating Wikipedia conduct guidelines and, as I demonstrated, clearly fails to understand its core policies. In your little response, you ignored those allegations entirely. |
|||
Incidentally it is both arrogant and impertinent to make the smug remark that someone needs to learn more about Wikipedia without saying exactly what that is. As I pointed out in detail, you, too, have a lot more to learn about Wikipedia. Unfortunately, simply reading the text of Wikipedia policy pages will not do much good if the judgement which applies them is fundamentally flawed. |
|||
Revision as of 19:46, 20 March 2009
 | Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read through this first to find out why. |
Talk archives
| |
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 |
Alex Jones Discussion
It strikes me as improper that you deleted this discussion. The point in posting something on a Talk page is surely to receive responses from the person concerned and the others on the topic of discussion. That, inevitably, takes time. You have simply deleted the whole section without leaving time for it to be properly discussed. However, it should be clear to anyone that I tried to raise concerns in the proper way. My concerns can now be taken to the next stage.
You say the section was restored anyway. That's quite beside the point. It's not tremendously important whether that section exists on the Alex Jones page one way or the other. The point is that someone endowed within administrative powers clearly is casually violating Wikipedia conduct guidelines and, as I demonstrated, clearly fails to understand its core policies. In your little response, you ignored those allegations entirely.
Incidentally it is both arrogant and impertinent to make the smug remark that someone needs to learn more about Wikipedia without saying exactly what that is. As I pointed out in detail, you, too, have a lot more to learn about Wikipedia. Unfortunately, simply reading the text of Wikipedia policy pages will not do much good if the judgement which applies them is fundamentally flawed.