| Revision as of 17:37, 7 November 2022 editNigel Ish (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers77,062 editsNo edit summaryTag: Reverted← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:30, 7 November 2024 edit undoNigel Ish (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers77,062 editsNo edit summary | ||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Per ] - by demanding that copies of print sources be sent to the the GA reviewer, this drives to the removal of high quality reliable sources and the ownership of articles to ensure that the article only has references that are in the possession of the nominator. This will do nothing to improve the encyclopedia, and will instead produce poorer articles with easy to find sources. If good edits won't be kept just because they use print sources and someone in the future wants the gratification of GAs and the Kudos and influence that goes with it) then I'm not sure I see the point in editing at all, considering most of my edits do use print sources of some sort and so are considered inferior.] (]) 22:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| It is clear from discussions on ANI that certain editors feel strongly that WP:NPA does not apply to a group of superusers, and that no-one should be allowed to criticise them - and that anyone who does should be thrown out of here. It is also very clear that certain editors have decided that I am to have no rights to say anything. Why they object so strongly to any sort of civility is unknown | |||
| : And apparently I have been banned from the GA process. . Shame there is no community discussion of it. But it's clear that I am not welcome at GA or at any articles going through GA, so it goes.] (]) 14:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: | |||
| Fundamentally the elevation of DTTR to policy means that editors cannot be warned of behaviour that is problematic on their talk pages as all the templates do is package such warnings in a consistent manner. It is the message that disruptive editors object to, not the packaging. As there are procedures that require the use of templated warnings - i.e. copyvio and edit warring, where action is often not taken unless an appropriate number of warnings have been left, then these procedures cannot be enforced. It is clear that such issues are not important to those who hang out at ANI. | |||
| With discussion of behaviour issues on the editor's talk pages prohibited, that leaves ANI - but as the same editors who prohibit the use of warnings also attack people who raise issues at ANI, then ANI itself is useless. Where then can someone go? T&S? | |||
Latest revision as of 16:30, 7 November 2024
Per this discussion - by demanding that copies of print sources be sent to the the GA reviewer, this drives to the removal of high quality reliable sources and the ownership of articles to ensure that the article only has references that are in the possession of the nominator. This will do nothing to improve the encyclopedia, and will instead produce poorer articles with easy to find sources. If good edits won't be kept just because they use print sources and someone in the future wants the gratification of GAs and the Kudos and influence that goes with it) then I'm not sure I see the point in editing at all, considering most of my edits do use print sources of some sort and so are considered inferior.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)