User talk:Michael Martinez

BEFORE YOU QUOTE WIKIPOLICIES AT ME
People become protective of the articles they contribute to on a regular basis. That's understandable. However, the tendency to throw short links and warning labels at other people because they don't agree with your decisions is not good Wikipedia practice. I see many editors throw Wikipolicy citations at new Wikipedians and at editors who suddenly show up to leave an opinion on article Talk pages. The policy citations are usually inappropriate.

It's been my experience that the majority of people who cite Wikipolicies in Talk page discussions - especially where they use the shortlinks - haven't actually read the policy pages, or cherry-pick the policy points they want to use to shore up their arguments.

Every time you do this to ME, I click on the links, I read the policy pages, and I may even search for related policies. I make sure I understand what these policies say before I quote them back at you.

Be a good Wikipedian. READ the policies you cite to other people and ask yourself, "Am I being fair or am I just cherry-picking policy points because I want to win an argument and protect my edits?"

If you place a comment about policy or a warning about policy on my User pages, the fact I delete it means I have read it. It also means I'm more likely to out-quote you on policies in whatever Talk page discussion sent you here to intimidate me (which is also a violation of Wikipedia policy). Don't weaponize Wikipedia policy pages to win arguments when other editors question your decisions. That questioning process is part of how Wikipedia works. Don't try to silence other people with Wikipolicy links. Most of the time, they aren't doing anything wrong. Michael Martinez (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

—

Proposed deletion of Compuserve IMPs


The article Compuserve IMPs has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Article on website forum fails WP:GNG, no coverage in WP:RS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vrac (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Middle-earth articles
I have removed this discussion because it descended into personal attacks. Please confine comments to the proposals under discussion on their talk pages.

Good article reassessment/Women in The Lord of the Rings/2
Michael Martinez, this is a courtesy notification to let you know that the reassessment you began a month ago has just been updated to be a community reassessment at the above address, rather than an individual reassessment, which is not allowed once a prior reassessment has taken place.

There haven't been any posts to the reassessment in over a month; I am hoping that the proper community reassessment placement will have the side benefit of attracting additional commentary. I have also suggested that the reassessment remain open for several weeks at least before it an independent closer determines a consensus.

I hope you are well—it has been a while since you posted after you concluded your GA review of the Legendarium article. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the heads up. I'll take a look at the review later. Michael Martinez (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TompaDompa (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Noted. Thank you. Michael Martinez (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)