User talk:T3gah

Auf Wiedersehen WIKIPEDIA

A total waste of my time.

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Free? Yes free for us, the world, to add content and then you, the insiders, to make it the way YOU want and delete the rest. Of course you wait until someone else does whatever. ugh. Hours wasted.

I'm going to stop telling my friends about this place.

I didn't even get a chance to add my content to List of religious forums before some bozo comes along and says "let's vote over the deletion of the page" because they didn't have the temarity to send me a message first.

unbelievable

t3gah 07:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It might have been imprudent to add a link to the article in a couple dozen other articles before you had put any real content in it. Incidentally, you might like to read policy and the article on Consensus decision-making. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 09:27, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

There is no policy that the author of a new page is contacted before it is put up for deletion. You point your finger at "the insiders" (you mean a cabal). Those insiders are people like you and me. I understand your emotions, and it is logical to defend your work, but the "free" of Wikipedia does not mean that all content can be added at will. Do not feel put off - nobody wants you to leave. I suggest you review articles that you know something about and make some corrections or improvements. JFW | T@lk  14:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * uNF

G'day

I'm sorry you have found Wikipedia disappointing, but there is no way we can accomodate your demands.

Frankly, I don't think you have been at all fair to us. Wikipedia and its policies represent a great deal of work by a large number of volunteers. We find it an exciting project.

But I understand your hurt at having the VfD notice turn up, because I have been there. One of my first articles was a substub on an author about whom I was not remotely interested, but who sold over 8 million children's books back in the 1950s, was barely mentioned on the WWW and was clearly notable. Just the thing for Wikipedia! But I didn't know the correct form for a stub (I was new remember), and an admin vandalised the article (I guess he thought it funny). When I reverted his facetious comment, he just put it back, and told me that I was lucky he hadn't deleted the article without discussion (which he was entitled to do under the policy then, and still would be). When I protested about this treatment, I was told by another even more experienced and well-connected admin that I was complaining about nothing. AFAIK no criticism was ever levelled about an experienced admin twice vandalising a newbie's article, although I did receive a muted apology. (So please, fellow admins, don't dismiss the cabal charge too lightly, we do act in this way and I have seen it.)

But we are open to suggestions. We have as policies an assumption that newcomers edit in good faith, a principle of tolerance of their mistakes, and a prohibition on personal attacks. In my opinion you have had the benefit of these policies.

If ever you wish to become involved in the project, please feel free to contact me either on my talk page or by email. Many other volunteers will also be happy to talk to you. But be warned, we will expect you to do some reading and to give our existing policies and practices a fair hearing before we are likely to find your advice on changing them of any use.

I agree completely that it would have been good to contact you before proposing an article you had created for deletion. It is not current policy, but there's nothing stopping anyone doing it either, and many of us do. Some of us also feel that articles like this are listed too quickly. If you do become involved you can help to improve policies in these directions. (It's hard work.)

But the advice above is good too IMO. The best way to become involved is to contribute. Find something a little less controversial. Browse some articles on subjects you know about, and improve them. Read and try to understand what Wikipedia is not before starting any more new articles.

As to what you tell your friends and others about Wikipedia, that is up to you. But another word of caution. Wikipedia has an enviable and growing reputation, and if it fails to live up to this at times it's not for lack of effort on our part. The comments you have posted do say something valid about us, but they say something about you too. Andrewa 16:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

t3gah 13:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)According to the definition for automobile there should only be one page here at wikipedia.org for that with links to the various manufacturers, but instead there is a Ferrari page and Mercedes Benz page and so on. What about trucks? Same there too. What about Linux? Do you have separate pages for Linux, like say SuSE, Red Hat, Fedora Core, Slackware, Debian, etc.? They too should just be links off of the main page of Linux. Then we have flower. Are there separate pages for different flowers here? So what did that person who deleted my first entry have in mind when they stated that one forum is the same as the other? That means this place is running double-standards. A car is a car. Linux is Linux no matter what distribution it is, it's still Linux. Open Source is Open Source. Is there a separate page for every application on the planet that's Open Source? What about Microsoft? Is there separate pages for their applications?

Everyone knows the answers to those questions. "I should have learned from the first deletion..." YOU SHOULD LEARN WHAT YOU HAVE HERE BEFORE YOU PASS JUDGEMENT IN IGNORANCE!

So now wikipedia.org, it's time for you to delete every separate manufacturers page of items that belong under one terminology to keep up with the remark your colleague stated. "One is the same as another."


 * Who are you talking to? Few people, I imagine, watch this page such that your message would get heard. I was surprised to see it on my Watchlist and clicked through just to find out why I'd added it. I recall now that I added it because you are terribly misguided as to what the point of Wikipedia is, and I wanted to keep an eye on you in case you decide to become disruptive instead of simply unhappy.
 * I'm pleased that you haven't... but still, what is your complaint? Obviously, Ferrari, the company, is encyclopedic, so your comparison fails on that count: your list wasn't obviously encyclopedic, and to the contrary, was considered obviously not encyclopedic by other editors. Further, the forums of which it was a list were also not encyclopedic. Nothing about the article belonged in an encyclopedia, so it was voted out of the encyclopedia. What is your complaint? Do you dispute the way Wikipedia's quality control mechanisms work, or do you just disagree that the list didn't belong? &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 23:07, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)