User talk:Turlo Lomon/history6

"This definitely indicates that the OP is against this farm"
Hello. I don't dispute your !vote, but I do respectfully request you withdraw your comment, "This definitely indicates that the OP is against this farm." My nomination "definitely indicates" nothing of the sort. I think you might have taken a common British turn-of-phrase (i.e. stating some one "made the mistake of...", with mild sarcasm, is commonly used to indicate the person suffered some undeserved consequence) at face value. I assure you that there is no ulterior motive with regards to the farm, and I would not like the discussion to be tainted by that suggestion. Rockpock e  t  21:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair request. My apologies for the lack of understanding with British subtlies. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, and my apologies for the rather snarky response on the AfD sub-page. To begin with I was really puzzled by how you came to that conclusion. Strange how two people writing in the same language can strggle to understand each other ;) Rockpock  e  t  16:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is online communication. In the real world, we hear vocal inflections, body language, etc. which add to communication. Online none of that is visible, so things need to be taken at face value. The subtlties of communication are lost, and misunderstandings can easily happen. No ill will. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

My Farewell
Well, this is it. I guess I finally hit the last straw on what I am observing here. This is not the community I joined years ago. I used to have a passion, and now what I see sickens me. I have seen every policy to improve articles completely ignored on a regular basis.

AFDs are a Joke
Votes are votes, despite what you call them. I have seen intelligent, well written arguments on why an article should be kept be overwritten by a bunch of people citing fancruft and other derogatory terms. If an article passes AfD, it can be nominated the next day, and the day after that, and the day after that. A person can nominate thousands of articles a day, and in the rush to try to save a few, many more get deleted. These were legit articles, and I believe 99% of them could have been saved if given enough time. To make matters worse, it took over two years to ban an individual who was totally gaming the system to get anything he didn't like deleted.

Articles Destroyed Daily
A well written article about a documentary meeting notability requirements (Times, News Week, etc.) gets renamed because the title was controversal (it was the title of the movie!) - and then degrades into a war between editors on adding a ton of stuff not related to the movie. How was this allowed? An article that meets notability requirements - even if it is a stub, should stay that way.

I have seen hundreds of articles merged into a list because they weren't notable on their own (which I disagree with), and then the list deleted because no one bothered to carry over the references (since the original articles got deleted before a merge, and us non-admins get screwed over). Wow. How much info did we loose there? What about all the books? Each one could easily carry a detailed article covering reviews, controversies, etc. However, anything that pre-dates the internet might as well never have existed.

Conclusion
I realized that no matter how hard I work on trying to make Wikipedia a better place, I will be constantly battling those that want... something else. The end all of encyclopedias is a failed project. I no longer feel I should be spending time on a doomed project - all of my work appears to be moot, so what is the point? Thus, my retirement. Farewell, all. Good luck to the inclusionists. I fear you are fighting a losing battle. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)