User talk:Vascofernandes

Final warning, stop creating nonsense articles Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There's already a page
There's already a page at Criticism of Wikipedia. Readers should find all information on a subject in one place, not have to go looking for more content elsewhere in a separate article. Fan-1967 02:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I read it, for what it was worth. Fan-1967 02:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Signatures are easy: Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png located above the edit window.

Thank you.

As for your essay, that's what it is, an essay. There are tons of sites where people post whatever opinions they want. Does it kill you that Wikipedia wants to be one site that limits its content to sourced, verifiable facts? Don't you have thousands of sites where you can blog all day, and debate in forums back and forth? Does it kill you that one, single, solitary site on the whole internet tries to set standards and say: we only want verifiable, unbiased facts? Is that idea so horrible to you, that one single site isn't open to unsourced opinions? Fan-1967 02:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I never said it said the same thing. I said there already existed an article on the same subject.

Actually, there are two subjects here:
 * Documenting notable, verified criticism of Wikipedia.
 * Debating what Wikipedia should be.

The first subject is covered in the existing article.

The second is constantly debated, within Wikipedia. Not in articles, but in Wikipedia pages, like Village pump. Something in articles is required to be notable, sourced and verifiable, because that's what people expect from a Wikipedia article. People don't come to a Wikipedia article to read your opinions, or mine. Fan-1967 02:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If
If the majority of users actually did feel the way you do, you could change the policies. I've seen no indication that's the case. The simple fact is that, with rare exceptions (ownership steps in very occasionally), Wikipedia policy is determined by the majority of the users. The policies that you don't like have been debated and discussed and developed over years. I see nothing to indicate that any majority of anybody agree with you. You want Wikipedia to be something different than what it was created to be, and what many people have worked very hard to make it. Why? So it can be a debating society like every blog and forum on the web? Who needs another one of those? Fan-1967 02:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Final
OK, final, and then I won't add anything further. One page is never about just one page. It's about enforce standards or not. If we ignore standards for one, then the next person who wants to post an opinion piece feels free, and then the next, and then we're no longer Wikipedia. We become blogspot, and we don't want to be blogspot. Fan-1967 03:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)