See? Even if I put the formalsource for my Waters interview, it would be put as "unverifiable"
-- Alvaro On 12-01-2009, at 12:19, Philip Sandifer <snowspin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 11, 2009, at 8:56 PM, David Gerard wrote: > >> Well, not really. If they don't believe a given item can have >> reliable >> sources - the sort of rabid nutters who brag about deletion tallies >> on >> their user pages - then they just won't accept anything. I speak here >> from observation of the phenomenon. > > This has been one of the most toxic things I've seen in a long time, > and it's a real problem. In the Threshold debate, I have seen, in all > sincerity, the following. > > 1: The dismissal of a print source as "unverified" > 2: The rejection of a source because of the possibility (with no > evidence) that its author played the game in question. > 3: The rejection of a third source because it allowed games to be > submitted for review (even though it didn't review all games > submitted) > > And, most recently, the article has been the subject of a second AfD > where the nominator flatly lies about the sourcing in the article, > asserting that it is sourced to things it isn't, and ignoring sources > it does have. That particular glory can be found here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_(online_game)_(2nd_nomination > > ) > > Meanwhile, an actually promising proposal for fiction notability that > had multiple parties, both inclusionist and deletionist, onboard is > now being derailed by two or three people who are holding the "No > retreat, no surrender, no loosening of standards for fiction" line > with no willingness to compromise, openly saying they'd rather treat > each article as a battleground than loosen standards to something that > approximates the practical consensus on fiction. One person compared > the keeping of fiction articles by the community to Jim Crow laws. In > all seriousness. > > I have spoken of the toxicity of deletionists, but this is beyond > toxicicity. This is an active cancer - and one that the arbcom has, > historically, been too chicken to take on. > > Just how much commitment to removing content for the sake of removing > content needs to be demonstrated before we can say that it violates > policy and just block the idiots? > > -Phil > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l