| Revision as of 19:14, 6 November 2022 editNigel Ish (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers76,869 edits As discussion on ANI actually does definately wants to forbid me from commenting anywhere or editingTag: Reverted← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:30, 7 November 2024 edit undoNigel Ish (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers76,869 editsNo edit summary | ||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Per ] - by demanding that copies of print sources be sent to the the GA reviewer, this drives to the removal of high quality reliable sources and the ownership of articles to ensure that the article only has references that are in the possession of the nominator. This will do nothing to improve the encyclopedia, and will instead produce poorer articles with easy to find sources. If good edits won't be kept just because they use print sources and someone in the future wants the gratification of GAs and the Kudos and influence that goes with it) then I'm not sure I see the point in editing at all, considering most of my edits do use print sources of some sort and so are considered inferior.] (]) 22:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| It is clear from discussions on ANI that certain editors feel strongly that WP:NPA does not apply to a group of superusers, and that no-one should be allowed to critcise them - and that anyone who does should be thrown out of here. It is also very clear that certain editors have decided that I am to have no rights to say anything. Why they object so strongly to any sort of civility is unknown | |||
| : And apparently I have been banned from the GA process. . Shame there is no community discussion of it. But it's clear that I am not welcome at GA or at any articles going through GA, so it goes.] (]) 14:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: | |||
Latest revision as of 16:30, 7 November 2024
Per this discussion - by demanding that copies of print sources be sent to the the GA reviewer, this drives to the removal of high quality reliable sources and the ownership of articles to ensure that the article only has references that are in the possession of the nominator. This will do nothing to improve the encyclopedia, and will instead produce poorer articles with easy to find sources. If good edits won't be kept just because they use print sources and someone in the future wants the gratification of GAs and the Kudos and influence that goes with it) then I'm not sure I see the point in editing at all, considering most of my edits do use print sources of some sort and so are considered inferior.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)