| Revision as of 02:57, 16 May 2005 editAntaeus Feldspar (talk | contribs)17,763 edits if you don't like "the formulation", go make your own tag← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:26, 16 May 2005 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits prefer Grace Note'sNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| :This template was '''created''' because editors were taking it upon themselves to unilaterally remove all instances of a '''different''' tag that referenced ] because '''that''' was "non-policy". This template was carefully created to convey the message "Yes, if you only take those items marked 'policy' as policy, you may think that an article on 'X' will be perfectly accepted by everyone; however, if you actually want to deal in the ''real'' world, you should be aware that articles ''do'' regularly end up on VfD and ''do'' regularly get deleted because the articles gives absolutely no indication why the subject would be found significant by anyone other than the person posting it." This '''is''' the gentle formulation, thank you very much. Create your own damned tag instead of castrating this one and unilaterally misrepresenting what everyone who has already applied this tag ''meant when they applied it''. Do you somehow think you're acting in some kinder and gentler spirit when you decide that everyone who put on a tag saying "I see reason for concern about whether this subject is significant" will now be saying "Oh, there ''might'' be concern about whether this subject is significant, but just '''delete the tag''' and '''ignore''' the possibility if '''you''' don't think it's necessary!" No. People have a right to their opinion, and you really don't have a right to go introducing new clauses to modify their opinion, just because your opinion is different. -- ] 02:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC) | :This template was '''created''' because editors were taking it upon themselves to unilaterally remove all instances of a '''different''' tag that referenced ] because '''that''' was "non-policy". This template was carefully created to convey the message "Yes, if you only take those items marked 'policy' as policy, you may think that an article on 'X' will be perfectly accepted by everyone; however, if you actually want to deal in the ''real'' world, you should be aware that articles ''do'' regularly end up on VfD and ''do'' regularly get deleted because the articles gives absolutely no indication why the subject would be found significant by anyone other than the person posting it." This '''is''' the gentle formulation, thank you very much. Create your own damned tag instead of castrating this one and unilaterally misrepresenting what everyone who has already applied this tag ''meant when they applied it''. Do you somehow think you're acting in some kinder and gentler spirit when you decide that everyone who put on a tag saying "I see reason for concern about whether this subject is significant" will now be saying "Oh, there ''might'' be concern about whether this subject is significant, but just '''delete the tag''' and '''ignore''' the possibility if '''you''' don't think it's necessary!" No. People have a right to their opinion, and you really don't have a right to go introducing new clauses to modify their opinion, just because your opinion is different. -- ] 02:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ::I think I prefer Grace Note's version, mainly because of the "it has been suggested" in the other version, as though the suggestion has come from on high. The active voice is better English and more accurate. The only part of Grace Note's I disagree with is the "Please remove this notice if you feel this has been done or is not necessary." I would get rid of "or is not necessary," because lots of editors will take that as a sign to remove it, especially vanity-page creators, who often believe their own significance is beyond needing to be explained. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:26, May 16, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:26, 16 May 2005
It has not been suggested by God Almighty, nor in the media, nor in the course of debate even, that the article might not be "significant" enough for Misplaced Pages. It's been decided by someone who has looked at the editor and cannot be bothered writing a message to your talkpage or that of the article explaining what their problem is. My formulation is much more gentle and much more general, not aimed at the originating editor of the article but at anyone who stumbles across it. Clearly, the originating editor believes its subject is significant enough for Misplaced Pages; that's why they wrote the article. Grace Note 02:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- This template was created because editors were taking it upon themselves to unilaterally remove all instances of a different tag that referenced Misplaced Pages:Importance because that was "non-policy". This template was carefully created to convey the message "Yes, if you only take those items marked 'policy' as policy, you may think that an article on 'X' will be perfectly accepted by everyone; however, if you actually want to deal in the real world, you should be aware that articles do regularly end up on VfD and do regularly get deleted because the articles gives absolutely no indication why the subject would be found significant by anyone other than the person posting it." This is the gentle formulation, thank you very much. Create your own damned tag instead of castrating this one and unilaterally misrepresenting what everyone who has already applied this tag meant when they applied it. Do you somehow think you're acting in some kinder and gentler spirit when you decide that everyone who put on a tag saying "I see reason for concern about whether this subject is significant" will now be saying "Oh, there might be concern about whether this subject is significant, but just delete the tag and ignore the possibility if you don't think it's necessary!" No. People have a right to their opinion, and you really don't have a right to go introducing new clauses to modify their opinion, just because your opinion is different. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think I prefer Grace Note's version, mainly because of the "it has been suggested" in the other version, as though the suggestion has come from on high. The active voice is better English and more accurate. The only part of Grace Note's I disagree with is the "Please remove this notice if you feel this has been done or is not necessary." I would get rid of "or is not necessary," because lots of editors will take that as a sign to remove it, especially vanity-page creators, who often believe their own significance is beyond needing to be explained. SlimVirgin 03:26, May 16, 2005 (UTC)