User talk:TruthbringerToronto/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

< User talk:TruthbringerToronto Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:19, 22 August 2006 editRentaferret (talk \| contribs)9,611 edits Alternatives to speedy← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:22, 22 August 2006 edit undoRentaferret (talk \| contribs)9,611 edits →Alternatives to speedy: update commentNext edit →
Line 11:		Line 11:
	== Alternatives to speedy ==		== Alternatives to speedy ==

	Thanks for the note. Points taken, but I'm not getting articles written that I'd ''like'' to write because I'm forever trying to "save" bad articles. (For example, I spent roughly 7 hours working on ] yesterday because the article lacked any substantial references and most likely was in danger of being nominated for deletion.) The only reason I knew about these short "less-than-stubs" (in my opinion) articles was that they were being wikilinked to pages that I monitor fairly closely (although I found a few other edits that needed to be made when I was reverting the links). I see that some of the speedy nom's were deleted, some nominated for deletion. If the administrator reviewing the speedy tag disagrees with my placing it, they have the authority to change the tag. Thanks.<font color="FF6600">—</font>] ]  18:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)		Thanks for the note. Points taken, but I'm not getting articles written that I'd ''like'' to write because I'm forever trying to "save" bad articles. (For example, I spent roughly 7 hours working on ] yesterday because the article lacked any substantial references and most likely was in danger of being nominated for deletion.) The only reason I knew about these short "less-than-stubs" (in my opinion) articles was that they were being wikilinked to pages that I monitor fairly closely (although I found a few other edits that needed to be made when I was reverting the links). Regardless of the potential for the article, nothing that short should be posted in the namespace, that's what sandboxes are for. This just encourages the "shotgun" method of article creation: start a bunch of stubs and then never do any further work on them, leave all the research to someone else. I don't think that's right. I see that some of the speedy nom's were deleted, some nominated for deletion. If the administrator reviewing the speedy tag disagrees with my placing it, they have the authority to change the tag. Thanks.<font color="FF6600">—</font>] ]  18:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:22, 22 August 2006

This is a subpage of TruthbringerToronto's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives

1 2

Alternatives to speedy

Thanks for the note. Points taken, but I'm not getting articles written that I'd like to write because I'm forever trying to "save" bad articles. (For example, I spent roughly 7 hours working on Billy Brandt yesterday because the article lacked any substantial references and most likely was in danger of being nominated for deletion.) The only reason I knew about these short "less-than-stubs" (in my opinion) articles was that they were being wikilinked to pages that I monitor fairly closely (although I found a few other edits that needed to be made when I was reverting the links). Regardless of the potential for the article, nothing that short should be posted in the namespace, that's what sandboxes are for. This just encourages the "shotgun" method of article creation: start a bunch of stubs and then never do any further work on them, leave all the research to someone else. I don't think that's right. I see that some of the speedy nom's were deleted, some nominated for deletion. If the administrator reviewing the speedy tag disagrees with my placing it, they have the authority to change the tag. Thanks.—Chidom 18:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)