> It isn't so much about having my stuff edited as it is that there seems > to be a mindset among en.wp editors that stuff needs to be deleted > unless they personally think it is important. We have a virtually > infinite space in which to write and add to the body of knowledge, so > why act as though it needs to be made smaller by applying some arbitrary > criterion? > > I do not have that much free time to be arguing over trivialities - I'm > trying to record history as it has happened from my perspective. If you > don't like my objectivity then go do your own research and do some > editing - don't go for a 1984 style darconian rewrite/deletion. > > Right now I'm spending all my free time wrestling with the article on > "light bulb sockets", which I did not originate. It is difficult to talk > about the sockets without bringing in all sorts of technical reasons why > they are the way they are. I didn't throw out the originator's material > - I've expanded it based on my experiences in the theatrical lighting > industry. I'm sure someone will eventually want to edit the material and > take the time to organize it a bit more. That is ok - it is what > collaboration is all about.
Our criteria are not arbitrary: notability is established by information published in generally reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Notability "history as it has happened from my perspective" sounds like original research. With respect to light bulb sockets one imagines there is a specialized literature, and many patents... Fred _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
