Gadzooks! The comments you made about friendly editors to a large community
of Wikipedia editors, maybe re-think saying that. I'm having a hard time
getting past these comments. *I* am a friendly editor, and am actually able
to help you. But you have basically said you have too much of a life to
engage, IRC is HARD, etc. Huh.

Quite frankly, without specifics about the entry -- and the citations used
-- there's nothing anyone can do to help you. It seems this is more about
discussing the process and your experience than finding a solution. Which
is fine, but I was trying to help solve the problem.

As others have said, this is not a new issue, or a newly discovered issue.
Saying the problem is systemic and not taking responsibility for yourself
as an editor by learning some of the requirements and rules of Wikipedia
seems to be a bit of an evasion of responsibility, perhaps?

Notability is definitely something that is highly debated within the
community, and I actually think there has been a lot of improvement in this
area. But if your citations -- or your entry -- isn't well done, I believe
that's when there are problems. Again, I would like to see these citations,
Slovenian or otherwise.

And I agree with John that there should be checks and balances. Many people
or subjects do not merit an article, but many others do.

- Erika

*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle <>*

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Mitar <> wrote:

> Hi!
> Thank you for your responses.
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Brill Lyle <>
> wrote:
> > Please include your user name and the name of the article you were
> working
> > on. Without any context it's impossible to help you. Thankfully I was
> able
> > to dig and find the page, etc. But include identifying info if you want
> > help / resolution.
> I didn't want to include this information because I didn't want to
> make it about my issue in particular. I wanted to give feedback and
> discuss principles behind my experience.
> I otherwise had good experience editing Wikipedia. Other editors were
> constructive and often with patience helped me learn how to improve
> the content and related rules of Wikipedia, which also seemed
> reasonable. But this rule I do not get and cannot relate to, thus I am
> bringing it here.
> I read that Wikipedia is trying hard to get new editors and this is
> why I am sharing this story here. Because from all my experience this
> one is the most problematic. It really pushes you off.
> And it is pretty reasonable that it is problematic. Now that most
> clearly "notable" articles have been already written the one which are
> left will be increasingly more and more in the "gray zone". And
> increasingly local, specialized, where such mistakes might be common.
> Maybe this policy for notability and significance had its historic
> place. It focused the community on the core set of articles, improving
> the quality of existing articles and created a name for Wikipedia. But
> I think maybe it is time that it is relaxed and a new level of
> articles is invited in. As I said, a warning could be used to tell
> readers that they are reading such a new article.
> (Oh, and please improve talk pages, that way of communicating is also
> a mess, but that one I can understand, it is a technical legacy. It is
> cumbersome, but I can understand it. But it does influence other
> issues then, like this one when you have to discuss something about
> Wikipedia. Why Wikipedia does not simply use some issue-management
> system where people could be opening issues for articles and other
> people and have conversation through that? It would also allow much
> better statistics of how many issues were satisfactory resolved, for
> example, for all sides.)
> > Discussion (with reason):
> >
> Yes, it is clear that the editor who deleted it does not understand
> local importance of the article. They could read the news articles I
> cited and might get a better picture.
> The issue is here that while new editors can edit pages, see tags to
> improve sources and so on, that is all helpful. But once a page is
> deleted, they are pushed off and cannot do anything anymore. I just
> started with the article. I could improve it through time, get more
> information in why it is important and so on. But once it is deleted
> nothing of this is not possible. I have to go around and find ways how
> to object to this, and I have no idea how to do that. (This is also
> why I am writing to such general list like this.)
> > I don't have rights to view the deleted article, but if someone who does
> > moves it to your sandbox or a draft space you could work on it there,
> and I
> > would be happy to take a quick look at it / try to help.
> But the problem is systemic. It does not matter if we resolve it for
> this particular page. Also, if a page is in my sandbox then it is only
> on me to fix it and improve it. If it is its dedicated namespace then
> others can help edit it because they can find it. This is the whole
> power of Wikipedia, that it is not that one person has to write the
> whole article, but that multiple people can collaborate.
> Maybe a solution would be that an article can exist under its
> namespace and link then to this sandbox version saying that article is
> still in development. In general Wikipedia could be just an directory
> of pages, some could be edited in Wikipedia and some could be linked
> elsewhere, until they are seen as worthy of Wikipedia.
> > The structures you propose exist, but if you don't educate yourself on
> > procedures and policies and are a casual editor, you might not be aware
> of
> > them. Not trying to be mean or harsh here but I appreciate your passion
> and
> > thoughts and want you to know there are solutions in place....
> I followed instructions which were presented to me in the speedy
> deletion tag: I opened a talk page for an article and objected to
> deletion. The result was that next day the article was deleted without
> any discussion.
> What structures exist here?
> I am talking about structures which would prevent deletion, and
> structures which would help editors explain local significance of
> articles. Structures which might exist to revert deletion are too
> late. Editors might not return anymore.
> > The best solution I've found if as a newish user you are wanting to
> create
> > new articles (as a short stub) is to do it in your Sandbox and make sure
> > you have at least 5 (or even 10) very solid citations.
> I had citations. It seems it was not enough.
> > Have a friendly editor take a look at the article before attempting to
> move it to the main
> > space.
> Friendly editor? How am I supposed to find one? I do not want to be
> harsh, but I am here to write content, not to mingle with other
> editors and socialize. I have enough other things in my life. I can
> understand that for some editors this is their online social
> space/forum and they know each other. But for me is something where I
> get to occasionally, I want to fix a thing I care about, and I move
> on. If I find trash on the floor I pick it up and carry it to the
> nearest thrash can. I do not want to interact with city utilities
> system or talk to supervisors.
> (BTW, talking to a friendly editor comes back to the issue of really
> strange talk pages. Probably all you got used to them, but they are
> really a mess.)
> > It is critical you use the citations to establish notability. Not
> > everything is notable, and especially if the Wiki-en audience isn't
> > knowledgeable of the subject matter, it's even more important.
> I did that. Of course, citations were to Slovenian news articles in
> Slovenian, only one was in English. And this is why I started the
> Wikipedia article. To bring more international exposure to a local
> thing.
> > but their goal is to "protect" Wiki content, so....
> Hm, protect from what? Existence? If content is true, why it needs
> protection? If content is not yet complete, guide it to being
> complete.
> > The IRC help channel (
> > is also a great
> > resource -- especially if it's a time zone issue.
> BTW, you do realize that many of new people online and potential new
> editors are not familiar with IRC? Mailing list are already
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 1:11 AM, carl hansen <>
> wrote:
> > You have been hit by crossfire in the long running Inclusionist vs.
> > Deletionist war.
> Instead of waging war, could we open some discussion about middle
> group solutions? For example, what is wrong with having such pages
> tagged with "not an encyclopedia-grade article, possible lacking
> notability and/or significance" and move on? And then we can discuss
> the merits of that tag being applied to a particular article. Which is
> much less new-editor-scary than a warning "page is nominated for
> speedy deletion" and bam, deleted.
> Has this ever been put up for a vote by the community?
> Mitar
> --
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to