Content deleted Content added
→Some cleanup: Reply |
→Revert: cmt |
||
Line 18:
::::[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]], I know you have put your heart and soul into NPP. I know you are doing what you believe to be best for the 'pedia. I do not need to 'assume' good faith is present; I know it is. All that said, I am going to gently and respectfully point out that off-wiki discussion does not produce consensus. This is what produces consensus—[[WP:BRD|a bold edit gets reverted and then discussed on-wiki]]. I am, quite frankly, reminded of the way the WMF operates: "we [referring to anonymous shadowy figures] had this discussion behind closed doors, and decided that this is the best way forward. [[:meta:Community Wishlist Survey|We will take suggestions later]]." I am also getting some [[WP:OWN|ownership]] vibes, especially number 3 in [[Wikipedia:Ownership of content#Statements|#Statements]]: "these editors are experts in UX/instruction writing. Please do not make any changes without discussing on the talk page first." Both [[WP:CON]] and [[WP:OWN]] are policies. We cannot [[WP:LOCALCON|decide they do not apply to NPP]], unless you are explicitly invoking IAR? In which case, how does ceding control of a key landing page to an opaque group of unknown off-wiki 'experts' improve the encyclopedia?{{pb}}For example, to Joe's point above: a link to a fork of [[Wikipedia:core content policies]] appears to be an improvement: the lead is concise, direct, and to the point. It clearly explains what our three core content policies are. A TL;DR with just the lead seems like a fine target for a link.<span id="HouseBlaster:1667964325811:Help_talkFTTCLNUnreviewed_new_page" class="FTTCmt"> [[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|Blaster]]<sup>[[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]</sup> 03:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)</span>
::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Unreviewed_new_page&diff=1120788685&oldid=1120674001 This] is pure [[WP:OWN|ownership]] behaviour Kudpung, and you know it. I've never encountered such hostility over the bare fact that I dared edit a page before – very ironic, given what it's about. Obviously a lot of effort went into the initial versions of this page, and it shows. It's well written and it's a huge improvement over what we currently confront new editors with. But if you didn't expect other people would [[WP:BOLD|be bold]] and try to make a good text better, you are on the wrong project entirely. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 05:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::Before you start trying to assume what my way of thinking is, I still contend that your changes were not an improvement, and others share that view. What does this mean?: {{tq|In which case, how does ceding control of a key landing page to an opaque group of unknown off-wiki 'experts' improve the encyclopedia?}} What page are you referring to? Part of the problems experienced at NPP are from users being accorded rights with little care. What we are attempting to here is is twofold: inform new users in a new way (for Wikipedia) without exposing them to walls of policy text, and lightening the workload at NPP. Either you are a partner in that goal or you are not; this is part of the wider scheme to improve a few things that you've chosen not to participate in - coming here and ripping everything apart without a discussion after the project is finished and published is not very friendly either. You couldn't even be bothered to sign [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/2022 WMF letter|this]] or follow the discussions or even participate in the video conference about it with the WMF]]. Either participate or you are on the wrong project entirely and abusing [[WP:CIVIL|this policy]] - since you are so keen to evoke policies.[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 01:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
== Some cleanup ==
| |||