Archive 4 (2011)
.
.
|
The article you created was just deleted? | |
| All is not lost. Here is what you can do right now: | ||
|
Many administrators will be happy to give you a copy of your deleted article, either by putting it on a special user page for you (a process called userfication) or by e-mailing you a copy.
Once you have the article, you can try to resolve the issues why it was deleted. If you've repaired the article, or you believe the reasons for deleting the article were in error, you can dispute the deletion at Deletion Review. Generally, you must show how the previous deletion(s) were in error, but this is the place to resolve disputes about whether a deletion was wrong. |
When a person goes through the time and effort to write an article or to research sources or whatever, he or she is going to have some emotional attachment to it. That's natural. Personally, I like it when someone takes an article and improves it and expands it. But if there's a danger of the hatchet coming down in the form of aggressivedeletion monkeys, then why should I put my time and mental equanimity on the line? I'm a professional writer and editor. I get paid to do this stuff. I'm less willing to write and edit articles on a voluntary basis when those contributions aren't welcome. -- Acsenray
- The above quote shows why constructive edits are so very important. It also shows why we suffered a net loss of 49,000 volunteer editors in the first three months of this year, compared with 4,900 for the same period last year. Even our fund raising is being hurt. A simple rule for groups that depend on volunteers and donations is they must treat people nicely. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The Guardian, Thursday 26 November, Jenny Kleeman: Go to an article on a current event, or a celebrity, and you're likely to find that it's been "protected" from tinkering by newcomers. But it could be that the collaborative aspect itself is driving people away. Disenchanted ex-volunteers say they are burned by squabbling with established editors over their contributions, and some claim the site is run by an impenetrable inner circle that controls all its content. "It's colloquially known as the cabal, although it's more like a hierarchy of power cliques, each one staking out its territory," says former contributor Barry Kort.
- Jenny we are not a cabal, but we need editors of good faith to stop this from happening. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia: the Story
 | Wag more, bark less, Don't bite. |
.
.
.