Daniel Mayer wrote:
RickK wrote:
>[[User:Kwantus]] is creating pages at a fast rate,
>most of them consisting of little more than data with
>no complete sentences. When I asked him if he
>could please write complete sentences, his reply
>(my first question on his talk page, his reply to it):
>Re: John Jay McCloy. Any chance you can write
>complete sentences and correctly wikify what you
>include in the article? This article is currently really
>worthless. RickK 07:48, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
>Simple answer, no. I research, not write. Don't like it,
>then fix it, erase it, or ban me.
This seems like a perfectly reasonable division of labour to me. We
have plenty of people who enjoy copyediting. I've now edited a few of
his entries. In fact, there were only a few; 'at a fast rate' was a bit
of an exaggeration.
Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for data. This is a
well-established
concept.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary
Did you look at the pages? They're not dictionary entries, they're made
up of exactly the sort of information we want in encyclopedia articles.
They're just not written up as continuous prose.
His behavior is also a violation of our etiquette
policy.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette
Again, it isn't. He has not been rude to anyone, and he has not made
any personal attacks. He's been very blunt, but we have an awful lot of
contributors like that.
Follow him around for a while and when you get tired
then list his junk pages
on VfD.
We should not be deleting useful articles. If you're not interested in
copyediting them, leave them for someone else to do. It doesn't matter
if it takes a while for someone to get round to it. As they are, the
articles are much more useful to our readers than a blank page would
be.
-M-