Talk:Port au Prince (Privateer)
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
Please restore the original so it can be worked on and improved.
The blog actually copied its content from Wikipedia, not the other way around. The Wikipedia article was meant as a starting point for others to work on, like me. If Wikipedia is now in the business of simply deleting content and not allowing for it to be improved then that is very sad thing and the cancerous situation within wikipedia has become even worse than I thought with more administrators than editors.
The approach to this whole issue by administrators has been clumsy, heavy handed and over zealous and there is now no detailed information available about the voyage of the Port au Prince which is rather like Nazis burning books to be quite honest and this is really sad and surely counter to the whole point of wikipedia which should be to act as a repository of information rather than just a platform for pedantry and meanness. Articles start and articles evolve and improve. Sadly this can not be the case with this article now it has been killed.
So as I said, the William Mariner article was written first. The blog then copied from wikipedia, second. I then copied from the same wikipedia, third, and foolishly referenced the blog, but I did that only because it provided additional information about the wreck site and the people who found it not for the historic content which I had said in the edit write up was from the other wikipedia article, which you acknowledge. The historical information about the journey was written by the other editor whom I previously mentioned.
This is all so TEDIOUS and so very, very depressing. I don't have the time for it. Editors no longer have time for it. There are too many chiefs and not enough indians. When is Wikipedia going to learn to be proactive again and not just destructive?? Why not re-word the article sufficiently so it is different rather than simply press "delete". It is just wrong and totally against the spirit of the project.
I request that you restore the pages or provide me with what was deleted so this can be taken in stages. Aetheling1125 10:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Start a discussion about improving the Port au Prince (Privateer) page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Port au Prince (Privateer)" page.
