User talk:Harasty

Your post to the Spam Project Talk page

Hi there! I saw your post on the Talk page for the Spam project and rather than posting there, wanted to point you towards some stuff...

You can always find out who made a change to a page - that is what the page history is for. You can go back and actually find the date and time of the change, and who did it. Then you can get into a discussion with that editor about his/her and your reasonings. The only way anyone can be semi-anonymous is not to log in, but then their IP address is noted on the change.

Alternatively, you can open up a discussion on the actual Talk page for the article. The beauty of this is that other Wikipedia editors who have an interest in the page can get involved and discuss. If it's obvious to the majority of interested editors that the page is notable, then that tag/message can be removed from the page. I wouldn't suggest you just remove it without discussion though.

Notability isn't usually defined as one person's opinion, though. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability for the Wikipedia discussion about this.

I hope this is making sense. if you have any questions, please just post them here - I will keep an eye on this page and will answer anything you wish to ask, to be best of my ability.

Thanks, Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did a little more digging around, and assume that you mean the article on Typoglycemia. If you look at the history page for that article, you will find that there is a change dated 20 Feb, 2007 called "(tagged as non-notable neologism)", made by editor User:Leflyman. I think a good way to continue this would be to invite that editor back to the discussion that you have started on the Talk page. Another avenue you have if consensus can not be reached between those editors is to start a Request for Comment about the page. That will get other editors involved and hopefully get this resolved.

Wikipedia has its own quirks, and that can be cumbersome sometimes. In general, though, after going down some rocky roads, it seems to work out well.

Hopefully this helps. Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Mr. Alucard: Thanks for the comments. I knew of the "history" page, but overlooked that it in fact would have the editor's name who placed the comment. That is probably 75% of what I'm looking for: transparency of WHO is noting "this should be deleted". The idea of a "a majority of a random panel of 10 other editors must agree with you" still sound like a clever idea to me to try to weed out overly zealous editorial marks.

THANK YOU for the time to reply to my comments thoughtfully. And, yes, "Typoglycemia" was the article in question. I hope my entry (the third one) makes my case for "keep" clearly.

Kindest regards! -- Harasty 21:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. They key is also that Wikipedia should be built on verifiable facts, rather than one person's opinion against another. Unfortunately there are borderline cases and sometimes you have to try to get consensus. I don't feel capable of getting involved in the discussion, but just wanted to show you how you could get the information you were seeking about who left the message and what you can do about it. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]