User talk:Worm That Turned/Contradictions

My pet peeve is WP:TLDR -- although (unfortunately) too often true, saying it that way is rude. I did attempt to get it renamed to WP:BECONCISE but failed.

The most glaring inconsistency (insanity) is between WP:N and WP:RS. The former says that if something is notable, we should have an article, even if it's totally unsourced. The latter says an editor can removed unsourced information. So, in theory I could go to many notable articles and make them blank pages. But that'd be WP:POINTy, of course. Nobody Ent 12:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheers Ent, will look into including them Worm^TT(talk) 12:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a distinction rather than a contradiction. And one that is often obscured or misused. Similar problems occur with the confusion between significance and notability. Rich Farmbrough, 18:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for adding Wikipedia:Randy in Boise. I feel there is an anti-American bias among some users that is often expressed as a put down. And also an assumption that American users are culturally dumb and out of it (and Puritanical - I've been called a Puritan for something that had nothing to do with religion - I never see other nationalities called "Puritanical" or "Puritan".) And it is stereotyping and I'm surprised that such a title exists. I also agree with the others you've listed. There is an elitist attitude that anyone new can be put down and silenced by throwing these titles at them. By doing so, the editor doesn't have to explain himself or herself - just fling the essay title at the miscreant and discourage the new editor. It's a rough world on wikipedia! Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing, actually. Intothatdarkness 15:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)