Your recent additions to various talk pages are slightly concerning reading. I'm not a staff member myself but I think it's fair to say you possibly shouldn't be taking wiki moderation into your own hands, certainly not in this fashion. Telling people their articles "gotta go" and seemingly blanket adding speedy deletion templates to articles that don't meet your standards is hardly constructive. I'd counsel leaving this to the administration. If you have any concerns about articles that you don't think should still be on the website, the least disruptive way to sort it out would be to touch base with them too.
Just some friendly advice.
Yeah, ok. I mean, nothing is really getting done on this wiki and it's getting pretty junky. It just seems to me that if there's and article that hasn't been edited since 2010 and it has no content... Why? But yeah, I get what you're saying. It's not really to my standards, but I'm just trying to help. It's the administration's job (Wherever they are) ISurvivor007 (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)ISurvivor007
- I've been making some responses to your edits. While I'm not speaking on behalf of the entire administration, I'd like to think we can all be on a consensus that you're being awfully excessive about this, and I don't think someone who just started making contributions on the Wiki today can really determine which articles are quality and which aren't, much less can you confidently say that the wiki is junky or nothing is getting done when, again, you just started contributing today. Articles made in 2010, such as the OAM one you demanded be deleted, are good to keep for historical information.Twain (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Do not feel discouraged, though! We have almost no Wiki culture, all discussion generally takes place on the MicroWiki forums and many Skype rooms, and very few people do the maintenance (and if they do, it is just in random bursts, I too am guilty of this). --Luxor (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)