User:Mattisse/notebox

[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&diff=310911317&oldid=310908936 I am hard-pressed to believe that ... misunderstands what she is going on around here. If that is the case, I am unable to reconcile her lack of such understanding with the fact that she is well attuned to the inner workings of Wikipedia, having gone through checkuser processes, three RfCs, an ArbCom case, more than 50,000 edits, countless GA reviews and a record of participation at FAC. In my own experience, I was simply not able to address her criticisms of the MBI article at GAR because they did not adhere to GA criteria: she was arguing for deletion, neglecting any understanding of core Wikipedia policies of Notability, Verifiability, and Reliable sources. I was simply dumbstruck that someone with such a long history of GA review could make such fundamental errors in discerning between GA and AfD criteria.]


 * Yes, something about psych articles causes Mattisse to show misapplications of Wikipedia policies, as if she's owning the entire suite of articles. It's not entirely limited to psych. She fairly insisted a term not be linked in [[The Age of Reason] because the linked article was poorly written and cited. That is pretty much how I get to articles that need improvement, and I guess most folks begin their Wikipedia careers. And her oppose to Samuel Johnson's early life at TFAR was just as perplexing, claiming no one really knows or cares about Johnson. If that is not why Wikipedia exists and FAs go on the main page then someone please point out to me what is the true purpose of this site. ... ::My recurring point is that not only would someone have to follow her edits, but they would have to explain the most basic issues of policy that for editors with over 1,000 edits are taken for granted as implied and understood. It truly is a matter of economics: find someone with the time and energy to devote to this. Yet why should it fall on another editor? Where is the personal responsibility to adhere to community expectations? I am expected to behave myself and read up on policies where I don't know what is going on. When I make mistakes, others point them out to me. I learn or I stop making bad edits. Should this actually be explained to Mattisse? How basic really should this guidance be? I sound like I'm trying to throw wrenches in any plan to get started, but rather I'm trying to understand what a new plan might entail.]