Reverting, I can get it, I asked for it. Reverting in such a manner, no. The news about an article being deleted is now outdated, as the article was deleted. Plus, the very fact that an article (not the only one that was written by the user I guess) was going to be deleted or has been deleted does not say anything about the real experience of the guy, whether he/she is disappointed now, plans to leave, understood what was wrong and so on. But hey, thanks for reminding that I should lurk more and help less in some cases. --Elitre (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here I thanked you for your help fixing another story, right before you posted the above comment. I think your last comment and this edit summary are a bit unfortunate - your input is truly valued; you just can't expect people to agree with everything of it, especially if it consists of deleting what others wrote.
Signpost articles are not encyclopedia articles. They consists of news reporting and carry a date (and a byline), and feature expressions like "currently", so the concern about the statement being "outdated" is beside the point. I explained the revert in the edit summary. A main reason why Signpost articles should not be changed significantly after publication without a pressing need is that, like most newspaper articles, most readers will only read them once, soon after publication, and should not feel the need to check back for changes to get the full picture or the correct information. (Another is that articles are likely to be construed as expressions of the writers named in the byline, see also Wikipedia:Signpost/About.) And I do not understand your rationale for the deletion - the AfD was not mentioned to entice people to vote there, but to illustrate that this newbie's continued contributions after the course ended had not been without problems. Many megabytes of discussion have been written about the possible effects of AfDs on newbies. If you disagreed with the judgement that the AfD was newsworthy in this context, you would still have been welcome to rewrite the story before publication (possibly getting included in the byline), or to write up this news item yourself - check the Signpost Newsroom in the days before publication.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that your edit summary was unfortunate, being harsh for no reason, as I was the first one implying "I don't know the rules, you're free to revert my edit". Anyway I previously stated the reasons for my edit, but I guess I just can't expect people to agree with everything. --Elitre (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if it sounded harsh, it certainly wasn't meant to. I was just trying to explain the reasons for the revert (including one such rule, about changes after publication) in a concise way. Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It just had to be said: doesn't a "GLAM fellow" sound unbelievably gay? Lampman (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's an intentionally lighthearted (some would say silly) name, but ultimately it's just a shorthand way of saying "Cultural Partnerships Fellow". Personally, I hope David Bowie takes notice and edits Wikipedia as a result :-) Also, you might want to read the essay, Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. Sincerely, WittyLama 12:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anything to brighten up the dark dusty corners of museums basements and gallery backrooms. They could use a little levity, a smack of color, heck, a boa. Ocaasi (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
