|“||Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα, Ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ.||”|
|“||Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.||”|
|“|| A little learning is a dangerous thing;|
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
—Alexander Pope: An Essay on Criticism
When is an article too small for a standalone article?
Ed Poor merged (or even only redirected) a couple of short articles on Dutch cities and provinces with the main article on the Netherlands, stating that those were too small for a standalone article. While one article (Friesland) had less than 200 bytes, most of them ranged between 200 and 500 bytes. The article on Eindhoven had a length of 542 bytes.
Looking up Special:ShortPages shows the following distribution on the length of articles at Conservapedia:
|number of articles||2333||2910||2961||2929||2527||2130||25247|
More than 30% of all articles at Conservapedia (excluding redirects, of course) are shorter than the article on Eindhoven was...
When Ed Poor proposed to merge some of the articles above with the one on the Netherlands, I stated my objections (e.g., here). I waited for a week for him to answer, and when no answer came, I removed the merge-templates as I had announced. A couple days later, out of the blue, Ed Poor declared that he didn't think your objections made much sense and promptly started to merge the articles. The only reason given for this: I didn't see the advantage of having several one-sentence or three-sentence "articles", a sentiment which is repeated in his edit-comments as too small for a standalone article.
At my talk-page, Ed Poor advises me: Don't pick fights with admins. I'm feeling that it is the other way around: out of the thousand of articles (many of those written by Ed Poor himself) which Ed Poor could have chosen to start his crusade against one-sentence or three-sentence "articles", he picks those of which he is informed that there is an opposition against a merge - at least by me. I can call this only a provocation. And while he states: You're not being persecuted, I'm certainly feeling singled out.
AugustO 06:35, 12 July 2012 (EDT)
- I'm not singling you out. I apply the same standard to everybody.
- For one thing, do not ignore instructions given to you on Andy's talk page. Repeating yourself is (1) an impolite way of pointedly ignoring what you just read and is (2) as you termed it "a provocation". If you don't understand this, I may have to consult with Andy about this matter. --Ed Poor Talk 09:45, 29 April 2013 (EDT)