Thread:Maki Oze/@comment-2140588-20151029111745/@comment-2140588-20151029193435

Maki Oze wrote: I read that Tamaki's article was a stub, added additional information so it wasnt a stub anymore and removed it. Thats how stubs get removed, no?

As Sajuuk said a stub is "''less than minimum information available to the reader" which those 2 articles weren't after my edits. ''If those articles were still stubs, why did no one put it back on or revert my edit.

Moral of the story is anyone is allowed to edit on a wiki, doesnt matter if your a admin or even the founder, it doesnt make your word law, neither would mine be if i put a stub on a article and said not to remove it. "Maybe it did, but the article was in need of both cleanup and additional information, which it lacked. Instead of adding it for both cleanup and stub, I added just one. Same with Tamaki; I added her as both cleanup and stub, and specifically asked not to remove it." If a person specifically asks not to remove it, it means it's there for a reason.

Moral of the story is: Remember that articles shouldn't just fit YOUR standards, but it should fit the standards of others as well. If a stub was added and asked not to be removed, that means the article is not yet up to standards. All you added was a single sentence, a single sentence does not improve standards. If you're confused, you should contact the person instead of ignoring their request all-together. And no, if the person asks for the stub not to be removed, per logic that the article does not fit the standards and has missing information, then you should oblige, whether it's a regular or a sysop/rollback/etc. Remember that the wiki is a group project, not: "I'm satisfied so I'm removing it".