Noting for records-keeping that it was brought to staff attention the user made personal remarks on a page about a month ago:
https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-17497646/scp-9727#post-7528910
How does that explanation justify the format screw of an SCP Foundation item document?
When I say that mainlist articles should be autonomous, this means that they should have some merit besides stroking the author's OCs/obscure self-referential canon. This article lacks such merits.
I understand that you are very new to this fandom, however, as you advance through the texts, it shall gradually grow upon you that what you list here are heavily overused tropes. However, Nicolini, who has been here for 8 years, should have known better than to demean oneself with such profanity.
Using "well rated" as a metric of quality is telling, but not in a good way. Farting cows are rated even higher than this article. Let it sink in.
https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-17497646/scp-9727#post-7534614 reply to user "lutra has been incredibly active on EN and i think its ridiculous to dismiss her — or anyone's — contributions out of pocket because you are sure that they will See The Light Of God and their taste will immediately align with yours once they become matured in the community."
No contributions are being dismissed and no light is being discussed. It is only highlighted that, as a new member, Lutranae simply lacks the experience to comprehensively evaluate the article and make the categorical claims she does.
https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-17497646/scp-9727#post-7534679 reply to author comment "… With all due respect. Firstly, every character is someones oc. That's how characters work. Second, farting cows is peak fiction. thirdly, how is me being """new""" meaning anything? This article has merit beyond "stroking the authors oc/obscure self referential canon" (firstly, everwood is a commonly used side character, so i wouldn't say obscure). It touches on themes of grief, it shows that, again, the foundation physicaly can prevent people from leaking info, (that's a cool idea!!!!). Finally, you whine about nicoloni falling for common tropes when, in itself, a format is a trope. The fact you jumped to a grandstanding "You young little fool, once you actually read you'll see how rubbish this article is" stance that I have only ever seen in 8th graders talking down to 7th graders because they finished a chapter book without ANY pictures."
Being new means that you have not yet processed a sufficient amount of articles to make the categorical statements you do. For the same reason, newer members are often impressionable, unable to recognise overused tropes and subpar writing — they simply do not know any better. There is nothing wrong with that, as we have all been new at one point in our lives. However, pontificating based on that minuscule sample is simply insolence.
The things the article tries to touch on have already hundreds of fingerprints. Failing to tackle anything unique, which would indeed be a monumental effort and is not immediately expected from anyone, it could have at least delivered an interesting narrative. Instead, we have a bland phone call, with a scientist flexing and lashing out at their dead mother for some personal grievances.
Even then, it could have been salvaged as an exploration of some deep personal side of this Joe Schmoe. Indeed, there are numerous phone transcripts throughout the project — as tales, parts thereof, or elements of SCP-items. However, this call is neither of those. The author tries to present it as a mainlist item, while it does not have a single distinguishing feature of an item. The only reasonable explanation for that maneuver would be an attempt to artificially increase the article’s exposure. And it pains me to see Nicolini, who is an established and pretty consistent writer, pulling a stunt like that.
Staffposted here: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-17497646/scp-9727#post-7619277 stating that further infractions would result in a ban.
