Anthony, Rick and others, please take Daniel's cue to move the
conversation to Vfd.
As one of the list admins for WikiEN, I've got to help protect
peoples' mailboxes from overflowing. Thanks.
--
Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
> After a couple of articles get no "delete" votes at all, however, I
> would be inclined to consider listing more of them trolling, yes.
> -Snowspinner
I'm sure I could muster up some delete votes. But change the topic
slightly, to something like number articles, or rambot articles, for which I
could definitely get some delete votes (and which I think should be deleted
anyway). I could do it with Federal Standard 1037C articles, or articles
about non-bestselling albums, or articles about most actors, or article
about most movies, maybe even many of the species articles, though I
wouldn't want to. It's basically what happened with the September 11th
victims. At first there was a lot of support for keeping at least some of
them, but as they got listed over and over and over again the people willing
to waste their time voting keep waned, to where we've now deleted *even the
pilots of the aircraft*. It's what's happening right now with high school
articles. It happened with the pokemon articles, but I don't know what the
outcome of that one was.
Anthony
See my proposal at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion , the
one headed "Sending rejected articles to Wikinerds' JnanaBase, round
2."
My proposal is to put a short link in the VfD banner, something like
"Alternate outlets for rejected articles," which links to a page,
specifically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Alternate_outlets
This page currently describes JnanaBase and how to submit material to
it. My assumption is that we could add other interested outlets, e.g.
McFly.
NSK, please take a look at the language on this page... and edit it if
it is not to your liking.
Reaction to earlier discussion is that people don't seem to have a
problem with adding a short link to the VfD banner, but there are a lot
of complicated quasi-legal and licensing issues that are involved in
anything that involves Wikipedia itself sending material to any other
entity.
So my idea is that Wikipedia merely puts a pointer to JnanaBase in a
location where contributors of deleted articles are likely to see it,
and whatever happens after that is entirely between people who have
seen the link and JnanaBase.
Copyvios get a different banner from VfD, in which this link would not
appear.
Obviously if Wikipedia publicizes JnanaBase we cannot control who goes
to the site or what they contribute. But the positioning of the link
would tend to encourage contributions of material nominated for
deletion. (This is, of course, not the same as material that is
actually deleted).
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
> Give Anthony administrator rights the same way we give them to
> everyone else - by securing consensus on the RFA
That certainly would be the best idea. Thanks for the vote of confidence,
Mark. Maybe we can lift my standing agreement, too.
Anthony
On a lighter note, good thing Halloween is near, otherwise we'd be
unprepared for the expression on Jimbo's face here:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6298340/site/newsweek/
And as with Jimbo, I too was addicted to the green World Book
Encyclopedia as a kid.
--
Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
Give Anthony administrator rights the same way we give them to
everyone else - by securing consensus on the RFA; not by some
backdoor method that rewards his "provacative edits" (as the arbcom
previously called them).
--Mark
I was just reviewing VfU and the main thrust of Anthony's reason for
posting a whole list of things there was because he couldn't see what
had been deleted/couldn't transfer it his fork.
Things might be more comfortable for all of us if we granted Anthony
rights to view deleted articles. In practice this would mean giving
Anthony admin rights and Anthony making a promise not to use them except
for the purpose of viewing/copying deleted material (*). The promise
could be enforced by the prospect of instant deadminship if breached.
It would seem to be the advantage of Anthony (who would be better
equipped to make McFly what he wants to be) and those who don't like
Anthony's behaviour on VfU (he wouldn't need to do it anymore).
Any cons?
Pete/Pcb21
(*) This of course assumes that a full RfAdminship would fail to gain
consensus in this case. There is no doubt in my mind this would be the case.
> Well, an alternative way to accomplish the same thing would be a
> software change to either
> a) create a separate class of user with power to view deleted articles, or
> b) allow all logged-in users to view deleted pages.
I'd actually prefer:
c) allow a list of ip addresses to use Special:Export on deleted articles
But, whichever is decided, I'd be willing to code it myself.
As for getting admin access, I've already applied for admin access for this
purpose. Granted this was several months ago and I've completely reformed
myself since then, but a lot of people seem to still hold a grudge against
me, so I doubt it will ever happen. Maybe if I set up a few sockpuppets I
can eventually get one of them adminned...
Anthony
The actual article in question was (full text):
"Full Nice Handbag Co is a handbag exporter and manufacturer in Hong
Kong. It was established in 1992. Its range of products include ladies
handbags, unisex casual bags, travel bags, backpacks, shoulder bags,
cosmetic bags, evening purses, natural & paper straw bags, and sports
bags. Its managing director is Raymond Leung."
I have just submitted it to http://jnana.wikinerds.com
I simply cannot believe that it makes very much difference one way or
the other whether this article is in Wikipedia. I suggest that Pcb21
consider NOT resubmitting it and I also suggest that if he does RickK
and others should just look the other way and NOT list it on VfD. Let's
try not to go off onto grand crusades on principle on things that just
don't really don't matter that much.
What i said last time was: "Strong NEUTRAL.... There's no very good
reason for it to be in Wikipedia, and there's no very good reason for
it not to be in Wikipedia. IMHO it is silly to be expressing any strong
opinion about it either way, and silly to be getting overly worked up
about it. ... I don't care. I vehemently don't care. All be the same in
a hundred years, that's what I say."
Or, as Samuel Butler wrote in "The Way of All Flesh:" "it matters
little what profession, whether of religion or irreligion, a man may
make, provided only he follows it out with charitable inconsistency,
and without insisting on it to the bitter end. It is in the
uncompromisingness with which dogma is held and not in the dogma or
want of dogma that the danger lies."
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
> ...so it doesn't go your way, and therefore it is impractical and
> inefficient. Geez, I'd hate to see how it'd be if our politicians ever
> acted upon this logic...
That's not at all what I said. Full utilization of VfD requires you to
spend all your time voting and none of your time writing encyclopedia
articles. That's why it's impractical and inefficient. Direct democracy is
not a good solution, and my politicians have already recognized that and
acted upon it (of course here in Florida we do have some direct democracy,
in the form of 9 constitutional ammendments on the ballot for the year, but
9 polls a year is hardly the same as 30 a day).
Besides all this, you can only take the anology between Wikipedia and
government so far. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of
its citizens. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia.
Any notions of democracy in Wikipedia are there solely to facilitate that
goal. And that's part of the reason why Wikipedia is not a democracy.
But I don't know why I bother wasting my breath. You took my comment
completely out of context and nitpicked on one little part of it. Read the
whole comment again. You'll see that whether or not things go my way has
nothing to do with it.
Anthony