On 11/23/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
But those who _did_ complain that images were
incorrectly deleted were
out of luck, I take it, since image deletion is unrevertable.
No true. It is correct to say it is not easy to revert.
We're just going around and around in circles,
here. I've explained why
I think it's a good idea to take things slow, and also pointed to
examples of how we could configure the system so that taking things slow
would work, but I don't recall reading an explanation of why it's a good
idea to take these things _fast_. What harm is done by having junk stick
around for a week or two longer?
laqwsuits for copyright infindgement loses of focus on the task that
kind of thing
Why is 50 days "stupidly slow?" What's
happening 50 days from now that
we have to get this done by?
Clear failer to remove material that we knew infrindged someone else's
copyright.
On November 18 AfD had 151 articles added, so these
systems can clearly
scale up to handle that amount (discounting of course the fact that many
people are arguing that AfD isn't handling that amount _well_. :)
IFD uses a different system to Afd. Notive how WP:CP strugges to cope.
"Most" implies that some of it _does_.
I've seen plenty of
page-blankings, it's not like the vandals that do that are going to
first check to see if the images on that page are fair use.
well eventualism gets you out of that one. The vast majority of "fair
use" images on wikipedia can be found on other sources within seconds.
I _always_ tag images for deletion rather than delete
them directly
myself. That's usually the case with articles too, the only ones I just
outright delete are history-free redirects that are in the way of a move
operation.
uh hu and when did you last clear out catigory candidates for speedy
deletion? you've just doubled the number of admin hours needed to get
things done.
--
geni