<DIV>From: "The Cunctator" <CUNCTATOR@KBAND.COM><BR><BR>>The removal of any guidelines for inclusion on vfd (including the most<BR>>important one: when in doubt, don't delete) is criminal.<BR><BR>>So is the separation of guidelines for "regular" people and for<BR>>administrators.<BR><BR>>So is the "merge and delete" attitude. Merging entries into big messes<BR>>under general titles is much, much worse for the long term health of<BR>>Wikipedia than having many entries with specific titles.<BR><BR>>So is the "kill all ephemera" rampage, since presuming that we know now<BR>>what will be considered ephemera 10, 20, and 1000 years from now is<BR>>pathetically presumptive, especially considering there are NO SPACE<BR>>LIMITATIONS on Wikipedia.<BR><BR>>So is the obvious takeover of the VfD page by a horde of deletionists.<BR>>Once upon a time one vote against deletion was enough to stop deletion.<BR>>And that is all it should take.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Once upon a time, pages could not be deleted by anyone but Jimbo and Larry</DIV>
<DIV>Once upon a time, every user had a voice for or against deletion, not only respected old hands (with at least xx days of presence, and at least nn number of major edits)</DIV>
<DIV>Once upon a time, a "regular" user could ask for the undeletion of an article and see his request respectfully and generously temporarily acknowledged</DIV>
<DIV>Once upon a time, it was also possible for a sysop to undelete articles upon someone asking to see the content, this without being repeatedly outed</DIV>
<DIV>Once upon a time, things were decided per consensus, not per democracy 50% + 1 voice (undeletion rule)</DIV>
<DIV>Once upon a time, there were not so many rules that makes en looks like a french administration</DIV>
<DIV>Once upon a time, users did not need to be sysops to dare weeding wikipedia</DIV>
<DIV>Once upon a time, users dared weed wikipedia without fear of being said all the time their weeding does not follow the rules</DIV>
<DIV>Once upon a time, a rule was not so much carved in stone that it could not be challenged</DIV>
<DIV>Once upon a time, it was easier :-)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>So is, imho, the renewed assault on the sep. 11 pages, but I guess<BR>>that's to be expected, since the argument "some people put so much work<BR>>into carefully researching the reports on the lives of the people killed<BR>>that day and creating entries for them, and we can't be bothered to do<BR>>the same for other people who have been killed, so we should delete all<BR>>the entries" will never die.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV>Some people said they would not make donations, because there was no reason their donation would be used to support the existence of the 9/11 memorial :-((</DIV>
<DIV>Some people suggested wikipedia memorial should also welcome all the iraki victims for npov :-((((</DIV>
<DIV>At least, this is not deletionism</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Today, I am negative, tomorrow, I will be positive :-)</DIV></DIV></DIV><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree">Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard</a>