Hi,
I enjoyed reading your comments http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-July/005264.html.
Suggest you visit www.antimatterenergy.com to get a better understanding of the Science, Technology and Economics of the Antimatter Economy where antimatter from comets is used to bring every country into the 21st century without destroying our environment and turn the Star Trek dream into reality
Norm
LDan wrote:
>What if the person doesn't check the page?
>Why not just contact the author instead of a
>boilerplate thing on the article, which, IMO, is
>just as bad a defacement.
What? If the page is listable on VfD then at least somebody thinks it has
serious issues. Therefore a notice that the page is being considered for
deletion is valuable information for the reader of the page.
>Deleting a page really isn't as bad as
>sending someone to prison.
Where oh where did I mention prison?
>And no one's arguing that we should
>make any deletion records private.
? And where did I say that they were? I specifically mentioned that VfD is a
publicly viewable page and compared it with publically viewable court
documents.
-- mav
Rick wrote:
>Now, I can't say that I DISAGREE with this policy
>(although I think that having to put this notice on
>every page to be deleted is a tad excessive), but
>when and where was this policy discussed? Was
>it ONE PERSON who made the decision,
>UNILATERALLY, that nothing would be deleted
>unless his/her pet boilerplate was put onto the
>page in question?
>
>Such new policies need to be discussed, not just
>thrown out as a fait accompli. Other sysops may
>just go ahead and delete pages without the
>boilerplate, and have the right to do so, since this
>"policy" is only one person's decision, and not the
>agreement of the users of Wikipedia as a whole.
For Gods sake, this is the FOURTH place you have posted the SAME question!
Instead of duplicating four different threads, how about we continue this on
the relevant talk page where some discussion has already taken place:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion
Not placing the notice a page which is being considered for deletion and then
deleting it, is denying the author (most often a newbie) due process. The
Admin that wrote this was simply clarifying an implied policy by naturally
extending our written policies of having an open and transparent process.
A notice is a no-brainer in light of this and should not be surprising. I was
simply informing people of this policy when they were not following it. In
retrospect the Admin who wrote this should have advertised the change a bit
to see if anybody disagreed.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
> From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren(a)yahoo.com>
> Why not just contact the author
Interesting idea. One problem, though - what do you do for pages that were
created by someone who wasn't logged in? Email's not an option there.
Another problem, for some pages - who's the author? The person who first
created the page? The person who made the last edit? Everyone who ever made
an edit? Everyone who ever made an edit that wasn't a Minor edit?
> instead of a boilerplate thing on the article
Well, if we can solve the author problem, and we automate listing for
deletion, email might not be a bad idea (although obviously skipped if you're
the one doing the listing). In fact, we could make it an option on your
preferences page (do you want email if a page of yours is listed on VfD),
maybe even with sub-options (not if all your edits are Minor).
We could make adding a notice to the page an option too! :-)
Noel
PS: One problem with adding a notice is that if the page is *not* deleted,
the notice has to be removed. Again, if deletion was automated, a lot of this
scutwork could be completely automated.
Still, this argues against adding the notice by editing the text of the
article, as an edit might alter it to the point where it couldn't be
recognized. Better would be a "listed for deletion" bit associated with the
page, that causes the notice to be displayed when the page is looked at.
Having the bit set would update the modify time so that Watchlists still
work.
Richard Grevers scribbed:
>Could someone please provide a link to the sysop nomination page?
>I couldn't find it after searching on both wikipedia and meta.
It's [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]]. It should be linked from
[[Wikipedia:Administrators]] and [[Wikipedia:Administration FAQ]].
Lee (Camembert)
WikiKarma: [[John Taverner]] (started quite unilaterally, address
complaints to my user page)
(apologies if a slightly different version of this also gets through to the
list)
Richard Grevers scribbed:
>Could someone please provide a link to the sysop nomination page?
>I couldn't find it after searching on both wikipedia and meta.
It's [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]]. It should be linked from
[[Wikipedia:Administrators]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators FAQ]].
Lee (Camembert)
WikiKarma (remember that?): [[John Taverner]] (started quite unilaterally,
address complaints to my user page)
Nicholas Knight wrote:
>This latest effort at increasing the amount
>of work one has to do to get anything useful
>done is just helping that perception along.
>Every time I turn around there's another
>largely political detail I have to be aware of,
>and it's doing anything but encourage me to
>contribute to Wikipedia.
So who is most harmed; the person who has to paste a small boilerplate message
into an article, or the person who wrote that article or helped improve it,
have the article mysteriously disappear one day without any obvious reason
why?
Not placing proper notice on an article falling under the 7 day rule and
marked for deletion, is akin to trying a person without bothering to tell
them about the trial! Yeah sure it is on a publicly viewable page, but then
so are court records; should society expect ordinary people to periodically
check those records just to make sure they are not on trial for something?
This lack of due process is very unwiki.
The tiny bit of extra work is also a technical detail that can be fixed by
semi-automating the Votes for deletion process (as it was in Phase II).
>I've had to put up with pointless procedures on
>volunteer projects before. I'm not about to do it again.
Sorry, but the deletion of anything that falls under the 7 day rule is a big
deal and needs to be discussed. Providing the boilerplate gives the author of
the article and its readers a chance to properly argue their case. Not
providing the boilerplate, IMO, is a bit sneaky.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Dear Jtdirl,
A couple of weeks ago I reacted to your remarks concerning
the Israel page. I saw a small number of similarities
between what you were writing and what a small group of
other people were writing, and I mistakenly inferred that
you had the same beliefs as them.
However, I have re-read your statements, and have come to
the conclusion that I was in error. When you challenged my
work, I can see now that you were trying to do so from the
perspective of an essayist trying to maintain NPOV. I thus
apologize to you for my earlier comments.
BTW, I am sending you this note in public, on the WikiEn
list, because I made remarks about you on this list. It
isn't proper to say one thing in public, but then take it
back in private.
Robert ("RK")
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Erik wrote:
> I choose not to follow this policy as I consider it unnecessary extra
> work, but I don't mind if others add the boilerplate notice.
Umm, everyone, this is a computer we're dealing with here. It's good at
repetitive, mindless tasks. (And, yes, I know some poor overworked soul is
going to have to write the code... :-)
Why not add a button that i) adds said notice to the top of the page, and ii)
adds the page to the bottom of VfD? You could go through an intermediate
screen that offers a little edit window for you to add whatever message to
the listing, if any, you feel is appropriate, and has Confirm/Cancel buttons.
That'll make everybody's life even easier than it is now, even.
This doesn't address the policy questions, but we should be able to dispose
of the practical ones.
Noel
Richard Grevers wrote:
>"But the plans have be available at the
>regional works office at Alpha Centauri
Exactly! So you Earthlings have no reason to complain that we destroyed your
world to build a hyperspace bypass!
>From The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy:
[Commander of the Vogon Constructor Fleet]:
"There's no point in acting all surprised about it
All the planning charts and demolition orders
have been on display in your local planning
department on Alpha Centauri for fifty of your
Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to
lodge any formal complaint and it's far too late to
start making a fuss about it now."
....
"What do you mean you've never been to Alpha
Centauri? For heaven's sake mankind, it's only four
light years away you know. I'm sorry, but if you can't
be bothered to take an interest in local affairs that's
your own lookout."
"Energize the demolition beams!"
Replace "Alpha Centauri" with "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion" and "demolition
beams" with "deletion." The last thing we need is for our Admins to be
perceived as Vogons who are "not actually evil, but bad tempered,
bureaucratic, officious and callous."
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)