I'm at my wits' end over how to handle [[Wikipedia:Preliminary
Deletion]]. Half the oppose votes oppose the policy for no reason other
than that they prefer a different course of action - how am I to address
that when it's clear that a majority of the community prefers this
proposal to the alternative this substantial opposition proposes
(namely, the expansion of speedy deletion criteria)? Others called it
instruction creep, which I've tried to address, though how this proposal
can be viewed as complex is beyond me, A minority suggested housing it
on the same page as VFD (when a central reason behind this is that VFD
is overcrowded).
Now, I've added a section to the proposal answering these objectors, and
tweaked it here and there to see if I can make it palatable. The
problem? Nobody is coming to discuss. I've advertised this on the
community portal and the pump as well as this mailing list, and a grand
total of one user came to discuss why he voted no - he soon changed his
mind on the proposal after we discussed his reasons for opposition. How
is one to gather consensus for a divisive and controversial policy when
it's impossible to gather discussion at all? Anthony argued that polling
stifles discussion. Well, at least it created one user who came back and
discussed the policy with me. Before, very few users were discussing the
policy.
Am I appealing in this email for those who voted against preliminary
deletion to discuss? Hell, yes. But this is also an appeal to stimulate
discussion about how to avoid post-voting apathy - visit once to vote
and never come back to discuss. The problem is that "hot discussions"
don't appeal much to anyone. It's so much easier to cast a vote and
forget about the issue. But how are we ever going to reform VFD (or any
of our other more enduring institutions) at this rate? We're bogged down
in vast non-consensus because a substantial minority want to have their
cake and eat it too, and the fact that most of them won't discuss the
issue only adds to the burden.
John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])
The Icelandic wikipedia currently has no interwiki links on its
century and decade articles, this is because Icelandic uses a system
for decades and centuries which probably not alot (if any) languages
use, at least not the ones i've surveyed, our decades and centuries
are "off" by one year from "conventional" systems, we therefore cannot
link to them since the two articles would not describe the same
period.
A decade in Icelandic starts at x where x is a number ending in one
and ends nine years later, so for example the period 1991–2000 is the
"tenth decade" of the twentieth century. This is unlike English where
a decade would be the period from 1990 to 1999 and be called the
"1990s" or "nineties" for short.
Similarly, the "twentieth century" begins in 1901 and ends in 2000,
unlike the English twentieth century which begins in 1900 and ends in
1999.
This system is at least not used in Danish, Norwegian, Faroese,
Swedish, German, English, Spanish, french, Italian, Dutch, polish.
So, if any of you know another language which uses the same info reply
to this email, and we can then link to it.
Hi,
I recently discovered Wikipedia, and I am very impressed by the vast
range of information, and by the neutrality of many of the definitions.
I have only today started to contribute to Wikipedia, and made a few
additions of links to some of the articles.
I noticed that the definition of the September 11 attacks was claiming
as fact some information that is widely disputed, and so a few minutes
ago inserted information making it clear who claims these facts, and I
was going to elaborate further with information on which facts are being
disputed and by who, only to find that my IP address had been blocked by
a user "Flockmeal".
This user was claiming the reason for the block was "repeated vandalism".
I went on to check what the blocking policy was, and then the Wikipedia
definition of vandalism, to discover that by input was in no way
anything close to vandalism. I was stating nothing than the facts, with
no bias whatsoever. The entries I made were made entirely in good faith,
and I am very disappointed that such abuse of the blocking policy has
been made.
Since the block, I have registered and now have a username and am
contactable at my email address. I would ask that the IP address block
be removed, and a discussion started as to why elaborating on facts and
remaining factual can be classed as vandalism.
Many thanks,
Edmund Broadley
"Sometimes particular articles attract several edit warriors, and often it's
two or three against one. If that one person "uses up" his three reverts,
the others still have several to go before they are also banned."
That's the whole idea of the 3 revert rule. If multiple people
are reverting you, and no one is coming to help, then you're
probably in the wrong.
--Mark
R E Broadley wrote:
> I noticed that the definition of the September 11 attacks was
> claiming as fact some information that is widely disputed
Come off it now. You went from:
The attacks of September 11, 2001, were a series of coordinated
terrorist attacks against the United States
To:
The attacks of September 11, 2001, are described by the Ubited
States Government to be a series of coordinated terrorist attacks
against the United States
This is more than a bit silly. The attacks meet any sane definition of
terrorism, and were certainly coordinated. What's the problem? NPOV only
applies when there is serious dispute. Silly disputes can be ignored.
The other bit you claimed was disputed was that Al Qaeda was involved.
Contesting this might have made sense prior to the latest bin Laden tape...
All that said, the block was a bit harsh. I'll undo it.
--
Allan Crossman - a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk
The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (68% of Full)
> As it stands, I am inclined to believe that the IP you're using may
> be in use by more than one person in some fashion
Yes, fair enough. I've gone ahead and unblocked the IP, despite
saying I wouldn't...
--
Allan Crossman - a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk
The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (68% of Full)
I wrote:
> All that said, the block was a bit harsh. I'll undo it.
Actually, no, I won't. As RickK has noted, there's a long history of
vandalism from your IP...
--
Allan Crossman - a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk
The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (68% of Full)
Hi,
I recently discovered Wikipedia, and I am very impressed by the vast
range of information, and by the neutrality of many of the definitions.
I have only today started to contribute to Wikipedia, and made a few
additions of links to some of the articles.
I noticed that the definition of the September 11 attacks was claiming
as fact some information that is widely disputed, and so a few minutes
ago inserted information making it clear who claims these facts, and I
was going to elaborate further with information on which facts are being
disputed and by who, only to find that my IP address had been blocked by
a user "Flockmeal".
This user was claiming the reason for the block was "repeated vandalism".
I went on to check what the blocking policy was, and then the Wikipedia
definition of vandalism, to discover that by input was in no way
anything close to vandalism. I was stating nothing than the facts, with
no bias whatsoever. The entries I made were made entirely in good faith,
and I am very disappointed that such abuse of the blocking policy has
been made.
Since the block, I have registered and now have a username and am
contactable at my email address. I would ask that the IP address block
be removed, and a discussion started as to why elaborating on facts and
remaining factual can be classed as vandalism.
Many thanks,
Edmund Broadley