> Actuakky what David was saying is if it's vandalism,
> just protecy the
> page already, or block the vandal. Problem solved.
>
> There is _never_ any need for a legit user to break
> the 3RR
>
> Theresa
Well, I hope that the person who has been reverting
isn't the person who does the protecting. That's not
acceptable under policy.
RickK
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
Tomer Chachamu said:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 20:27:41 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway
> <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:
>> > Remove "nofollow" -- 61% (85 votes)
>> > Keep "nofollow" -- 39% (55 votes)
>>
>> This is not a consensus. There is no need to take any action.
>
> Don't be ridiculous. In such a case, where there is a clear majority
> *and the decision is instantly reversible*, the rel="nofollow" should
> be removed.
Absolutely not. We do things by consensus of en.wikipedia. I suggest we
continue this discussion on wikien-l where it belongs.
"Google's Wikipedia feature"?
RickK
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
It was happening last night when I went to bed, and
it's still happening this afternoon.
RickK
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
--- Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
wrote:
> I think WP is serious. Nonsense postings are pushed
> to the margins, as far
> as I can see (forgive me if I'm not much interested
> in Larouche issues,
> which I think are barely relevant outside the USA).
Trust me, they're no more relevant inside the USA.
RickK
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
--- Michael Becker <wikimb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia is a wiki community foremost and an encyclopedia second.
This is 100% exactly wrong. Our wiki/openness and community aspects are means
to an end (creating the largest and best encyclopedia in the world), *NOT* ends
in themselves or even our primary purpose.
-- mav
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#How_to_make_…
One way to make VFD of manageable size is to enforce step 3 of the procedure
for nomination, which is: "3. Under the section, describe, in accordance
with our deletion policy, why the page should be deleted and clearly write
what action you think should be taken for the nominated article to assist
others in determining consensus. Don't forget to sign and datestamp (using
~~~~)."
An awful lot of nominations are bogus - listing reasons that are
nowhere to be found in [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]].
Therefore, I propose:
Any VFD nomination not listing a reason in Wikipedia:Deletion policy may
be summarily removed from the page.
This alone would only be enforcing existing policy and would reduce the size
of VFD considerably.
(It could also be applied to votes, but that would be making new policy, not
reinforcing existing policy.)
I urge you to go to the above page and add your thoughts. Should this be
enforced, or is the deletion policy merely decorative?
- d.
I think the issue that Jay raised is a serious one.
The scenario is that A brings an arbitration case
against B, the committee looks at both sides of
the dispute, then both A and B get penalties.
This is a clear violation of A's right to due process.
Nobody should be penalised unless a case is brought
against them (by the committee if they wish), it passes
the initial voting as to whether the case should be
heard, then there is a period of argumentation and
collection of evidence specifically in relation to that
person. This is not true in the case of A, since the
voting and Evidence page argumentation is primarily
in relation to B.
If the witnesses in a criminal trial are found to have
committed crimes themselves, they are sceduled
for their own trials. They are not given sentences
by the original court. The same principle should
hold here.
It is not enough to lump A and B together as
defendants at the beginning, as that can still mean
that A is put on trial due to the strength of the
case against B.
Zero.
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/