> From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>
> An example of a vanity page which is routinely deleted by unanimous
> vote on VFD:
> "John C. Shaw is a freshman in high school in Portland, Oregon. He is
> a fan of Indie music, and films. Near the end of eighth grade, he had
> pneumonia, so was taken to the hospital, where they found he also had
> scoliosis. He wears a brace, and will wear it for another two years.
> He takes it off at concerts so that he can mosh easily."
>
> I understand why we can't generally speedy non-trivial content, but
> it's very inefficient to go through VFD for material that is just
> going to be unanimously deleted.
>
> Can't we nominate some consistent wikipedia inclusionist to allow to
> delete, say, any article less than a month old or with less than two
> edits, they they believe would be a unanimous delete vote on VFD?
> Articles that they don't choose to delete would continue go through
> the normal VFD process. If they delete something they shouldn't it can
> be VFUD or speedy UD by another admin.
But articles like that doesn't really take much time to handle on VfD.
Speedying those articles wouldn't really affect the VfD process much.
Here's a counterexample. Here's an article in the form in which it was
nominated for VfD. The entire article:
"Jessamyn West, AKA the Rarin Librarian. One of Library Journal's
Mover & Shakers, West is best known for her 'blog, librarian.net."
It turns out that Jessamyn West is the name of two people: an
absolutely-100%-notable famous novelist, author of _The Friendly
Persuasion_, adapted into a 1958 movie that won the Academy
Award for Best Picture, etc. etc. on which we had no article.
And it's _also_ the name of a blogger, who is at least arguably
notable, whose entry got about an evenly-split VfD vote and
hence was kept.
The benefit of running the Jessamyn Wests through VfD
outweighs the very small costs of requiring a few people
to cast pro-forma "Delete, vanity" votes on the John C. Shaws.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
An example of a vanity page which is routinely deleted by unanimous vote on VFD:
"John C. Shaw is a freshman in high school in Portland, Oregon. He is
a fan of Indie music, and films. Near the end of eighth grade, he had
pneumonia, so was taken to the hospital, where they found he also had
scoliosis. He wears a brace, and will wear it for another two years.
He takes it off at concerts so that he can mosh easily."
I understand why we can't generally speedy non-trivial content, but
it's very inefficient to go through VFD for material that is just
going to be unanimously deleted.
Can't we nominate some consistent wikipedia inclusionist to allow to
delete, say, any article less than a month old or with less than two
edits, they they believe would be a unanimous delete vote on VFD?
Articles that they don't choose to delete would continue go through
the normal VFD process. If they delete something they shouldn't it can
be VFUD or speedy UD by another admin.
User:Sam Spade has created an attack page in his User
space at [[User:Sam Spade/Report rogue admin]]. Which
is fine. If he wants to make his silly allegations
there instead of in the official pages, he's more than
welcome to do so. But now every one of his discussion
page edits consists of an enormous signature with a
link to the page and the signature of "Click here to
report admin abuse". The signature doesn't even
include his real name OR his User name. This is a
clear case of a personal campaign against the admins
listed on his page, and should not be allowed. Let
him keep his page if he wants, but he should be
required to remove the disruptive link in his
signature. I've listed the page for VfD, but I'll
withdraw that if he'll remove the signature, which he
has no inclination to do.
RickK
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I am new to editing Wikipedia and had never previously registered. I did not realise this was even a requirement to register in order to make changes to an entry. I was blocked after trying to make several edits to the page. I was unaware that editing a page was somehow an offense worth blocking considering that there is an "edit this page" tab at the top of the entry and that is what I was doing - editing the page. Wikipedia should remove the "edit this page" link for unregistered users if that is not what it is for.
I have been accused of "vandalism" and blocked:
"Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Brian0918.
The reason given is this:
numerous repeated vandalisms
You can email Brian0918 or one of the other administrators to discuss the block..."
Please take a look at my edits for "pornography" as of 5/30/05. I don't consider that my edits were "vandalism" nor do I believe that they meet Wikipedia definition given here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dealing_with_vandalism
"for example someone replacing the entire page with profanity, or adding a page with useless or offensive content."
I did NOT replace the entire page, use profanity, or add "useless" or "offensive" content. I added a feminist perspective which I considered sorely lacking on the site entry and I deleted content that I thought was offensive. If that is considered useless or offensive content then Wikipedia had better check its own "neutral point of view".
Also, as I am completely new to editing on Wikipedia, I was unaware of the "neutral point of view" policy until later and I don't consider the entry that I was trying to edit to have been "neutral" as it was before I started to even edit it.
I would like to be unblocked and be allowed to add a feminist perspective to the entry which I edited. I don't think the entry as it stands is "neutral".
[[user:Dbachmann]] introduced the term "Main article fixation" at
[[talk:Germany]] for a phenomenon that, he and I think, is an impediment
for the improvement of Wikipedia. He noticed that editors are fixated on
arguing over every word on the main article [[Germany]] though the
article is of reasonable quality.
Editors seem to forget that [[Germany]]'s ancillary articles like
[[Geography of Germany]] are in a sorry state and in dire need of
competent editors.
I have the impression that this is a general phenomenon at Wikipedia,
not confined to [[Germany]]. The reason seems to be that editors think
that if their POV or positive fact is mentioned in a main article then
people will read it. I think editors forget that people who are
interested in a certain subject will also click on the more detailed
article that offers more facts and divers POVs
I hope that editors who read this will help to distract attention of
other editors from the main articles to the ancillary articles to enable
the overall better quality of Wikipedia.
Thanks. Andries K.D.
I likewise suggest removing this page from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction
"Don't be afraid to edit pages on Wikipediaanyone can edit, and we encourage users to be bold! Find something that can be improved, either in content, grammar or formatting, then fix it. Worried about breaking Wikipedia? Don't be: it can always be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best source for information on the Internet!"
Yeah, I did and was blocked. You might want to change that to "be careful and read the rules before you edit" instead.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: advert [mailto:advert@ziplip.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005, 3:53 PM
> To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked after making several edits - accused of
> "vandalism"?!
>
> I am new to editing Wikipedia and had never previously registered. I did not
> realise this was even a requirement to register in order to make changes to an
> entry. I was blocked after trying to make several edits to the page. I was
> unaware that editing a page was somehow an offense worth blocking considering
> that there is an "edit this page" tab at the top of the entry and that is what
> I was doing - editing the page. Wikipedia should remove the "edit this page"
> link for unregistered users if that is not what it is for.
>
> I have been accused of "vandalism" and blocked:
>
> "Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Brian0918.
> The reason given is this:
> numerous repeated vandalisms
> You can email Brian0918 or one of the other administrators to discuss the
> block..."
>
>
> Please take a look at my edits for "pornography" as of 5/30/05. I don't
> consider that my edits were "vandalism" nor do I believe that they meet
> Wikipedia definition given here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dealing_with_vandalism
>
> "for example someone replacing the entire page with profanity, or adding a
> page with useless or offensive content."
>
> I did NOT replace the entire page, use profanity, or add "useless" or
> "offensive" content. I added a feminist perspective which I considered sorely
> lacking on the site entry and I deleted content that I thought was offensive.
> If that is considered useless or offensive content then Wikipedia had better
> check its own "neutral point of view".
>
> Also, as I am completely new to editing on Wikipedia, I was unaware of the
> "neutral point of view" policy until later and I don't consider the entry that
> I was trying to edit to have been "neutral" as it was before I started to even
> edit it.
>
> I would like to be unblocked and be allowed to add a feminist perspective to
> the entry which I edited. I don't think the entry as it stands is "neutral".
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[sent to wikien-l and wikimedia-l]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/En_validation_topics#Consolidated_proposal
This is a fantastic piece of work from [[User:Beland]], who has taken the
assorted rambling proposals elsewhere on that page and put them into a form
with half a chance of people bothering to fill it out sensibly.
The only problem I can see is whether people will bother filling in that
many questions. OTOH, this is the experimental phase. (What a useful excuse
that is ;-)
Since this is a very useful piece of work and saves others (e.g. me) from
doing the job of making sense of this stuf, you can assume the thing at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/En_validation_topics#Response_page is more
or less what will be visible when people hit the tab marked "Validate" (or
"Rate this page" or translation thereof), at least on en:.
So please look through it and flag any serious problems you see with it
(other than sheer length) and if any attributes could be reasonably cut.
- d.
We're going to be moving some images around tonight to relieve disk load
on the central image file server.
Uploads may be briefly disabled on en.wikipedia.org during parts of this
process to ensure that files aren't lost. Sorry for any inconvenience
this may cause.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
A small hint, David.
There's this technology called "DHCP" that came along a few years ago.
Learn about it.
==============
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 10:40:18 +1000
From: David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notice to an Admin
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <20050528004017.GX9978(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MacGyverMagic/Mgm (macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com) [050528 10:33]:
>Would you mind backing up that statement with evidence from the
>history tabs of articles and other pages?
Nope, but I have the matching IPs.
- d.
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Slimvirgin has blocked me claiming that I am 129.7.35.1.
She is also lying and claiming that I am ElKabong; this appears to be
connected to her personal crusade along with Mel Etitis, Yuber, etc. to
harass said user.
I request this be removed immediately, I have not violated 3RR and am not
ElKabong.
-Enviroknot
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/