-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ray Saintonge wrote:
geni wrote:
On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Supports what consensus? I just said, if people can't come to a general agreement, then there *is* no consensus. You seem to be mistaking majority with consensus.
General aggreement isn't going to happen any more on anything. As such in order to get things done we have to shift over to super majority. If you don't like this go and join a smaller project.
That sounds like a deletionist manifesto.
That seems characteristic of the gang of punks that has been dominating the deletion process. These fanatics are so obsessed with pushing their POV through deletions that they have completely lost touch with anything constructive or creative. I'm also disappointed in those who are in a position to act against this clique that just whine and do nothing. Sometimes it takes a little courage to deal with these disruptive influences. Even if a large proportion of these articles deserves be deleted that doesn't justify the inflexible attitude about all the deletions.
If they can't make some effort to reach compromises with others who do suggest alternatives for problem articles then maybe they should go troll somewher else.
People DO NOT seem to understand that there are other options to "keep, notable" and "delete, cruft".
Here's the (full?) range of options: - Transwiki to (some other GFDL wiki, not neccesarily run by Wikimedia) - Merge with another article (as Gmaxwell suggests, do NOT use history merges - use history subpages) and: - Redirect, OR - Delete the original article with a nonsense title - Redirect to another article - Move to a better page name - Translate (note, untranslated pages which have remained so for the specified time can be deleted) - Slated for cleanup - Kept - BJAODN'ed - Speedied - Deleted
That's the full range. Before you vote "d, nn." you should ask yourself: just what other options are there? What would be the best way to proceed? What will cause the least stress, pain and gnashing of teeth?
I've found that the criteria for speedy deletion are quite useful in some of these cases; for example, copyvios with minimal wikification (esp. linking) which are detected within 48 hours can be speedied under section A8; biographies which make no claim at notability can be speedied under A7; stuff which has been AFDed and recreated can be speedied under G4; and so on.
The bottom line is: don't waste yours and everyone else's time voting "d, nn. US President" or "keep, we need articles on my nose hairs" when there are *other, better* options available.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \